Here is a question that appeared in the New York Times advice column Social Q's on Sunday, July 29. It was the featured letter for that day and appeared under the heading "A Final Divorce Decree".
The first hint that Mr. Galanes hasn't got a clue on this one is his suggesting that the ex-husband might be "manipulative". It should be painfully obvious that the exact opposite is happening here: The ex-wife phoned. And she phoned with a purpose—with a manipulative purpose. Her goal was to make him do something. Again, it doesn't take advanced detective work to figure this out—the manipulation is in plain sight. She wanted him to send a condolence gift to someone who is more her friend than his friend.
Let me repeat that, she is calling him after their divorce to try to convince him to do things. That's manipulation pure and simple. That Galanes misses this tells us something scary about the pernicious effects of male bashing in our culture. His default position is to blame the man and he does so without even considering the evidence in front of him.
I don't think the actual ex-husband was harmed by this manipulation or by Mr. Galanes' contribution for the very simple reason that I don't believe he submitted the question. I could be wrong but I suspect the question above was submitted by a third party, possibly the ex-wife. It's a fairly typical indirect way of approaching a moral question. Anyone who has ever heard thirteen year old girls talking knows the drill, Megan says, "You won't believe what Tiffany did ..." Tiffany may or may not have done the thing—Tiffany may not even exist—the point of the exercise is to see what sort of reaction the reported behaviour gets. And it's something women do all the time. Some men no doubt do this too but it's a very womanly way to determine where the limits are.
And it's harmless by itself. The damage here all lies in the reflexive male bashing Galanes delivers.
Look, the ex-husband handled the situation perfectly. His ex-wife is manipulative (that's probably a big part of why they are divorced in the first place). Since their divorce she keeps doing this—she won't let go. Again, notice how backwards Galanes has it: Who called whom to try tio get them involved in their activities and interests? If there is anyone here who hasn't accepted the consequences of divorce, it's the ex-wife.
And the ex-husband is not freeloading. He didn't suggest she buy the gift. She tried to get him to buy one. His suggestion—that she add his name to a gift she says she is going to buy anyway—would cost her nothing.
Faced with his ex-wife's attempt at manipulation, the ex-husband has three choices. He could,
She isn't really going to put his name on the card of course. They are supposed to be divorced and it would shame her in from of her recently widowed friend to put his name on the card. And rightfully so, she should be ashamed enough of her behaviour not to give it away to others. But helping her widowed friend was never the point of this exercise. The point was to test her power to make her ex-husband do things. Alone now, she can't give up the manipulative psvcho-drama that has given her life meaning while marriage lasted.
Our guy, meanwhile, has nothing to gain from insulting her. He also has no incentive for confronting her about her manipulative tricks. On the other hand, he does not want to encourage more of this behaviour by rewarding it. So he gives her a chance to gracefully exit (even though he is probably thinking "enough already" as he does it)
Of course, if she calls in a few days with another such attempt, he should refuse bluntly.
My ex-wife phoned to tell me she was sending a food basket to an old friend in sympathy for the death of her husband. She urged me to send a gift too, because it would mean a lot. But my relationship with the widow is attenuated. So I suggested that that if a gift from me would provide comfort, my ex-wfe was welcome to add my name to the gift card attached to her food basket. She refused. Was this appropriate?Now think about that for a while. I want you to have your reaction firmly established before you see what Mr. Philip Galanes had to say, which is after the break.
I am not sure whether you are lazy, miserly or manipulative, Ex-husband. But one of the perks of your divorce decree is that your former wife is no longer required to to foot the bill for your rids on the mini-muffin express. Buy your own condolence gift-or don't. But by the power vested in me by no state at all, you are hereby ordered to stop riding on your ex-wife's coattails.What was your first thought? I'll be honest, mine was to walk around repeating the F-bomb over and over again. And then I stopped and thought about it more carefully, and went around repeating the F-bomb twice as long as the first time. Here we have a guy who behaves in a perfectly reasonable fashion and gets crapped on for it.
The first hint that Mr. Galanes hasn't got a clue on this one is his suggesting that the ex-husband might be "manipulative". It should be painfully obvious that the exact opposite is happening here: The ex-wife phoned. And she phoned with a purpose—with a manipulative purpose. Her goal was to make him do something. Again, it doesn't take advanced detective work to figure this out—the manipulation is in plain sight. She wanted him to send a condolence gift to someone who is more her friend than his friend.
Let me repeat that, she is calling him after their divorce to try to convince him to do things. That's manipulation pure and simple. That Galanes misses this tells us something scary about the pernicious effects of male bashing in our culture. His default position is to blame the man and he does so without even considering the evidence in front of him.
I don't think the actual ex-husband was harmed by this manipulation or by Mr. Galanes' contribution for the very simple reason that I don't believe he submitted the question. I could be wrong but I suspect the question above was submitted by a third party, possibly the ex-wife. It's a fairly typical indirect way of approaching a moral question. Anyone who has ever heard thirteen year old girls talking knows the drill, Megan says, "You won't believe what Tiffany did ..." Tiffany may or may not have done the thing—Tiffany may not even exist—the point of the exercise is to see what sort of reaction the reported behaviour gets. And it's something women do all the time. Some men no doubt do this too but it's a very womanly way to determine where the limits are.
And it's harmless by itself. The damage here all lies in the reflexive male bashing Galanes delivers.
Look, the ex-husband handled the situation perfectly. His ex-wife is manipulative (that's probably a big part of why they are divorced in the first place). Since their divorce she keeps doing this—she won't let go. Again, notice how backwards Galanes has it: Who called whom to try tio get them involved in their activities and interests? If there is anyone here who hasn't accepted the consequences of divorce, it's the ex-wife.
And the ex-husband is not freeloading. He didn't suggest she buy the gift. She tried to get him to buy one. His suggestion—that she add his name to a gift she says she is going to buy anyway—would cost her nothing.
Faced with his ex-wife's attempt at manipulation, the ex-husband has three choices. He could,
- do what his ex-wife wants him to do,
- do what he did do and suggest that she feel free to add his name to her gift if she really believes this will help her friend, or
- refuse outright.
She isn't really going to put his name on the card of course. They are supposed to be divorced and it would shame her in from of her recently widowed friend to put his name on the card. And rightfully so, she should be ashamed enough of her behaviour not to give it away to others. But helping her widowed friend was never the point of this exercise. The point was to test her power to make her ex-husband do things. Alone now, she can't give up the manipulative psvcho-drama that has given her life meaning while marriage lasted.
Our guy, meanwhile, has nothing to gain from insulting her. He also has no incentive for confronting her about her manipulative tricks. On the other hand, he does not want to encourage more of this behaviour by rewarding it. So he gives her a chance to gracefully exit (even though he is probably thinking "enough already" as he does it)
Of course, if she calls in a few days with another such attempt, he should refuse bluntly.
No comments:
Post a Comment