Prudie may be found at Slate.com.
Letter 1 is from a man, with a graduate degree in theology no less (although there's nothing like a bit of real theology to turn you off religion), whose entire family, including his wife, are very Christian. A while ago he realized that the only thing propping up that worldview was a willingness to believe a bunch of nonsense. He doesn't want to suffer the consequences of telling them the truth.
Prudie tells him if he's fine playing along, he can, but it sounds like he doesn't want to hide the shameful secret that he is a rational human being from his wife. She directs him to some resources.
I say, do as you please. They are making believe there is a god as much as you are for the moment. But if you don't believe in god, what's stopping you from murdering, raping, stealing? If, as your family likely believe, fear of hellfire is the only thing keeping people in line, what's going on with you? In short: how is it that they can't tell you don't believe? Is it really enough just to show up in church on Sunday? I mean, if you worked out regularly, and then just went to the gym without actually working out, you would see a difference pretty soon. Shouldn't something similar happen to people who go to church without believing?
Video letter is from a pregnant woman whose female partner doesn't want to tell her temporary coworkers (she has two more years in medical residency) about her impending motherhood. LW makes a big deal about them being in the South. Coworkers know partner is lesbian and partnered, and partner is thrilled about impending motherhood with friends and family.
Prudie basically says the partner is mentally ill and needs immediate therapy.
I say, it's a bit odd that coworked know and accept that partner is lesbian and has a partner, but would freak out if they knew she was going to be a mother. But... these are people in the place she is forced to work. There is such a thing as private life. If at some point her private life intrudes in her professional life in such a way that it becomes easier to tell all rather than keeping matters private, then she'll deal with that then.
Letter 2 is from a privileged woman who is so proud to live in her McMansion on a cul-de-sac (you do know that means "bags ass"?) in a gated community so her precious offspring can be "safe". But, gasp! She has learned that privileged women who live in McMansions on cul-de-sacs in gated communities tend to drive... SUVs! Who'd've thunk it! And this generates some problems... like this one, about the husband of one of those Desperate Housewives: "He told me that his wife had nearly backed her car over our son when he fell off his bike trying to get out of her way. Tom stopped her in time. He was rude and condescending to me, repeatedly saying that my children are too young to play outside unattended." Now Tom Scavo (although Carlos seems more likely to make threats) is threatening to report them to Child Protective Services for daring to let their children play outside unattended by a personal bodyguard.
Can you tell I'm hating everyone involved?
Apparently this is no idle threat, and LW is now worried every time the doorbell rings, and has finally noticed that Tom keeps his beady eyes on all the kids playing outside.
Prudie says: "A pox on all your McMansions!" Basically, the Scavos are crazy and dangerous, but LW is wrong to let a 3yo play in the street.
I note that the LW "works from home". Bad mother! That is unsuburban behavior! You want to work, live in a brownstone somewhere where there are sidewalks for kids to play on, and where drivers know how to keep an eye out for street hockey.
Prudie concludes: "Try to short circuit the feud by telling him you want to express your profound gratitude to him for protecting your son, and that he's right, your kids are too young to be out alone." I would add: "And if you ever make your creepy psycho threats again, I will personally rip off those teeny tiny balls of yours, put a cocktail pick in them, and serve them with a nice martini."
Letter 3 is from an overweight 17yo girl who declines invitations to beach parties because she doesn't want to appear in a bathing suit. Prudie says she is likely exagerating the situation, and she needs to get fit, like her body whatver its size, and find ways to be comfortable enjoying ordinary pleasures like a day at the beach.
I note that she is invited to these events, that she is teased until she gets into a suit and into the water, etc., which for me, means that nobody cares about her weight, and they want her to be part of the fun.
Letter 4 is from a woman who was given a set of pearl earrings and necklace (a set of jewelry is called a "parure" in French, which is a rather nice word... it's related to the verb "to adorn") from her MIL. The parure was designed by MIL for herself 20 years ago (sooooo old fashioned!). While LW loves the necklace, which she can wear anywhere* (which is why wise ladies tell young women to get a simple chain of pearls), the earrings are fussy and no longer in style. Can she get the pearls reset without offending her sensitive MIL?
Prudie says she can, but is it worth the aggravation? Prudie says to find another pair of earrings that go with the necklace, and wait for the earrings to come back in fashion.
I find this such a stupid question I'm done with it.
*I first typed "anywear". And I thought: "That looks wrong. Oh yeah, of course, it's 'anyware'." I am getting old.
