Drawing upon her rich
experience of life, Prudence (Prudie to her friends) responds to questions
about manners, personal relations, politics, and other subjects. Please send
your questions for publication to [email protected]. Queries should not exceed 200 words in
length. Please indicate how you wish your letter to be signed, preferably
including your location.
Dear
Miss Prudence,
I am recently married,
and like most Southern girls, I have looked forward to being addressed as
"Mrs." for some time. Imagine my surprise when I found that my mail, instead of
being addressed to "Mrs. John Smith," is now being addressed to "Mrs. Amanda
Smith." Since I always thought that form of address was reserved for divorced
women, I'm a bit put out to have my new marriage so abruptly terminated, at
least as it relates to correspondence.
I'm
assuming this is some misguided attempt to preserve my individuality, but if
that were my goal I would have kept my maiden name. Am I completely
misinformed? If not, how can I correct the problem?
--Proudly, Mrs. John
Smith (nee Hightower)
Dear
Proud,
Prudie couldn't agree with
you more--and she is on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line. Prudie also
finds the appellation "Ms." ridiculous and crosses it out whenever possible,
believing that single women are "Miss" and married ones are "Mrs." (The nice
thing about divorce is that then you get to choose between the two forms of
address.)
As for correcting the
problem, when a response is called for, cross out the offending form of your
name and write in what you would prefer. Some mailings, often from charities,
offer the choice of Miss, Mrs., or Ms. And of course your printed envelopes can
say "Mrs. John Smith."
As for
mailings from entities such as Publishers Clearing House that frequently send
material to dogs and toddlers, there is no recourse.
--Prudie,
salutatorally
Dear
Prudence,
I have a little problem
with my current Significant Other. We are both nearing 30, are educated, have
good jobs, are reasonably attractive and intelligent. Each day together (it's
been about 8 months now) has been wonderful and a many-splendored
thing.
The
problem? I find my partner's politics reprehensible--in fact, stupid and
barbaric. I haven't strenuously objected to my love's praise for people such as
Tom DeLay and (I'm serious here) G. Gordon Liddy because of the terrific time
we're having and the incredible sex we share. But I'm at the breaking point. It
is hard to foresee a future with a person whose philosophy is akin to that of a
cryptofascist clown. How do I break the news and let both of us keep our
dignity, even if (s)he is a troglodyte?
--Evolved in Santa
Fe
Dear Ev,
Prudie can tell you are
conflicted ... but not very. Just tell the cryptofascist clown troglodyte, I
mean, your Significant Other, au revoir. Prudie agrees that your deep
disagreement about character evaluation is bound, in the long run, to sink your
love boat. Sex may come and sex may go, but Tom DeLay is liable to be around
forever.
Simply
state your regret and wish him/her much happiness in the future. And perhaps
the Young Democratic Club in Santa Fe might be worth a visit.
--Prudie, politically
Dear
Prudie,
A while back you had a
letter about the bald black man being confused with another black man. He was
more than annoyed and thought it was the old "all black people look alike."
Well, I have a close friend, Pat, who is bald and wears a full beard and horn
rim glasses. He tells me he is forever being mistaken for other bald, bearded
men who wear glasses. Pat even once mistook such a man in a photograph for
himself!
Pat is a psychologist,
and we had a very interesting conversation about this topic. He tells me that
our brains store only a few visual traits about people with whom we are
casually acquainted. Pat is "the bald, bearded, spectacle wearing guy." Sally
is "the redheaded, long nosed, thin girl," etc. My wife changed her hairstyle
from curly to straight and reported that while attending her annual
professional association convention, she was shocked at the number of people
who didn't recognize her. People who lose a lot of weight tell similar
stories.
This
tendency explains the oft-noted phenomenon that whites think all blacks,
Asians, etc., look alike. The problem is that they don't know enough people in
those racial groups, so their brains will use race as the most distinctive
characteristic about that person. They know so many white people that they
classify them by other traits--such as shape of the face, hair color, body
shape. Once they make the acquaintance of enough blacks or Asians, their brains
will discontinue using race as an identifying visual characteristic.
--Rick Lee
Dear
Rick,
It was
good of you (and Pat) to share an enlightened explanation for a widespread
situation. It no doubt will smooth the ruffled feathers of many a person who's
been mistaken for someone else--even a generic someone else. To support your
point, Prudie is told that Dr. C. Everett Koop and Robert Bork say they are
each taken for the other.
--Prudie, gratefully
It is trout season at
Prudie's. Here are a couple of responses to Prudie's having quoted
Thoreau.
Dear
Prudie,
In a
recent column you quoted Thoreau: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong,
as when you find a trout in the milk." I've heard this particular one before
but was too embarrassed to admit that I didn't get it. Exactly what is this
"circumstantial evidence" supposed to indicate?
--Hoping for an
Explanation
Dear
Hope,
Basically,
it is an encouragement to pay attention to circumstantial evidence. In this
case, the evidence is strong that the trout didn't get there by
accident--someone put it there--milk not being a natural habitat for fish.
Though, perhaps, a deed is unobserved, its execution can sometimes be safely
inferred from the facts.
--Prudie, empirically
Dear
Prudie,
Regarding "the trout in the milk" quote, bravo and bravissimo ! Well
done, indeed. I'll beat my different drum in your honor tonight!
--Tim B.
Dear
Tim,
How kind
and Thoreauly charming of you.
--Prudie,
appreciatively
