The Vine: April 1, 2009
Dear Sars,
I want to end a friendship without creating any animosity or ill feelings.I have been friends outside of work with someone I work fairly closely with, both in physical proximity and a lot of our day-to-day work involves each other.Due to a few events over the last few months I have come to realise she is not someone I want to be socialising with outside of a work setting, however I don’t want any awkwardness to arise.
I’ll give a bit of background so you can get an idea of how I have landed myself at the bottom of this hole I have been digging for over a year.
A couple of years ago I moved (again) with my husband for his job. It was four months before I started work and in that time I had no social contact with anyone but my husband, so I was feeling a little starved and desperate for friends.I was fortunate to share an office with two friendly, easygoing women, Kate and Sam.I quickly fitted in with their routine of going out for a quick drink one night a week after work and we would also meet up for dinner at least once a month.
These women were nice and I enjoyed their company, but they were not my best friends.We kept things at a fairly superficial level and I was happy with this.Fairly early on my husband had been wary of Kate and told me I should tread carefully with her because he thought she would use me (she is a single mother with no family support and her boyfriend of four years lives in another country).Despite my husband’s dire warnings, six months on Kate and I were still getting on well.
That was until she asked me what I was doing one weekend and when I said I had nothing planned she asked me to babysit. Of course I felt I had to say yes.So I had him for 11 hours that Saturday, during which time I discovered I really don’t like her son.
I decided then I wouldn’t mind him again. The following Saturday morning she turned up at my front door with her son in tow and begged me to take him for the day, this was a nearly 14-hour stint.This happened a few more times until I didn’t answer the door or phone two Saturdays in a row.
I had met her boyfriend on quite a few occasions when he came to visit her; I really liked him and felt a certain loyalty to him. So when Kate started a phone flirtation another man (Dave, a work colleague who is in an office in another state) I wasn’t overly impressed. I was even less impressed when she fell pregnant to him (one-night stand, he was at our office for a meeting).
She was completely acopic and against my better judgement I ended up taking a day off work to take her for an abortion. The impact of this was twofold: 1) I surprised myself by finding this more traumatising than I had imagined, I have always considered myself pro-choice; 2) Dave was devastated she was having an abortion and when she told him I was taking her to the appointment he was furious with me, he is someone I have to deal with a least once a day for work-related issues.
Two weeks after the abortion while Kate was still in a relationship with her long-term boyfriend she decides to go and spend a weekend with Dave. She also asked me to take her son for the entire time, I said no.
I guess in summary what I am saying is: I don’t like looking after her obnoxious child for free and losing half my weekend to this thankless task, I don’t like the way she treated her boyfriend, they have since broken up but he has no idea why (he and I email regularly about reality TV and I feel badly for him but also don’t feel it is my place to tell him why she broke up with him), and I don’t like being drawn into her dramas.
I haven’t done anything with her outside of work for over a month now, but she’s not getting the hint.Instead she is asking me on a daily basis when I will be free for dinner or lunch or a drink or just about anything.How do I maintain a happy working relationship but cease all other contact with her?
Yours truly,
I’m probably just a bad friend
Dear Friend,
You probably don’t.You have three choices: 1) tell her, kindly but without sugarcoating, what you’ve just told me — that you feel taken advantage of, put in untenable positions with other colleagues, and generally that it isn’t a good friendship for you right now; 2) tell her nothing, but continue to sidestep social invitations with firm but vague “I can’t, sorry”s and “I won’t be able to”s; 3) go out to lunch with her now and then so you don’t have to have the conversation in 1), while gritting your teeth.
2) seems like the best option, but — sing it, regular Vine readers — people don’t get hints, and you may wind up back at this same dilemma if she confronts you as to why you’re always busy these days, so you may want to rehearse a gentle version of 1) in that case.”I like you well enough, and I don’t judge you, but I do not have the time or the inclination to get involved in these personal dramas — it’s compromised my relationship with Dave, it’s upset me emotionally, it’s inconvenienced me during my free time, and I wish you the best, but I’d like to keep our friendship professional.”
Does this let you maintain a “happy” working relationship?Probably not — but how happy is the relationship now if you spend all this energy resenting and avoiding her?You gave her an inch, which was kind of you; she took a mile, which is…what she does, no fault of yours; now you want the mile back.She won’t like it, probably, because people don’t tend to, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it.
She takes advantage of your kindness, so at the least, kibosh that, firmly and without prejudice.You are not available to babysit, not today or in the future.You cannot go to dinner with her, because you have plans, forever.If she asks why, you can look blank or you can tell her the truth, but I doubt she could make things all that miserable for you at work — if you know she’s a disaster, everyone else has noticed too, and would likely take your side — and some short-term discomfort is probably worth it if it ends the cycle of pestering.
But for now, you might as well keep on with 2).Even if she never gets the hint, you’re still not hanging out with her, which is the point.
Hi Sars,
As a foreigner, most of what I know about U.S. sports comes from celebrity scandals, appearances at Wrestlemania or your website, so I was interested in this post on skepchick comparing Pete Rose and Mark McGwire to Michael Vick.
The whole Hall of Fame thing seems like a big deal in the U.S. compared to Australia, at least as far as I know. I must admit I kind of always thought it was a metaphor, rather than some official record you actually get put on, but I’m kind of dumb about sports.
Do you think the distinction that some of the commenters make that Rose and McGwire did stuff that harmed the sanctity of the game, while Vick was just was the worldest douchiest douche off the field and so it’s different, holds up?
Because I’m thinking a guy who hangs a dog for not fighting well enough belongs in the Large Number of Painfully Large And Sharp Objects Shoved Up Their Rectum Hall of Fame.
Cheers,
Kerrie
Dear Kerrie,
Just so you understand what the HoF actually is, at least for baseball: it is an actual place, it does have actual plaques with the elected players’ — and some managers/umpires/et cetera — names on them.I don’t know what they do re: plaques at football’s Hall, but that too is an actual place.
As to the distinction, while it pains me, I agree that in a hall of fame for a sport, players of great achievement in the sport, players noteworthy to the sport, should get in, regardless of their behavior off the field.I am not comfortable classifying Vick as a human being; I would not pee on the guy if he were on fire and I really really had to go; I don’t know fuck-all about football, but my understanding is that he was a great star, and if he’s put into the football hall of fame on that basis, well, it’s not like we’ll all just forget what he did, or like it implies an endorsement of what he did.Because if I’m not mistaken, what he also did was play football really well.
But then, I have argued repeatedly that both Rose and McGwire do belong in baseball’s hall of fame, because pointing self-righteously to the integrity of the game is a childish pursuit largely undertaken by sportswriters on deadline who pretend not to recall that they loved watching Rose and McGwire pursue and conquer those records too, and looked the other way at the darker implications — and that Rose broke that record amid a cocaine scandal in the sport, and that McGwire broke his record only a few years after a work stoppage had soured many many fans on the game.The integrity of the game is not a marble constant, and there’s something to be said for actions that bring the fans together in a communal excitement.How does thrilling baseball fans not contribute to the integrity of the game?
Yes, Rose gambled, that’s a different thing, but I still don’t think it’s cause for fire and brimstone; my stance hasn’t really changed in five years so I won’t repeat myself.But Rose has more hits than anyone else ever.He’s also a convicted felon and gambling addict who cheated on his wife and his taxes and has had bad hair since the late ’60s, and when they start the Hall of Virtue, they can bar the door to him, but in a hall of fame?That has virulent racist Ty Cobb already in it, one of the first class of inductees?Who beat a black porter to death with a telephone?”Allegedly”?Cobb, who refused to show up to the ceremony because he hated Babe Ruth…who collapsed from the clap and also cheated on his wife?I love Babe Ruth but boyfriend was kind of a pig, honestly.
We’re not arranging marriages here.How well did these guys play? Really well.You dig Cobb up today, he could probably still beat me in a footrace.That’s what these halls of fame are for, or should be — not so that some schlep with a press card can try to tell us how to live by waxing snobbish about his ballot.
Please understand that I despise Michael Vick and his actions, but my feeling is that America as a country needs to grow up when it comes to this kind of thing, and separate merit in the sport from merit as a person.Mark McGwire is a douche, but I mean to tell you he could crush a baseball flat, and voting him into Cooperstown based on that fact, and on the thrills he provided for millions of us in the last decade, does not mitigate his douchiness, or subtract his use of steroids from the equation.It doesn’t mean we forgive him; it means we acknowledge him, as a douchey juicer who could crush a baseball flat.The two things can coexist and not make the rest of us guilty by association.
Hi Sars,
I would love feedback on an ongoing issue I have with my husband. He thinks I worry too much about putting people out. I think he’s a cheapskate. This issue flares from time to time.
Right now, we live in a foreign land but are moving back to the U.S. over the summer. We have chosen a city where we have some close friends (bosom buddies, the sorts you don’t stand on ceremony with), and we have severance to enable the move and settling in. But it is going to be a few weeks from arriving in the new city until we have housing, and our friends are willing to put us up.
I mentioned to my husband that I thought we should give them some money for this, and he adamantly disagreed, saying we shouldn’t be spending extra money when we are both unemployed, that our friends will be offended if we offer them money, and that we will already be buying food and paying for necessities to help out. I think it’s perfectly natural to throw in a few hundred dollars towards bills and such. They don’t have a lot of money or space, so I feel like it would be a relief to them.
But what do you think? Would it be weird to pay? Should we get them a generous gift certificate instead? What’s the proper etiquette here?
Thanks for input.
Tired of being typecast
Dear Type,
I see your husband’s point, sort of, but I think offering to write them a check isn’t out of line.It may prompt a discussion of what bills you are expected to/would like to cover, which is really for the best; yes, it’s a bit awkward, but the point is to signal that you realize the favor they’re doing you, and are appreciative.It’s less about the money than it is about letting them know you get it.
Definitely buy food and restock toiletries; definitely send them a fancy bottle of wine or a spa gift certificate or something after you’ve left; in addition to that, mention that you’d love to help them with their rent/mortgage/whatever, as thanks.You will probably be waved off, which you should accept without insisting, but making the offer is a nice gesture.You can always lead with, “We don’t want to offend you, but we’re so thrilled to be here and touched by your generosity, we’d love it if you’d let us” et cetera.
It’s usually better to offer and get turned down than to keep silent and maybe have them think you don’t get it.
Tags: Babe Ruth etiquette friendships Mark McGwire Michael Vick Pete Rose rando Ty Cobb workplace
Re: Type, as someone who’s both stayed at people’s places and has had long-term guests, definitely make the gesture. In addition to doing the dishes/buying groceries/whatever, you could take them out to dinner or make them something special as a thank-you gesture. Even if money’s tight, steak from the grocery store isn’t too expensive. If you feel bad after they wave off your offer of a check, doing something nice for them might fit between your position and your husband’s.
For the record, the hockey hall of fame in Canada is much like the baseball hall of fame. With the plaques and memorabilia…and such…
However, should Mark McGwire ACTUALLY be allowed in the hall of fame for his accomplishments? I mean, he CHEATED to get those accomplishments.
Being a douche, fine. I get it. Babe Ruth having the clap…didn’t help or hinder his ability to play the game.
But McGwire took steroids to improve his game. That to me, is cheating.
So, recognizing accomplishments…go for it. But encouraging unethical behaviour related to the game? Not such a fan.
@Cherylyn: That’s my point, though. I don’t think it “encourages” anything. I think it accepts that 1) we will talk about Rose and McGwire and consider them significant whether or not they’re in the Hall formally, so why not just put them in; and 2) great feats of athleticism may go hand in hand with great flaws of character.
Gaylord Perry is in the Hall and is a known cheater. Not “we know it NOW,” either. Everybody always knew he threw a spitter. It’s problematic, of course, and so is McGwire, but to my mind, that just means that we discuss the problems and acknowledge them — not that we sign off on them or say it’s okay to cheat.
Kerrie: Even though you’re not the one making the comparison, I’m not entirely sure I think McGwire and Pete Rose should be compared because the two situations are different. Rose’s gambling didn’t have any effect whatsoever on his actual physical abilities, and like Sars said, he had more hits than anyone who ever played. He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. What he did was illegal and unethical, but … whatever. So he’s a jerk.
That being said: My view on the steroid issue is that while they may give you the ability to hit the ball harder/farther, they don’t improve your accuracy. McGwire is a damn good player and he was going to be a good player without the drugs. Same for Barry Bonds, who I despise, partly because Hank Aaron is one of my heroes (very long story) and I don’t like that a douchebag like Barry Bonds broke his record. But … Bonds is a Hall of Fame caliber player. He cheated, but he’d still have been hitting home runs without the steroids.
I’d never heard of Michael Vick before the dog fighting thing — I only like college football, and then, only when my college team (Oregon) is playing and I’m there in person — but if he’s good enough for the Hall of Fame, he should be admitted. He’s pretty much the biggest douchebag on the planet, but the dog fighting thing has nothing to do with his abilities on the field. If they’re not going to let him in, they should take OJ Simpson out.
For the record, and totally off topic, I got all weepy at the Hockey Hall of Fame. It was the HOCKEY HALL OF FAME for cripe’s sake! Where I went BY MYSELF because none of my co-workers would go with me! Except when I reported back that I got all teary, and then they said they totally would have gone if they’d known I was GOING TO CRY. Jerks.
Back on topic – I think probably there are always going to be cheaters, whether they throw dirty pitches (sort of minor on my cheaterscale) or load up on illegal steroids to make themselves some sort of homerun-crushing-monster-machines (slightly more major on my cheaterscale). I say chuck them all in the HoF no matter what. If they cheated to get in there, well then it’s kind of up to them to be embarrassed about it, right? Because we’ll all be thinking “Sure you’re in the HoF… winkwink… nudgenudge…”
The football HoF has a room with everyone’s busts, although I think OJ Simpson’s has been vandalized often enough that they finally took it down. OJ Simpson is a slightly different case, since that happened after he left football (and was already in the HoF).
That said, I would have been surprised if Michael Vick was voted into the football HoF, even before the dog-fighting case. He just didn’t have enough big wins. At this point his career is probably over, so we have no way of knowing if he had the longevity to make it in.
Sars,
Normally all I can say to your advice and comments is a hearty, “Amen, sister!”
BUT…
With the Mark McGwire situation it sounds like you’re saying that just because we allowed/honored bad behavior in the past (a la Gaylord Perry), we should allow/honor it now. If that’s what you’re saying, then I strongly disagree.
We’re supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past, not compound them. Sports are not bastions of perfect gentlemen (and ladies), but if someone cheats on the field of play to reach his or her accomplishments, they should not be honored for it. It cheapens the achievements of those who came before and those who come after – model citizens or the baddest of the bad boys – who achieve based on talent alone.
To put in my two cents on Michael Vick’s abilities, I agree with Becky. He was undeniably a fantastic college player. He was a good professional player with the potential to be great, had his career not been interrupted by…wait for it…dogfighting.
If he never plays another day, I don’t think he’s shown enough to be in the HoF, although he had a lot of potential.
If we’re going to talk about Michael Vick’s chances, we should also talk about Rae Carruth and Ray Lewis. Carruth is a former Panthers wide receiver convicted of conspiring to kill his long-time girlfriend and currently in prison. Lewis is a current Ravens linebacker who was involved in a fight in 2000. Two of the people on the other side of the fight died of stab wounds. Lewis was indicted for murder but eventually pled guilty to obstruction and testified for the prosecution against his fight-mates.
Not only are these two still technically eligible to be indicted…scuse me, inducted…into the HoF, but Lewis is still playing football. This year he could potentially take the field against lesser thugs like Pacman Jones (suspended for a year after a shooting in a strip club– curenttly a free agent) and Plaxico Burress (accidentally shot himself in the leg with an illegal gun in a NY nightclub. His season is still up in the air, pending legal issues. Also a cautionary tale to the youth of America–don’t put a gun in your waistband when wearing SWEATPANTS. Braintrust.).
To sum up this rant: whether or not these fellas are allowed in the HoF, why are we still playing to see them play football? If the fans didn’t put up with it, they wouldn’t keep getting paid, and eligible to be considered for the HoF.
Rant over. Soapbox closed up. Thanks for listening :)
Not to get off the Hall Of Fame topic, but…when somebody asks you what you’re doing over the weekend, and you say you’re not doing anything, and she asks you if you can watch her kid, and you feel you have no choice but to say yes, you’re kinda losing me. She’s asking a favor; if you feel that merely asking a favor is forcing you to say yes, then nobody is ever allowed to ask you for help.
Of course, that doesn’t address dropping by unannounced to drop off the kid, which is…ridiculous, unless she’s on the way to the hospital or something. There’s no reason to do that in a non-emergency. Saying no seems like sort of an obvious solution.
This is always such a weird question to me, and it’s on the Vine all the time: “How do I tell this person to buzz off and not have to feel like I hurt her feelings?” Well…it will hurt her feelings. She’s right to have hurt feelings; you’re deciding you don’t like her. It seems like you’re right in this situation, but you can’t ask people to sign off on their own rejection, like she’s going to give you her blessing to dump her. You’ve got every right to decide who your friends are (and she sounds like a jerk), but you can’t tell her she shouldn’t be cool to you after you blow her off. Being cool to you seems…fair.
There is also a professional Wrestlers Hall of Fame, in my hometown (Amsterdam, NY). I don’t know much else about it except that I met George “The Animal” Steele at my dad’s bar on the Grand Opening weekend a few years back, when I was visiting my parents.
With regards to Vick, I really think it’ll be a moot point. He’s never even been to the Super Bowl (although my husband informs me that he has the most rushing yards by any quarterback ever–so maybe that is a reason to put him in). I have to say that I do generally agree with Sars about Rose, etc.
@Jenn: I disagree. …Okay, I agree, somewhat, with the “learning from the mistakes of the past” part (more on this in a sec), but as Bill James put it on the Rose issue at some point, not having certain guys in the Hall is like having a map of the United States with Texas missing. It doesn’t fix anything; there’s just a hole there, which any schoolchild can see is shaped like Texas so why not put it back on.
I do not approve of cheating; I resent the steroids era for taking place, because sports fans keep having to have this conversation. (Well, baseball fans do. I don’t get the sense that football fans view it with the same level of consternation.) It’s not that I don’t care, I’m not actually the moral relativist this topic tends to make me out as…but everybody knows Cobb was a racist sociopath, everybody knows Mantle drank through two livers, and everybody still knows Joe Jackson no matter what building you let him into, so at this point in the information age, I don’t see why even cheaters and dickwads shouldn’t be in the Hall if they made a significant contribution to the game.
And hell, the Black Sox did that. Bass-ackwards, but they did it. But who’s in the Hall instead? Landis, who was widely credited with “cleaning up” baseball after 1919 but did not budge one inch on the black-players issue until his death, and that shit cheated a whole generation.
I realize I’m sort of out to the left on this, but the reality is that we still know who these guys are, and we still know exactly what they did — Cobb, Perry, Shoeless Joe, McGwire, Bonds, whoever. McGwire had a historic impact on the game; some of it has been negative, but it’s still significant.
The Hall isn’t just a shrine, it’s also a library and a museum, a place to learn about the players as well as honor them, right? So if we’re to learn from our mistakes, shouldn’t they be on display, right alongside the guys like Christy Mathewson and Branch Rickey who got it right, who we can feel good about? It’s not honoring bad behavior; it’s agreeing to stop pretending that baseball, haloed as it is with nostalgia and American dreams, is immune to it, or will be killed by it.
“Carruth is a former Panthers wide receiver convicted of conspiring to kill his long-time girlfriend and currently in prison.”
Ah, that’s right – he hired someone to shoot his pregnant-out-to-here girlfriend because he didn’t want to pay child support. Girlfriend died, premature child survived (but has cerebral palsy), any money he had went to lawyers and child support. It’s bad when you make Michael Vick look sympathetic in comparison.
I agree with Type’s husband. Offering money to friends for doing friendly things is one of the rudest things you can do. It sends the message that you think of them as business acquaintances, or even servants. Pitch in on groceries, take them out to dinner, reciprocate with a friendly act of equal magnitude when you’re able, but don’t monetize social interactions.
Yeah, people have been saying it, but it is pretty satisfying to reiterate that Michael Vick never actually made it to Hall of Fame caliber. I mean, he’s, what, barely 30, if that? He’s missed two seasons IN JAIL for being A GIANT DOUCHE (just fun to capitalize), plus he’d missed most of a season with a broken leg. Not only was he a questionable professional talent (his passing skills have never been popularly accepted) who did not get a Superbowl title; he didn’t really play long enough to establish his career.
The debates surrounding him–and they’ve been big ones in their own rights–have involved 1) players who may be getting a little too much credit/praise before proving themselves, and 2) celebrities/role models/”heroes” who turn out to be felon douchebags.
Type/Kate — An overnight or couple night stay while you’re on vacation is one thing. Then its nice to “chip in” with chores or a dinner. However, “But it is going to be a few weeks from arriving in the new city until we have housing” is a different beast, I say. You’ve started using your friends as an apartment. You’ll be coming and going. You’ll be eating without them. Watching TV, etc without them. Doing your own laundry (I hope). Maybe more than a couple weeks if things don’t go as planned. Maybe a month (maybe even longer–hope it doesn’t–best of luck to you guys!). I’m saying, as a house “guest” you’ll have started to stink.
I think its best offer to offer something and be declined or at least put out on the table that you know its a big imposition and then do your best to not be messy and leave empty cartons in the fridge and overflowing garbage cans inside the house (you think this would be obvious, but…).
Do they have a household project they’ve been putting off that you could help with on (not money wise, but labor wise)? Since money is tight, maybe you can help spring clean or finally rearrange that garage or help paint a room or do some yard work or run some errands they’ve been putting off, etc. (Not that you should be a slave, but sometimes an extra pair of hands is priceless). I guess I don’t know how much free time you might have.
Is there room on that soapbox for me, Shannon? Because yeah, why are we still playing to see them play? I know I’d be fired for shit like that! I agree that if you’re that good at your stuff you should be honored FOR THAT. Being an asshat doesn’t change the talent. Those “syphillis/murder/steroids” footnotes aren’t going anywhere, they’re too juicy & scandalous.
Friend, I was in a similar situation & ended up with option 1. It wasn’t that bad, truly. She remained friendly and THANKED ME for being honest. After which I sorta liked her again, and the friendship reconnected, but it was a different friendship (and I never had to babysit little Damien again. He grew into a pretty cool kid after all.)
Type, you have good friends. You know them best, would they be insulted if you offer to chip in? If not, make the offer you’d want to hear in thier shoes.
To “bad friend,” (which you aren’t), I think it is interesting that your husband recognized something in “Kate” right off the bat that you did not. Maybe you have already had that discussion with him, but if not, it may be worth talking to him about what signs/signals he was picking up from her to try to avoid situations like this in the future. Also, I agree with the previous poster who mentioned that you should not feel obligated to say ‘yes’ to someone who is asking to inconvenience you. I also used to have problems saying no, but I have practiced and it has made my life so much easier, without any loss of friends. Good luck!
Shannon and Margaret – we pay to see them play because professional sports aren’t a referendum on what a good or nice person you are but on your atheltic prowess (within certain parameters – I don’t think Ray Lewis would do very well in a marathon, but he is definitely one of the top 3-5 linebackers to have played football). I think the better question might be why some of these people are getting millions to shill products to us.
@Friend: You are not being a bad friend to her for cutting her off because…she is not your friend. She is a person you work with and occassionally hung out with who took advantage of you (and apparently her boyfriend) and, at least from your letter, has given you nothing in return. As dear Dan Savage would say, DTMFA.
@Kerrie: Um, I’m with Sars for the most part. Mostly because I feel like the don’t put them in the Hall thing is self-serving on the part of baseball. (After all, fans don’t decide who gets to go in. That would be a different ball of wax. (Where does that saying come from?)). Any idiot could see that McGwire wasn’t all natural, but it was good for baseball, so it was all “look the other way”. And I don’t think they should be able to get away with a whole “we loved you until enough people complained about it and now we’re going to be OUTRAGED and punish you for the thing we let you do all along” bait-and-switch.
There’s a system in place to let people know of mitigating factors for various records (mound height changed, stadiums shrunk, season got longer); this should be no different.
@Linda hits the Friend nail on the head. When you unilaterally (justified or otherwise) redefine the terms of any relationship, it’s pretty predictable that the other person is going to get bent out of shape. Most people aren’t ever going to take a relationship realignment that’s based on your growing resentment of them as anything but hurtful – it’s rare to find anyone who will react with a hearty “yeah, you’re right, I guess I am kind of an asshole.”
I also wonder, Friend, if you have been sending Kate mixed signals with respect to babysitting her son. I apologize in advance for the reference, but I’m reminded of an episode of Friends (I know, I know, I’m really sorry) where Chandler kept going on dates with Rachel’s boss, despite his strong desire to stop. At the end of every date, he reflexively said something along the lines of “okay, this was great – let’s do it again sometime!” Did you say anything like that when she picked her son up the first time? When she thanked you, did you say “no problem – any time”? Or anything along those lines? I’m not defending Kate, exactly, but it’s possible that she keeps doing this because you’ve never given her a reason to think you are anything but happy to help her out. You’ve really been there for her in some tight spots, so even though you are tired of her act, I can understand why she’s still asking you to do stuff with her.
The more I think about it, the more I think I disagree with the suggestion to follow option 2. It’s kind of bitchy to just get incredibly distant and always blow her off. I get that Kate has taken advantage of your kindness, Friend, but it was in ways that you absolutely let her. Kate might see you as her close friend, someone she trusts with her kid and who held her hand through the abortion process…and who is now all of a sudden completely distant and unreachable. *That* is not the way to get any kind of happy relationship, at work or otherwise.
But no matter what you do, think hard about saying yes to people’s requests and then resenting the hell out of them for having the nerve to ask. I think most people would prefer that you just say no, rather than help them out and secretly hold it against them.
Kerrie, I would actually like to be first in line to help Vickers get into your Large Number of Painfully Large And Sharp Objects Shoved Up Their Rectum Hall of Fame.
That said, much as it pains me … either the various Halls of Fame are about the contributions of players to their game … or not. I mean, does the flip side happen? Do truly wonderful human beings who play baseball/football/red rover/whatever get to be in the various Halls of Fame even though they’re mediocre or average players? No? Not even if they’re really, really good people? As long as there are no rules that prohibit a player from being in a Hall of Fame on the grounds of extreme douchery, then I think the douches need to be let in. However, I am all for posting squibs next to their plaques that note: “Also? Is Douche.” Preferably with explanations and/or diagrams. And perhaps the people who do the electing might want to consider adding a Douchery Exception clause – or not. Whom do we want in charge of the Morals Clause for sports participation? What about other people’s work environments? It’s a slippery slope.
Sars, can you enlighten me? I was under the impression that steroids were actually NOT illegal at various times in the different sports, and that the outcry against their use in baseball was of relatively recent date. It has seemed to me as if some of the players who used steroids were being excoriated post facto. I don’t think steroid use is a wise choice because of the short- and long-term damage to the body, but steroid use in athletes seems to parallel eating disorders in models: as long as someone’s livelihood depends on being in a certain physical condition, then the people in those professions will probably do whatever they perceive as necessary to continue participating and competing.
Type, I’m with you, rather than your husband; I think under the circumstances you describe, it is not wrong or insulting to offer money to your hosts. They may very well not take it, but money is tight all over, and you will be using their utilities, etc., for “a few weeks”. That could be anything from two to eight weeks or more. That’s not like offering someone money for taking you out to dinner! I mean, how would you and your husband have managed coming back to the U.S. if you DIDN’T have these friends to stay with? You would most likely have had to rent a place, or pay hotel fees. And honestly, if your friends are tight on money, too, I think it does make sense to funnel actual cash in their direction, rather than a spa certificate; not everyone would enjoy a spa certificate. And yeah, your husband does sound like someone who’s using etiquette as an excuse to pinch pennies.
Friend: From now on, you’ll always wonder what someone wants when you’re asked what plans you have for the weekend, won’t you? I can at least offer you some wiggle room. When someone asks you what your plans are and you admit you haven’t any, you DON’T have to say “yes” when someone asks you to babysit. You can say, “No.” You can say, “I’m sorry, I would NOT be comfortable doing that.” You can say, “I’m sorry, but I have to check with my husband to see if HE has plans for us this weekend!” You can say, “They’re not set in stone just yet, we’re waiting to hear.” Oh, hear what? “I’d rather not say. I don’t want to jinx it!” And for pity’s sake, practice saying NO. Just because you don’t have immediate plans doesn’t mean you have to say YES to someone else’s plans FOR you! You don’t even have to say YES when they’re standing in front of you with the child in tow, begging you. You can STILL say NO.
And I, too, am curious as to what tipped your husband off. Can you let us know?
@bossyboots:
But the thing is, Kate didn’t really ASK her to babysit. She asked the first time, and then after that she took to turning up on friend’s doorstep, without calling or asking in advance, and trying to dump her kid. I agree friend should still have said no, but Kate deliberately stacked the deck against her. She was obviously trying to make sure she couldn’t be refused (its a lot easier to say no over the phone then in person, especially if you are home and its obvious you aren’t busy at the time). No, I don’t think friend sent mixed signals at all-as Linda points out you don’t just show up unannounced in a non-emergency. Kate knows her kid is a problem, she knows exactly what friend thinks about the babysitting, and she’s just manipulating friend to get out of her parenting responsibilities.
Personally, I have no problem with whatever strategy friend uses to get out of this “friendship,” because if Kate’s feelings are hurt, well…good, because she obviously doesn’t care about anyone else’s.
@Belladonna: “I was under the impression that steroids were actually NOT illegal at various times in the different sports, and that the outcry against their use in baseball was of relatively recent date.”
Yes and no. In baseball, steroids were not explicitly banned until more recently; the outcry against their use has always existed to some degree, but it was fewer voices, and certainly 10-12 years ago, sportswriters were a lot more willing to accept McGwire’s statement that the “supplements” he took came from GNC, or whatever lie it was everyone agreed to believe.
It’s a distinction without a difference to say that it’s only wrong/cheating if the player in question took them after the official ban took effect (I’m ashamed to say I don’t remember exactly when that was — ’04?). They got banned for a reason; something was not kosher, and it was very obvious (Bonds), but nobody wanted to deal with it because it was endemic AND it was creating bigger offensive numbers that were perceived as “helping” baseball from a marketing standpoint.
But with that in mind, because baseball took so long to deal with the problem in any coherent, non-hypocritical manner (and is still not there, frankly), I think there needs to be a general amnesty for anyone who tested positive before the turn of the year. Through 31 December 2008, you tested positive, well, you fucked up, and we’ll publish your name without comment, and everyone will know everything and we can just have a giant spasm of whatever and have it done with. But if you test positive AFTER that, now, proving you’re too dumb to live? You’re out for the season, and you can hand a tenth of your previous season’s salary over to the RBI initiative.
And if you try to make us believe you just let your cousin or whoever jam a needle in your butt, and you didn’t know what was in it? It’s HALF your salary, and a slap upside the head as well. “I didn’t know what was in it,” my ass — you’re a professional athlete! You just let people put some random goop on your knees and you don’t even ask? Even if that’s true, which it just is not, ever, but if it is, then you deserve everything you get, just for being an irresponsible dink. Which is kind of why I’m in favor of just lancing the entire huge boil right now, so that we don’t have to hear that sort of egregious horseshit anymore, A-Rod.
Friend has gotten good advice, and I won’t repeat it. I just want to point out, as a parent, that leaving your kid with *anyone* for ELEVEN HOURS is outrageous. I’ve never left my kids with their grandmother for that long, for God’s sake, unless I was off having another baby. If anyone ever does that again, tell them then and there that you are never again available to babysit.
I am the (bad) friend that wrote the first letter.
I know I had the option of saying no to baby sitting. But as stated in the letter I was desperate for friendship and I made bad choices because of this.
I don’t think I sent mixed signals when I first agreed to the baby sitting. I said yes, but I also said it could only be for an hour or two and if what going to be over lunch time then she would need to drop his lunch off with him. She agreed to all this saying she would drop him at 9am and be back at 10.30-11am so no need for food. She dropped him off at 9, but didn’t return until 8pm and had her phone off the entire time. I didn’t make a scene in front of her child but when I saw her two days later I told her how inappropriate it was, and I wouldn’t be able to help out again. She cried, told me she was working a second job to pay the bills and she hadn’t expected to be there so long etc. When she turned up the next week there was more crying and begging. The following week she was already in the car waving good bye.
With regards to what my husband saw in her, he says he knows her “type.” He was basing his judgement entirely on the fact she’d had her son young, was no longer in contact with the father, had no-one else to rely on. I didn’t see any of these as reasons not to be friends with her.
My main concern about hurting her feelings was the fact I have to work closely with her. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been an issue.
It has been a couple of months since the original letter and I have used a combination of options two and three. I have been out with her once and her son was there too. I told him off twice – once for sticking his finger in my soup and once for going into my handbag. This created an “atmosphere” and we finished dinner with no dessert and she seems to have no interest in seeing me socially now.
I appreciate all the comments and advice. I know I wouldn’t be here if I’d had a backbone in the first instance, hopefully I’ve learnt my lesson for next time.
@Friend: He put his FINGER in your SOUP????? I….I mean, obviously the COMPLETE OUTRAGEOUSNESS of this doesn’t even need to be discussed, but my God. And backbone or not, I’m not sure what else there is to be done when someone drops a child on your porch and takes off. Glad things are better now.
Type, I think you should absolutely make an offer. I personally would tend to present it as already a done deal — “Oh, did the electric bill come? How much is our share?” rather than “Do you want me to chip in for the electric bill?”, because I feel like the latter lends itself more to an automatic “Oh, no, don’t worry about it!” even if they kind of do want (or need) you to chip in.
I’ve put a couple of very close mates up for prolonged periods, and I never found any offers of cash towards bills (which at the time I didn’t need) offensive at all – they were basically using my apartment to save on hotels, something we had both agreed on in advance, so it wasn’t an overnight stay that got turned into something longer by accident.
Make the offer – ask how you can help with household tasks as well, extra people amplify even the silliest tasks like laundry and trash.
But do also mention money – right now, it’s an issue for a lot of people, and even when it wasn’t it shows decency and indicates that you’re not an amplified version of Friend’s babysitting freeloader!
Friend, you keep iterating that it was your desperateness to have social contact that made you eager, and accept Kate’s friendship initially. Please do realize that most likely what happened it that you became less and less okay with her behavior as you let less and less starved for social interation.
Friend: I note that Miss Manners has, as usual, great advice for those who have difficulty saying a bald “No”–find yourself a longer phrase like “I’m so sorry, but I couldn’t possibly,” or “I wish I could, but I’m afraid I can’t.” Sometimes spouses have a mutual-blaming-excuse rule (“It would just be too much for Aloysius”) if you feel like you need to blame somebody. I personally am more a fan of the simply-unavailable approach rather than the sharing-feelings one, but it does mean you’ll have to say some kind of “No” over and over again.
Type, I’m a little bit suspicious of your husband’s motives since he put saving you guys’ money first on the list. I would agree that this is more than just a guest situation but also that it’s tricky to move compensation beyond the guest level. I would say that paying for specifics, at least in name, is less fraught than just offering blanket payment. “Since we’re using your internet/water/power, why don’t we just cover that for the month?” as the check/cash gets laid down, not waiting for them to answer before you produce it (I disagree with Sars on questioning them, because it puts them in the position of requesting money one way or another). And of course you offer to do the whole grocery shopping for the household and you cover the payment, and if you use the car it comes back with the tank full, etc.. It’s not just the amount, it’s the continued demonstration of your appreciation, with at least something nice from you guys every week you’re there.
With Bonds (and Clemens, ultimately), I am more receptive to the “indisputable greatness; would have been a lock even had he retired in [year before the trouble period begins]; hold your nose and let him in” argument. I’m not saying I’m entirely seduced by it, but I would listen with an open mind when voting time comes around.
I can’t get there with McGwire. I had to put down some article recently by a McGwire supporter who lamented that possibly the game’s greatest “pure home-run hitter” is finding the door barred. “Pure” in what sense? Because it’s pretty much all he could do, after he chemically transformed himself into a lumbering defensive liability who couldn’t run for shit, and so either crushed the ball farther than should have been humanly possible, got an intentional walk, or returned to the bench following his thousandth strikeout of the year?
So we differ on this one. He’ll likely never be in the Hall, and I’m pleased. I would be queasy at the thought of some one-dimensional relic of a fluky era taking his place alongside enduring greats. I never found any excitement in the McGwire/Sosa home-run sideshow at the time — all I saw was the WWFing-away of a lot of the poetry and nuance that I love about the game, although I’ll spare you any Kahn/Angellesque lyricism in detail. I see no reason to bestow credit on its participants in retrospect.
I want to emphasize that Sarah herself has not done this, in my view, but I have seen the boogeyman Cobb argument trotted out in intellectually lazy ways. (Stephen Smith played it as his bullshit trump card on ESPN, while screaming at length on Bonds’s behalf.) Just because there are bad citizens in the hall, the current baseball writers should not be shamed into falling in step. If they should be shamed for anything here, it should be their reticence, their timidity, their willing to “play ball” on the ‘roids issue to maintain their access, and so on, at the time. But Howard Bryant has written more eloquently about that in Juicing The Game than I ever could. Suffice to say, Cobb being in the Hall wouldn’t instill in me an “anything goes” attitude if I had a vote.
Ultimately, I think of the HoF as an honor: one final, symbolic, supplemental one, *beyond* someone’s statistical awesomeness at BaseballReference.com, his assorted trophies and rings, his monetary assets accrued. It’s not an entitlement.
Friend’s issue reminds me of a “no” technique I have used for years: “Sorry, I have plans.” Because even if I don’t have “plans,” I *do* have plans to not spend time with them! It goes hand in hand with always being a little vague about what I am doing, especially since my schedule is really not my coworker’s business anyway.
And Type, there is a lot of value in the many suggestions to offer non-cash help. I used to borrow cars occasionally and return them sparkling clean: washed, vacuumed, polished, and with a full tank of gas even if I didn’t use that much. Magically, I was rarely turned down when I needed to borrow some wheels. Doing someone else’s dishes with your own makes a statement. So does making sure your friends come home to a freshly-mowed lawn or dinner for them on the table. I know your friends may have a gardener or have deadly food allergies and only want to prepare their own meals for safety’s sake, but you get the idea. Somewhere in that house there is a task they hate to do. Find it, and get it done.
Love it when the Vine ventures into HoF arguments! I tend to be with Sarah on this one…if the guy was truly a great player/contributor to the game, he shouldn’t be ruled out on outside arguments. Rose, Bonds, and Clemens (ugh) should go in the Hall–they won’t be first ballot anymore, but they should be there. I disagree on McGwire though–he was too much of a one-dimensional player. Should there be an exhibit in the Hall celebrating the McGwire-Sosa home run race and its role in bringing fans back to baseball? Absolutely. Does that make McGwire or Sosa HoFers just because they were the principals? Not in my book.
And there’s no way Vick has done enough to get into the Pro Football HoF, so we don’t even have to go there.
@Todd: All that said, I like your perception of HoF induction as an honor. For whatever reason (maybe because sportswriters never present it to us that way), I hadn’t really looked at it from that perspective. Something to think about…
A bit late here, but: I agree that McGwire’s numbers do not suggest a lock on the Hall. He really only had the one tool; I’ll leave it to someone else to run his Win Shares, but I don’t think his mashiness makes up for his weaknesses elsewhere. I suppose I could dig up James’s comments on him from the Historical Abstract…
Huh. I don’t know if he’d do it the same way again, but he’s got McGwire ranked 3rd all-time among first basemen. The comment, in part:
“[A]bout 55% of McGwire’s career value is accounted for by his home runs, a high figure, but not as high as players like Dave Kingman and Steve Balboni. McGwire does do some things well, other than hit home runs.”
If the father of sabermetrics ranks you ahead of Greenberg and McCovey, maybe you’re worth a vote.
Friend: There may not be a whole lot you can do to get yourself out of your current situation without a LOT of awkwardness, and that really sucks. However, you can use this whole ordeal as a learning experience. I had some similar nasty issues with blurred professional/personal boundaries with my last job, and things got so bad I decided to quit rather than deal with the drama. When I started my current job, I adopted a blanket policy of:
-No one-on-one interactions with people from work outside of work for any reason ever
-No going to co-workers’ homes or inviting them to mine for any reason ever
-No giving co-workers my personal phone number, e-mail address, or home address (I use a P.O. box for everything) for any reason ever
You get the idea– this may sound extreme and paranoid, but the idea is you want to keep your work life and your home life as separate as possible. I can’t recommend this strategy highly enough. You don’t have to be all snooty and “I’m here to work, not make friends, thankyouverymuch”. If you’re worried this will get you branded as someone who’s Not A Team Player, don’t be. You can still play on the office softball team, go to the company picnic at a park, or whatever other optional-but-not-really work functions you’re expected to go to. But if, say, a co-worker asks you to watch her cat while she’s out of town? “I can’t. I have plans.” Practice this until it feels natural, and maybe practice a polite, firm and vague explanation of your “plans” that you can offer if you’re asked for one. The great thing about this strategy is that, the longer you do it, the less often co-workers will even ask you to do non-work stuff. It’s like they realize there’s no point in asking because they know you’ll say no.