I agree. It’s no one’s business and I don’t have to empathize with the rude questioners. When comments are made about children’s race  and/or appearance, that is not trivial, but it is an American obsession. Those who advise turning the other cheek either have no children who attract such attention or are not sensitive to such questions about religion, ethnic background, or race. As for comments  about being childless, I can’t think of a retort, but I hope I will. It’s none of anyone’s business, may I repeat?

And, as for these commentators or questioners or observers being ignorant or unaware of the impact of their rude questions, give me a break! Someone is ingenuous for these questions are malicious and intrusive. Enuff said! 

What has forgiveness to do with it? I save that for people I know and perhaps like or love; the people mentioned are figments of the media’s attention and imagination. Their behavior is pitiful, sometimes dangerous to their loved ones, in one case, to a polltical party, as well as to a sick wife, and the entertainer, who seems to be receiving such positive attention for his confession, is actually a corrupt employer who preys on women he works with.

 Charmers they are not, and their apologies can be filed  somewhere in cyberspace, and soon  I’ll anticipate crocodile tears. Who really cares? None mentioned so far was innocent; all contributed by their actions to this awful parade of  self-serving hurtful behavior

Can we overcome this focus on these public figures, whose conduct is so destructive and undesirable? Let’s hear about those who contribute better to our community and  nation, please. 

Sorry, but the story about a guy in recovery from a blighted romance is just a story. He is not capable of loving this woman, so give it up. Don’t wait for his transformation, because it won’t happen. What can he tell her? Of course, it’s easier to say that another woman’s disdain created this guy’s lack of love for his present partner. He could claim that his  mother rejected him, whatever! No way, my dear. If you think you love him, consider spending the rest of your life with someone who doesn’t cherish you. All his fine manners and attributes do not make your situation better. Move fast and leave.

 As for the mother who is upset by strangers’ remarks, I can empathize with her, because, to this day, I receive such comments, and I have grandchildren. My children have olive skin, dark eyes and hair and I am fair-skinned with light eyes, and when they were young I was asked whether I was their nanny, where did they get their suntan, and all those intrusive  inquiries. I have a few snappy answers, because I don’t tolerate fools, even schoolteachers who commented on how "dark" my childen were. At times, I’d ask these awful people:"Yes, aren’t they beautiful? After all, we light skinned people loll in the sun to get a suntan, and they were born with it."

 Though it is painful to receive such rude, even cruel comments, I try to remember that they are jerks who don’t know how to behave. And, they treat children as objects, which reveals an ugliness in them, not in my family.I also remember that they are ignorant, and if they are parents, I wonder whether they understand how to treat others. Pick your battles, and don’t waste time on such people!

 In my mind, my family comes first, and when I reply, I make that clear!  

In this country, we don’t have a servant class; we have people we hire to do the dirty work that we don’t want to do, who enable us to do what we want to do. I agree that a clue to a person’s character is how they treat those they consider inferior, such as helpers, "servants," or  waitstaff, vendors, doormen, delivery people, maids. Here we make a big fuss about our virtuous belief in equality, but it is not evident in the way that workers are treated. For me, that is an important clue to character.

I am in favor of adding a charge for service (gratuity charge), as they do in Europe; waitstaff employees are not well paid, and there is great discomfort about the subject of tipping; however, if it is understood that a charge will be automatically added for service, we’d all be relieved of that "petty" decision, but to the waiter/waitress it is not a petty decision, it is part of necessary income. 

When I am introduced or meet someone new, I observe closely, listen closely, and when I notice that body language, lack of eye contact, tone of voice do not correspond with the persona that is presented at first glance, I look even more closely for clues to character. I am not easily swayed by charm, and if my instinct warns me to be cautious in believing what I hear, I pay close attention to see whether the person is trustworthy or even likable, somewhat authentic, and curious about others—most people, I find, are interested more in themselves than in others, because they send a message that they are the most interesting person in the room, so when that is apparent, I "tread with caution."

As for handwriting, it may reveal one’s education, hand coordination, or lack of training to write clearly. I am lefthanded, not ambidextrous, and as a child was forced to change, but I didn’t, and my handwriting reveals all that conflict. Though the school system insisted on our using Spencerian script, which I mastered, as soon as I reached junior high school, I began to write in the manner most comfortable for a lefthanded person, for writing from left to right in English is difficult for us. So, if you look at my handwriting you learn somethng about my awkwardness in adapting to a righthanded world. My character is revealed  in that I persisted in being myself, not an unreasonable facsimile of a righthanded person. So, like others, I am grateful for computers & typewriters.

And, my handwriting reveals that I  fractured my hand and wrist, so my coordination is affected, but I usually warn others that reading what I write is difficult, but I am not grim about it; my character is not involved with this skill, and I can communicate better than most when I write (using a typewriter/computer/word processor).

 When the police look at handwriting nowadays, they do not look for signs of character, they search for similarities in evidence. Graphologists may be able to reveal patterns, coordination in writing, but the loops and steadiness of the "line" indicate how a person learned to write, not character. 

The only reason I’m on Facebook is that a former student contacted me from Afghanistan, and I was so pleased to know what was happening in her life; and then, there was a deluge of former students which also pleased me, for retired many years, I have kept in contact with former students who live in NY where I reside. But, then strangers with no previous connection to me began asking me to be their friend. All those degrees of separation impressed them, but not me.

I’m old enough to be their grandmother, and my idea of friendship is so different. I have always cherished my friends and those I’ve lost contact with I have sought on the Internet, because so many were dispersed all over the world, but I can barely appreciate knowing  what anyone does from morning to night. All those mundane activities, for me, are private; I’m not even a person who uses the telephone to convey these matters to my children, grandchilren, or nearby friends. Facebook’s take on friendshp may be au courant, but it is false to me.

 It also illustrates how disconnected everyone is, and certainly not selective; counting numbers of how many friends have been accumulated is absurd. 

But, I must say, receiving many, many birthday wishes for my 80th from those on Facebook who knew me as a young teacher was thrilling, and because my last name is unusual (only my daughter & I use it in the US) being discovered by a former acquaintance does enrich my life.

The longest running hoax follows: (Sorry this is so long, but too many know nothing about the origins of this inflammatory book, which is circulated throughout the world right now, and many believe it is authentic.)

"If ever a piece of writing could produce mass hatred, it is this one… . This book is about lies and slander."
Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the most notorious and widely distributed antisemitic publication of modern times. Its lies about Jews, which have been repeatedly discredited, continue to circulate today, especially on the Internet. The individuals and groups who have used the Protocols are all linked by a common purpose: to spread hatred of Jews.

The Protocols is entirely a work of fiction, intentionally written to blame Jews for a variety of ills. Those who distribute it claim that it documents a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. The conspiracy and its alleged leaders, the so-called Elders ofZion, never existed.

The Origin of a Lie
In 1903, portions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were serialized in a Russian newspaper, Znamya (The Banner). The version of the Protocols that has endured and has been translated into dozens of languages, however, was first published in Russia in 1905 as an appendix to The Great in the Small: The Coming of the Anti-Christ and the Rule of Satan on Earth, by Russian writer and mystic Sergei Nilus.

Although the exact origin of the Protocols is unknown, its intent was to portray Jews as conspirators against the state. In 24 chapters, or protocols, allegedly minutes from meetings of Jewish leaders, the Protocols "describes" the "secret plans" of Jews to rule the world by manipulating the economy, controlling the media, and fostering religious conflict.

Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, anti-Bolshevik émigrés brought the Protocols to the West. Soon after, editions circulated across Europe, the United States, South America, and Japan. An Arabic translation first appeared in the 1920s.

Beginning in 1920, auto magnate Henry Ford’s newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, published a series of articles based in part on the Protocols. The International Jew, the book that included this series, was translated into at least 16 languages. Both Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, later the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, praised Ford and The International Jew.

Fraud Exposed 
In 1921, the London Times presented conclusive proof that theProtocols was a "clumsy plagiarism." The Times confirmed that the Protocols had been copied in large part from a French political satire that never mentioned Jews — Maurice Joly’sDialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864). Other investigations revealed that one chapter of a Prussian novel, Hermann Goedsche’s Biarritz (1868), also "inspired" theProtocols.

The Nazi Era 
Nazi party ideologue Alfred Rosenberg introduced Hitler to theProtocols during the early 1920s, as Hitler was developing his worldview. Hitler referred to the Protocols in some of his early political speeches, and, throughout his career, he exploited the myth that "Jewish-Bolshevists" were conspiring to control the world.

During the 1920s and 1930s, The Protocols of the Elders of Zionplayed an important part in the Nazis’ propaganda arsenal. The Nazi party published at least 23 editions of the Protocolsbetween 1919 and 1939. Following the Nazis’ seizure of power in 1933, some schools used the Protocols to indoctrinate students.

Fraud Exposed
In 1935, a Swiss court fined two Nazi leaders for circulating a German-language edition of the Protocols in Berne, Switzerland. The presiding justice at the trial declared theProtocols "libelous," "obvious forgeries," and "ridiculous nonsense."

The U.S. Senate issued a report in 1964 declaring that theProtocols were "fabricated." The Senate called the contents of the Protocols "gibberish" and criticized those who "peddled" theProtocols for using the same propaganda technique as Hitler.

In 1993, a Russian court ruled that Pamyat, a far-right nationalist organization, had committed an antisemitic act by publishing the Protocols.

Despite these repeated exposures of the Protocols as a fraud, it remains the most influential antisemitic text of the past one hundred years, and it continues to appeal to a variety of antisemitic individuals and groups.

The Protocols Today
According to the U.S. Department of State’s "Report on Global Anti-Semitism" (2004), "The clear purpose of the [Protocols is] to incite hatred of Jews and of Israel."

In the United States and Europe, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Holocaust deniers endorse and circulate the Protocols. Books based on the Protocols are available worldwide, even in countries with hardly any Jews such as Japan.

Many school textbooks throughout the Arab and Islamic world teach the Protocols as fact. Countless political speeches, editorials, and even children’s cartoons are derived from theProtocols. In 2002, Egypt’s government-sponsored television aired a miniseries based on the Protocols, an event condemned by the U.S. State Department. The Palestinian organization Hamas draws in part on the Protocols to justify its terrorism against Israeli civilians.

The Internet has dramatically increased access to the Protocols. Even though many Web sites expose the Protocols as a fraud, the Internet has made it easy to use the Protocols to spread hatred of Jews. Today, a typical Internet search yields several hundred thousand sites that disseminate, sell, or debate theProtocols or expose them as a fraud.

It is no surprise that a man who claims to have had 100 sexual partners marries a woman who believes in no sex before marriage, a poor fit for marriage, so I sugggest, very strongly, to end the marriage pronto!    He will continue for the rest of his life repeating this rush of confession and comparison, and he is probably already bored with his wife, which is no fault of hers. Trying to please a man who disparages women and boasts of multiple conquests is digging one’s grave. Indeed, it is verbal abuse and worse. There is no reason to remain in this sordid mess. Get out quickly. 

The claim "that everything is all right except for his tales" is misguided information about how 2 people live together. He is poisonous; hoping for a theraeutic cure is not recommended. Why?

 This is a volatile connection and should be severed immediately. We’ve all met the cads and playboys, but we don’t marry them!

"So how deep is her suffering?" was the question which epitomized "The wOw Conversation." Was the purpose of this witches’ brew to compare a fictional character with actual women? Or was it to rant about one’s morals and hypotheses on other peoples’ marriages? Or was it the Greek Chorus? What do any of us know about prominent people who face public humiliation? What do we know about their motivation, denials, or how they cope? Or were these The Furies pursuing the wives because of their husband’s sexual history? ? Or, was it to gain more readers and respondents on this website?

We may enjoy watching "The Good Wife," perhaps because it is a revenge play, but putting into the context of actual families now experiencing the consequences of infidelity, lying, and much more seems vindictive and insensitive. And, elucidating on what might or might not have happened in other women’s minds is ridiculous. "Not a single woman should make a call on what they believe another should be thinking in that situation," reflects my view, because "These situations are NONE of our business." 

Can we make the important distinction that media concocts, manipulates, and sometimes reports bad news, but don’t we always have to keep in mind that there is a difference between a public persona and a private human being? If we  overlook that distinction, we are doomed to thrive and believe in fabrication. After all, "The Good Wife" is a timely fabrication of someone’s imagination and opportunism.   

Good for you! Though I had wavy, thick hair when young (a feather cut, it was called in my day), I now have very fine, thin hair which I wear cut close to my head, and it’s salt and pepper, verging on all white. I’m considerably older than you, I’m sure, and frankly, I realize that the present style suits me better than a passe version of my former self.

I also feel sad when I’m standing or walking behind someone who has worshiped her former self, and kept her now lifeless, limp hair trailing on her back. I sometimes wish I could tell her that her neck is lovely if only she showed it more.  

Whenever  this subject came up, whether on the telephone, a first meeting, I’d tell the guy my father was bald, and I never knew him otherwise, because he began losing his hair in his early tweties before I was born. For me, it is not a negative matter.

Baldness does not diminish a man’s attractiveness or worth.

In my early twenties, I dated an  older man who revealed that that when he turned bald,  he left the US for 2 years and worked in Great Britain, and then returned home, somewhat less embarrassed, but always touchy about the subject.

Very sad, but I thnk of it as similar to the issue of being smallbreasted in the era of curvaceous movie stars, because people were critical and outspoken about gals’ appearance. Unlike today, having small breasts and slim hips was not the fashion, and those of us who had, were miserable, too, especially in adolescence, when everything imperfect is a tragedy.

I wish, though, that men accepted their appearance, did not do the "Donald Trump" hairdo, or use any of the wigs or toupeees. I focus more on eyes and lips, anyway! 

I also hope that so many men who wear their baldness au naturel or buzz their scalps remain terrific examples of attractiveness. Masculinity does not depend on having a full head of hair.

Again, I see a comparison with the issue of women’s hair and femininity. Those scraggly, long tresses of 30+ women who seem to think that sexiness prevails because of long hair are not as attractive as a well-shaped head with short, helmet style, or cut above the shoulders . Catherine Deneuve once said in an interview that Americn women (and I add, American men) "fight to look younger instead of staying in good shape. European women are more tricky in that they try to grow older better, but they don’t try to look younger." 

I quote verbatim because this statement is permanently attached to my bulletin board—to remind me how adolescence  is worshiped here. 

Guys, you look great with or without hair! 

Brenda,

I call us witnesses. I’ve just celebrated my 80th birthday, and those years were filled with financial worries, a Cold War mentality, and such rigidity which is the only word I can use to convey how frozen everyone was; conformity was the message, and for women, it was an awful time, especially for working mothers, and mine, too, worked 7 days a week alongside my father in a small food store. Of course, no vacations or benefits, just work: earning a living is something I repeat whenever I write about the past, because goals today are focused on purchases as symbols of success. Who cared about success at that time? My parents had no sense of the future, just worried about frugality, sacrifice, and losses. There were no rewards for effort.

The women I know of that era who were content or acted as though they were relied on status, being married to a man who would provide a house, garage, and 2 children. Otherwise, women were supposed to be accommodating appendages. The engagement ring was the symbol for these women preoccupied with security, but how secure were they? 

Today’s children of entitlement emulate the clothes, behavior as though they yearn to become the ladies with the girdles &  pompadours! 

Brenda,

You mentioned an important point abut the segregated ads. I had forgotten.  And, this is the era some or many long for! It was rigid, unsparing toward gender issues, and personal freedom.