ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½

So curious what counts as having “a lot in common� when this particular feature of your relationship is so obviously skewed. I mean, how does it work? You’re on the same page about the films of David Lynch, say, or the music of Lauryn Hill, maybe even the designated hitter rule. But then you suddenly hit a rough spot on carbon footprint and the wisdom of Robert. F. Kennedy, Jr.? I guess it’s possible. Some people don’t care that much about politics, after all; it doesn’t define their being in the world. And so any intra-couple ideological differences could potentially be confined to the privacy of the polling booth.

Okay, but two concerns. The first is that now is hardly the time for citizens to be uninterested in politics. If lukewarm views are what make you imagine this difference can be accommodated, then neither of you is paying enough attention. Civil disagreement is a feature of a healthy democracy precisely because deep differences can’t be “left aside.� But neither should they lead to violence. Liberal ideas were born out of shared mortal crisis. Humans had to find ways of talking across divides so we wouldn’t go on killing each other.

Which leads to the second worry, namely our current version of shared mortal crisis. The examples you cite of his points of difference are alarming because they’re both existential and derived from bias and junk science. Individual vaccine decisions would be fine if they didn’t directly affect public health, putting other people at risk, destroying their freedom. And no serious scientist denies climate change, even if there is dispute over best possible solutions.

Look, who knows — maybe your guy’s a prince in every way but this. He has a right to his dumb opinions. But those opinions are based on toxic bad thinking, and should be challenged. Sadly, experience indicates that such views strongly correlate with being a mansplaining blowhard in general. That attitude might get you into the current U.S. cabinet, but it’s not a good bet for your personal dating standards. Those ought to set a considerably higher bar.

My kid turned 18, so I took her on a trip to New York and said she could bring a friend. Her friend’s mom paid for her daughter’s flight — I took care of the hotel, taxis, etc. And, as it turned out, I also took care of all meals, show tickets, etc. My question is this: should I have been expecting to pay for everything? I would never have sent my own kid away with those expectations. What’s the etiquette? Do rich kids/parents do things this way? Or was she just being rude?

Ah yes, the rude rich and their Excessive Entitlement Syndrome! You might well think that the wealthier mother (if that’s what she actually is) should pony up more, or at least offer to. You might further reflect that not splashing money around is exactly how rich people stay rich. Conclusion: you were snookered by your own good nature, assuming that the other player in this social game was operating in the four-square manner you favour yourself. This case — let’s call it the Fracas of the Fancy Freeloading Friend — might then appear as an instance of the depressingly familiar narrative, of honest broker put in the red by more ruthless counterpart.

Satisfying as that story might be, it doesn’t bear close scrutiny. The problem doesn’t seem really to be about either richness or rudeness. You, through your child, issued an invitation. That means you were offering to host the friend; and that further means she was your guest. In some cultures or contexts that would imply paying for everything, even including the airfare. If you were expecting the friend’s mom to chip in for meals and shows, your daughter — or you — should have made that clear as a condition of the invitation.

Which sounds icky and transactional, because it is. The larger issue in play here, as so often, concerns the nature of gifting and hosting. A gift is not a reciprocal token. It should be freely given and freely accepted. If another gift comes in the other direction, that is wonderful, but it is not mandated. In fact, such give-and-take makes gift-giving into a rather sad exchange of assets, as too many family Christmas mornings have become. No, please always give without expectation of return.

Sure, the other mom would have shown grace by freely offering to cover some part of the on-the-ground expenses. But silently expecting this, and then feeling miffed when it doesn’t happen — well, sorry, but passive aggressive is the phrase that comes to mind. Next time, dispense with the host role and explicitly budget all expenses together with the other parties. Even heedless rich people understand a contract when it is presented to them.

Need existential advice from a philosophical adviser? Send your dilemmas and questions to agoodlife@thestar.ca and we’ll guide you to your good life.