To Commenters Angry Over "Drugged"

Dear Commenters,

I’m sorry I offended so many people with my response to “Drugged” (Friend or Foe, October 12 ’09). Reading through the comments this evening—as I tried to make sense of the outpouring of fury—I was struck by how many readers seemed to be hearing echoes of date rape or sexual abuse in “Drugged’s” story. I have to admit, I did not think of that at the time. There is no evidence in her letter that she was a victim of a sex crime. And I believe that if she had been, or thought she had been, she would have alluded to it in the letter. All we know is that something she drank caused her to pass out. Moreover, had I believed for a second that she’d been assaulted, I would have responded in an entirely different manner.

It seemed to me that, by the time “Drugged” called, she was out of physical danger and simply frightened and upset. This doesn’t mean that she did not deserve sympathy—only that her friends were not being asked to sit vigil as she hovered between life and death (in which case, yes, they definitely would have needed to be there, no matter what the hour). Why am I so sure she was out of danger? Not only did she place the initial phone call, but there is no mention of her having her stomach pumped—only that she was in the emergency room and, presumably, being watched, in a safe environment, by medical professionals.

I suppose part of me suspected that I wasn’t getting the full story, and that colored my answer. Why? The fact that “Drugged’s” friends were described as “angry” the next morning made me think that there might be a back story we weren’t hearing. I’m not suggesting that the writer is lying about what happened. But possibly she has asked favors like this more than once or twice in recent years. Otherwise, there is no reasonable explanation for why her close friends would be anything less than sympathetic for what was, by all accounts, an awful night. Unless they're simply nasty people. Which, in turn, begs the question: How did they become "Drugged's" best friends?

I know many of us assume we would jump out of bed after that call. But how many of you would actually, honestly get out of bed and get dressed at 4 a.m. and drive to the hospital to keep your close friend company while she recovered? And it is not really clear what she is recovering from. It's hard to tell from the letter. Some of you would be there no matter what, I’m sure. But definitely not all of you, in every circumstance, for every friend. At least if you’re being honest with yourselves.

I was being intentionally flip in suggesting that girl friends are best when your cat is sick, etc. The point I wanted to make is that there are limits to what you can ask of people who are not related to you. (Or, at least, you can ask—but you might well get a "no.") I don’t actually believe that commiserating over sick pets is all close friends are capable of—far from it. Apparently this little joke did not translate. I’m sorry about that, too.

Finally, to those calling for my dismissal, all I can say is: If you don’t like the column, don’t read it! I sort through scores of letters in search of ones that will provoke debate on the site. Apparently, this one has done exactly that. So maybe I’ve done my job, after all.

Sincerely, Lucinda (aka Friend or Foe)

Comments

Double X should dump Rosenfeld--but they won't.

By: uyzie | Mon, 11/02/2009 - 22:18

She's terrible. She gives awful advice that might actually be far more harmful than helpful. And on top of that, she genuinely seems like someone that no one in their right mind would want to be friends with. But for all of that, Double X would be foolish to get rid of her when she causes this much controversy--and by default, drives this much web traffic to the site. It's good for business. The only way that they'll actually dump her for someone who gives thoughtful, helpful advice (Dear Prudence, Hax, Ask Amy) is if we stop being enraged and stop reading her columns.

A licensed therapist or professional who gave advice such as this would be censured and could possibly lose their right to practice. But she's not licensed, and Double X is free to do whatever is best for their business plan. But this former reader is going to exercise my right to also do whatever is best for me: stop reading this rag.

Insensitive response to an easy question

By: Annie K | Tue, 10/20/2009 - 18:32

The only correct answer to this question was "These people are not your friends, so move on." No matter the underlying circumstances - a history of irresponsibility or other ire-inducing behaviors by the advice-seeker - the woman called her friends because she needed them and a ride home. The question was, are these people actually my friends, not, am I actually not deserving of their friendship.
Perhaps Lucinda was trying to show that she had some "insight" into why the friends might act this way, but that was based on sheer speculation rather than evidence. It is one thing to suggest examining the past and present dynamics of a relationship, including your own role, and quite another to suggest that a woman is lying.
Lucinda's insight seems to be lacking in certain cases on Friend or Foe, but not in all. And this "off with her head" to-do has been interesting, and particularly indicative of how unnecessarily vicious the Internet can get. I think it's great Lucina apologized, and she has a right to justify why she wrote what she did, and perhaps she will learn from this to not answer the obvious ones with unsubstantiated insight. The rest of the DoubleX folks have nothing to offer, as they are not responsible for Lucinda's opinions.
I do have to add that if creating debate is her job, she has done it well. The letter itself was sad and I'm sure many of us felt upset at the friends for their behavior, but it was the answer that created the storm.
Perhaps it would be best to answer actually debatable questions, not create debate out of thin air.

reading the lines you want to

By: 57r4n63 | Tue, 10/20/2009 - 14:36

Are you fucking kidding me?

Okay. Yeah. Her response was a bit harsh.

But the feminist card needs to stop. She wasn’t saying that women need to rely on men in dire situations. She didn’t say ‘call your male friend’ or ‘call your male coworker’. She merely said that a boyfriend (as an example of a significant other) might have been a better option to call. It was in relations to the bond, the relationship, and the closeness that typically comes when two people decided to start building a life together. Interchange the world ‘girlfriend’ in that sentence, in the sense of a life mate and not buddy, and it has the same effect. Because friends are /not/ the same thing as a lover/spouse/partner. It’s a different connection. She also mentioned close family members.

As a woman myself, I’m truly offended that out of the entire article /that/ is the issue that so many people are focusing on.

Not all friends are going to go through the effort that someone closer to you will. And before everyone goes on about how they would in that situation, /you/ weren’t in the situation. The two girls that were /ditched/ their friend half way through the night. According to the writer and her clarification on the matter it was over a man who one of them was /crushing/ on. Not dating - not married to. /Crushing/ on. Yea. Some friends.

While it should be assumed that the people considered your closest friends should know you better and therefore realize something was up, you /can’t/ always assume that. As the letter showed.

While I do not always agree with the advice Rosenfeld gives, going through the trouble and making a petition to fire her is ridiculous.

I don’t blame the writer for what happened to her. Hell, I don’t even blame her for writing to an internet advice column about the incident - her main focus wasn’t on the situation but rather, how her friends responded.

But I also don’t blame Rosenfeld for giving her advice. Anyone familiar with her column is aware of her tone and approach to things. Her pragmatic to the point of cynical responses may not be the feel-good work you want to see, but I’m sure there are plenty of other places where you can find that.

She went with what she was given. Was it right? No. But was it wrong? Not entirely.

Thanks for perpetuating rape culture

By: adelinealyce | Tue, 10/20/2009 - 13:44

You say that there was no evidence she was assaulted. I think intentionally drugging someone against their will counts as assault. You, ma'am, are victim blaming: automatically questioning a survivor's motives, implying she was negligent or perhaps took the drugs intentionally ("only you know the truth"), now defending your actions because what she said didn't "ring true"... As a blogger for a purportedly feminist publication, I think you need to understand what effects your comments have on survivors of assault. I was drugged and raped at as a senior in high school, and the very idea that someone with a story similar to mine (I only remember bits and pieces of the actual rape) could be called out and questioned on a "feminist" site, makes me feel shockingly less safe.

P.S. You are not provoking debate. Your commentators are not arguing with one another. We are all arguing against you. Step down.

P.P.S. To the editors of Double X: it is your responsibility to manage the content of your site. Just as you call for magazine editors to manage their content regardless of economic influence from women (you argue against the "fight with your pocketbook" idea), you need to set an example and let Ms. Rosenthal go, regardless of how much "economic influence" your site has received from this controversy.

Hi, Lucinda, it actually

By: natface | Fri, 10/16/2009 - 23:45

Hi, Lucinda, it actually doesn't beg the question, because BTQ does not
mean the same thing as raise the question. It means to assume a point in an argument and explain it by using the same terms. For example, "You are unbelievably offensive because you have offended me." You are unbelievably offensive, but not for just that reason.

Are you a moron?

By: ShawnB12 | Fri, 10/16/2009 - 15:15

Like someone said below...what the hell do you think the purpose of putting a "mickey" in someone's drink is? And how would she be able to recollect a sexual assualt after waking up on a sidewalk?? Women like you that dispute stories like this are the reason that victims don't step forward. If it's hard to tell what happened from the letter then why wouldn't you give her the benefit of the doubt? By the way, I don't think a genuine apology is followed by "if you don't like the column then don't read it". I won't be reading, my friends won't be reading it, their friends won't be reading...don't worry I'm sure MANY people won't be reading it anymore.

Remove Lucinda Rosenfeld from "Friend or Foe" Petition

By: Jujubee | Thu, 10/15/2009 - 16:35

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/removelucinda

"There is no evidence in her

By: kyle212 | Thu, 10/15/2009 - 14:14

"There is no evidence in her letter that she was a victim of a sex crime."

What the FUCK do you think DATE-RAPE DRUGS are FOR?

The only way you could possibly have NOT inferred this is to take the stance right off the bat that she was lying (which is supported by your later paragraphs) and was just a drug-addled floozy. Which is your choice, I guess, but it seems like a strange way to treat people writing in for your advice, and I think it says a lot more about you - and your ideas about women, and about people, and about friends - than it does about the woman who wrote in.

I am aghast.

By: demondoyle | Thu, 10/15/2009 - 13:41

Only a true asshole with no capacity for empathy could have written this:

"But how many of you would actually, honestly get out of bed and get dressed at 4 a.m. and drive to the hospital to keep your close friend company while she recovered?"

Are you kidding me? If I received a frantic phone call like this from someone I didn't even LIKE, I would get a cab to the hospital (because I can't drive). If it were one of my closest friends, I would tell the driver not to bother stopping for red lights.

Last year, as I was leaving for work, I found a girl I had never seen before, wandering around the stairwell of my building in her underwear. She had no idea where she was or how she had gotten there. She had no clothes, no cell phone, no purse. All she remembered was being in a bar the night before and then waking up, half-naked and alone, in a cold stairwell. I was late to work that day because I got the girl some clothes, helped her call her family and talked her into going to the ER just in case. I cabbed her over to the ER and waited for her parents to show up and I didn't even think twice about doing it. AND I AM KIND OF AN ASSHOLE. I am not really that nice of a person, honestly, so I shudder to think of how much of an awful human being Lucinda must be if I, an admitted jerk, could help out a perfect stranger and Lucinda wouldn't even pick up a close friend from the ER after she was drugged and possibly assaulted.

Rosenfeld's "advice" is worthless, if not damaging

By: miss kitty | Thu, 10/15/2009 - 13:04

If Rosenfeld wants to stay in bed while a friend is suffering in the ER that is entirely her decision. If she wants to write trite, overrated chick lit, and someone thinks it is worth publishing, I don’t really care. If she wants to publish her apologetic equivalent of the middle finger, that too is her prerogative, as it is her prerogative to have shallow friendships, put men on a pedestal, sit in an ivory tower, and look down on everyone else. It is also the prerogative of the editors of this site to keep her on, defend her, and disenfranchise their readership in the process.

Where EVERYONE else seems to be drawing the line, and what she and Double X do not understand, is that she does not have the right to CAUSE FURTHER HARM to anyone. This woman reached out to Rosenfeld for help, and whether she was a crime victim, a drug addict, an alcoholic, a borderline personality, histrionic personality, or narcissistic personality, no one at this point really knows. There is not enough information in her letter to make a clinical diagnosis, but the vast majority of readers seem to understand by reading her letter that this woman needs serious professional help of some kind, and the only option available was to err on the side of caution and encourage the LW to talk to someone who has training (or at least has a slight interest in helping people and/or psychology). As someone with a degree in English or journalism, Rosenfeld was way out of her league with this letter and this woman’s problems, and her flippant, snarky response demonstrates to an alarming degree how unbelievable dangerous and arrogant of her to presume she is competent or effective at helping with serious issues (talk about narcissistic personality disorder). It seemed that most people were willing to give Rosenfeld the benefit of the doubt that she didn’t realize it at the time. But faced with a hailstorm of evidence from the public to the contrary, Rosenfeld/DoubleX can’t even admit their blunder in retrospect. With this “apology” Rosenfeld is essentially saying “this wasn’t a momentary transgression, I MEANT IT, every word.” Rosenfeld’s gross miscalculation of staggering proportions to handle this letter with an “intentionally flip” response exposes her inexperience and lack of compassion to be giving advice to anyone.

Whatever is really going on with the LW’s situation, she needed acceptance, love, compassion, and understanding. Instead she was called a liar. Nicely done, Double X. And with the anonymity of the internet, you don’t even need to take responsibility for this woman from here on out. It is terrible distressing to me that Rosenfeld will most likely be continuing this column in the guise of giving advice and helping people.