The country's most widely syndicated advice columnist just told a wife that her "biggest mistake" was trying to hold her marriage together in public — not her husband's habit of breaking commitments whenever the mood strikes.
A woman writing as "Not OK in Oklahoma" told Dear Abby her husband of two years started a home project at 5 p.m., an hour before a scheduled dinner with friends. She asked him to cancel. He didn't. She discovered this when the other couple texted at 7:15 wondering where everyone was. She rushed over alone, made excuses for him, and he eventually showed up mid-meal in dirty work clothes. NJ.com and The Oregonian both ran the identical column. Neither flagged the real problem: Abby blamed the wife.
Abby's verdict was that the husband's behavior was "thoughtless and rude" — a throwaway line — but the wife's "biggest mistake" was "trying to cover for him by fibbing." Her prescription: next time, show up on time and let him "do his own explaining, make his own apologies and experience the fallout."
This is the cultural rot in miniature. A man breaks his word to his wife and their friends. He treats a social commitment as optional. He humiliates his spouse publicly. And the nation's advice maven says the wife's real sin was loyalty.
Marriage used to mean two people, one unit. When one stumbles, the other holds the line. That's not "fibbing" — that's having each other's back. Abby's counsel is to abandon the line, show up solo, and let the husband twist. That's not strength. That's the same atomized, every-person-for-themselves logic that has cratered the American family for decades.
The husband's behavior is indefensible. He needs to honor his commitments. But the answer isn't for his wife to start treating their marriage like a contract between strangers where each party absorbs their own damages. The answer is for him to act like a man who gave his word — and for them to handle the breach together, as a unit, behind closed doors, before facing the world.
The second letter in the same column follows the same pattern of dismissed boundaries. "Birthday Girl in Massachusetts" asked friends to skip presents for her birthday — she's working part-time, paying her own health insurance, and can't afford to reciprocate. They refused. Abby's take: they're doing it "out of love," so don't feel disrespected. A woman sets a boundary. Her friends ignore it. The expert says be grateful.
Both letters, both answers, same logic: the individual's stated wishes are secondary to what someone else decides is best. The husband decides commitments are optional. The friends decide presents are mandatory. The columnist sides against the person asking for basic respect every time.
The founders built this country on the idea that commitments mean something. A marriage is a vow, not a convenience. A word given is a word kept. When the culture's most prominent advice columnist treats loyalty as a mistake and boundary-setting as ingratitude, don't act surprised when the institution collapses.
The Oklahoma husband is wrong. The open question is why the only prescription on offer is to stop protecting the thing you swore to protect.
