DEAR DR. NERDLOVE: This is not a relationship question in the usual sense, but I´ve been reading along for a while now and I think you still may be the right address for this concern, so to speak. Long story short, my brother´s been making increasingly strange comments when it comes to feminism and the like, and I´m getting quite concerned. We are, just for context, both in our mid-thirties and he´s active in the gaming scene, so I suspect that´s where he´s picking this stuff up, but I don´t know for sure and I can´t ask, because he won´t tolerate any criticism of his views.

It started with comments about female characters in movies and games and how they were badly written, but when you criticize that you get accused of being sexist. Not knowing most of them I didn´t really say anything to that, although he seemed oddly defensive about the topic and somehow male characters were never mentioned as badly written – which I dismissed as coincidence, and maybe it was. Then he came up with this 80/20 principle thing that 80 percent of women are dating only 20 percent of all men and that´s why men are disadvantaged when it comes to dating.

I, partially thanks to this blog, am well aware of the context of this statement and also why it´s nonsense, so it was a red flag for me, but when I tried to point out that a glance at marriage statistics alone would contradict this idea I was, unsurprisingly, shot down. Then there was an incident where he got quite heated about how Gamergate is taught at a Danish (?) university now as a right-wing harassment campaign, which according to him is “leftist ideology gone too far” and “all lies”. His source is basically that he saw it happen in real time and since he didn´t see any harassment it didn´t happen.

Which brings us to a couple of weeks ago, where he told me, in the middle of an argument about why women are naturally worse at sports, that sexism doesn´t really exist and it´s all solitary incidences by a few assholes. When I pointed out, albeit quite snappily (not proud of that) that maybe, as a woman, I had a slightly more accurate perception on how prevalent this problem is, he reacted quite insulted, because he has female friends and he is aware of the topic, but also, women often use sexism as an excuse for not engaging with constructive criticism.

This is its own set of problems, but my question is actually something else: Am I right to be concerned that he´s getting in some MRA/Incel s--t or similar? And if so, and assuming we still have some kind of relationship after this calms down, how do I handle that going forward? Because despite all of this, I like my brother and he is generally a very kind and thoughtful guy, so I really don´t want to lose him to the darker corners of the internet.

Thanks for reading,

Fighting against Windmills

DEAR FIGHTING AGAINST WINDMILLS: I think you’re justified in feeling concerned, FAW. The far right has long been sliding into any space where disaffected young men – men who very understandably feel lost or confused or frustrated or isolated – tend to gather and spend a lot of time, because they see it as prime ground for recruiting people to their cause. This is hardly the stuff of speculation or paranoid fantasy; leaving aside that this has been the MO of white supremacists since forever (see also: Blood In The Face), but people like Steve Bannon have openly talked about exploiting things like Gamergate as an entry for reaching an audience that was primed for messages that explained how the world was cheating them of everything they were due.

I’m admittedly a little bemused that he seems to be stuck on right-wing talking points that’re more than a decade old at this point (did he also complain about Anita Sarkeesian?), but then again, it’s not as though these are rational arguments. If you refuse to be distracted by the gish-gallop tactics and the attempts to change topics mid-discussion and insist on them getting into the nitty gritty of what they mean, it becomes clear very quickly that the arguments are the jingling keys of right-wing grievance grifting; it’s just enough to focus their attention without actually thinking too hard about it. It’s all argument by assertion without actual structure behind it; it’s all intended to make people on both sides angry and upset. For the proponents, the anger is to keep them motivated; for the people disputing it, the anger is to fluster and distract so they aren’t able to respond effectively.

In fact, that tends to be one of the more effective ways of shutting down the conversation; refuse to be distracted by the subject changes and insist on drilling down into the details and examples. The key is to not concede anything� – no concurring with “well, I’m sure we can agree that…” or “surely you can see that some of these claims have merit”. This is an attempt to shift the middle by appealing to people’s desire to be reasonable and to assume that the other side is arguing in good faith instead of regurgitating pre-chewed arguments that have less structural integrity than a soggy piece of toast. By not allowing the person to start by setting terms, you refuse to let them control the debate. It’s similar to a particular debate-bro “argument”, where a guy trying to force an argument about LGBTQ rights or economic stability is stymied when the other person simply rejects the entire premise that it’s a binary choice. Notice how the interlocutor gets flummoxed; he doesn’t have a meaningful argument if the other person doesn’t first agree to the underlying foundation that you can only have one or the other.

By not agreeing with even the initial premise or their framing, you force them to have to build the foundation of their argument from first principles rather than being able to pull a rhetorical ‘well, if you agree to this, then logically, you have to agree to this other thing”. Debate bros love to try to pull this because it plays into people’s desire to be, if not ideologically consistent, to at least seem like they’re coming to it from a reasoned position. If you don’t take the bait, you effectively remove their entire arsenal, They’re not arguing from a position they actually have thought out, they’re following a flow-chart and they’re lost without it.

Remember, that this is argument by assertion, without actual structure behind it. It’s all intended to make people on both sides angry and upset. For the proponents, the anger is to keep them motivated and keeping them on the “correct” side; for the people disputing it, the anger is to fluster and distract so they aren’t able to respond effectively. If you don’t get angry, it’s much harder to distract you. If they can get you to lose your cool, it becomes a lot easier to force you to have to defend the next assertion while you’re still trying to correct the previous one. So, as the saying goes: the only way to win is not to play. Or at least, not to play by their rules. Concede nothing, including the authority of the people he cites. If he makes a claim that a study says X or authority says Y, ask him to show you. He’s relying that you won’t actually check, so asking for proof throws him off his game. If he says “look it up”, then tell him “Well, I won’t know if it’s the one you mean, so why can’t you just show it to me?”  Most of the time, the studies either don’t exist or don’t say what the person claims it says, so making him actually cite and show his sources takes away his appeal to authority, while also breaking his momentum.

Throwing them off their stride is actually important. By breaking the momentum and not playing the game they expect, you force them into discussions that they’re not prepared for. This is why it’s more effective if you play dumb, rather than responding with anger or heat. Much like how responding to racist or sexist jokes with “…I don’t get it” or “why is that funny?”, asking them to explain how women in games or movies are badly written forces them to actually defend their position. And once you can point out how those same complaints apply to men – the fact that Rey and Luke Skywalker follow the exact same character arc is a classic example – the argument almost always comes down to “well, because girl.” The same thing applies to why a character has to have a “reason” to be queer in a story but not to be straight; why does someone need a “reason” to have a particular sexuality at all if that sexuality isn’t directly relevant to the plot?

(The really fun part comes when you can trap them in the Thermian argument; all story ultimately comes down to choices the writer made and any in-universe justification is, likewise, down to the writer’s decisions, and so really they’re just arguing in defense of bad writing.)

Again, the key is to avoid veering into “making X argument means you’re sexist”, which is the reaction they want, and instead, just asking “but why is this a problem?” and “so why isn’t the reverse also true?”

These tactics apply to the whole “80/20” issue too. Don’t accept the validity of the claim in the first place and ask to see the actual source. Then proceed to ask questions about why this is a problem and why it only applies to women and not to men. After all, don’t men also choose who they want to date? Does your brother attempt to date every single woman he encounters, including ones he doesn’t find attractive? Would it be reasonable to say that he rejects 80% of the women he meets simply by not trying to date them in the first place? If the 80/20 thing were true, then what’s the solution? If women should be willing to give more men a chance, then doesn’t that mean he should be giving more women a chance?

You can even apply this “no, wait, I don’t understand, can you clarify it?” to his arguments about harassment. Why does he have to see it happen in front of him for it to be real? If harassment didn’t happen in GamerGate because he didn’t see any, does it then follow that all harassment only exists if he personally observes it? It reverses the rhetorical trap that the debate bros want to try to trick you into by forcing him to defend a patently absurd position. If he says ‘yes’, then the next question is “does this mean that all crime doesn’t exist unless you see it?”.

At the same time, however, you also want to appeal to his desire to seem reasonable; if he argues that women would call anything a man says that they disagree with sexist, you might make the point that as a rational and sensible person, wouldn’t he agree that if someone who isn’t affected by sexism makes an argument that something isn’t sexist, that this claim should fall under greater scrutiny and skepticism? If he says “no”, then again, ask why that’s the case and what his reasoning would be. Why would that be true but only in one direction?

Remember, they want you to leap to the “you’re sexist” part, so they can argue that you’re being unreasonable or just trying to shut the conversation down and/or proving their point. Then they have you on the defensive, which means they now control the framing of the argument. Not giving them that option and not giving them the fight they want and instead just needing more clarification leaves them punching into Jello. It’s the Argument Clinic gambit and it’s almost shocking how well it works.

As an aside: I highly recommend Medi Hasan’s “Win Every Argument” as a primer on how to have discussions like this in effective ways and without falling for particular debate tactics or making all too common mistakes, as well as how to de-escalate and defuse tension.

Now, I realize that I’m focusing a lot on the weakness of their arguments and the ways they try to lead you down certain rhetorical paths, and you don’t want them to control the framing of the discussion. But the point isn’t to out-argue your brother, simply because you aren’t going to debate him out of this cycle. It’s important to remember that you aren’t going to be able to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into in the first place. They started from a place of emotion – often, but not always, aggrieved entitlement – and back-filled the reasoning from there.

Because this was an argument made from emotion, it tends to be an issue that’s pretty tightly connected to their sense of identity and often to in-group membership. Challenging them by saying “you’re wrong and here’s why,” tends to make them double down, simply because it’s a threat to their identity. As Dale Carnegie famously said: “You have made him feel inferior, you hurt his pride, insult his intelligence, his judgment, and his self-respect, and he’ll resent your triumph. That will make him strike back, but it will never make him want to change his mind. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

And to be clear: the folks who’re leading him down this path understand this. That’s part of why they want you to react with anger and to accuse him of being a bad person for precisely this reason. They want him to feel like the aggrieved one, so that he feels like he is right and to not think very hard about it. It’s much easier to let logic flaws go by when you are coming to a place of “I’m right and everyone else is unreasonably attacking me”. That sense of persecution helps put you in a mindset where you’re just not going to look too closely at what you’re actually arguing for.  

You can, however, lead him to change his own mind, by leading him to the point where he has to actually ask questions about what he’s saying, what he believes and why. By forcing them to explain things and refusing to engage on their terms, they have to make the argument to themselves… which quickly tends to reveal the cracks and unfortunate questions that they don’t want to face.

After all, many – if not most – folks with bigoted views don’t like seeing themselves as bigots, which is why they are willing to accept even the flimsiest of covers that they can then pretend is a reasoned and sensible rationale. When you make them have to actually explain things without the short-cut of accepting their definitions or inferences or even the assertion that they’re just reasoning with you, it quickly becomes obvious that the ultimate argument is, well, bigotry. And because he is the one who brings himself to that conclusion, it’s far more effective. It won’t change his mind immediately, but it will plant the seed that can lead to that change in time.

A last thing to keep in mind that if this is a relationship you want to keep, then you want to have firm but fair boundaries. You want to strike the balance of making him feel that those beliefs are uncouth and unacceptable at best, while also giving him room to back down. The reason why a lot of people have a hard time leaving toxic situations – whether it be an abusive relationship or s--tty social communities like the incel community or QAnon or GamerGate – is because they’re afraid of the feeling of embarrassment and humiliation that they may have to face. This is one more reason why it’s important to avoid responding to the rage bait or calling him out as sexist or bigoted if you are going to discuss the topics. If he feels like there’s no way to back away from those views without some measure of grace and forgiveness, then he’s disincentivized from doing so. This is the opposite of what you want.

However, past a certain point, arguing, even when using some of guides I mention, is an act of frustration and futility that only serves to waste your time and energy. Which is part of the point; the people who spread these views want to grind you down until you don’t have the energy to respond any further. So simply refusing to engage becomes its own response. But as I said: if you want to keep a relationship with your brother, then there has to be a balance between behavior you won’t tolerate and reminding him that he’s still family and you’re there for him if and when he’s ready to back away from this bulls--t.

This can be a difficult stance to maintain, especially if he’s the sort who’s aggressive and evangelistic about it. But you can, for example, inform him that you will absolutely refuse to engage with him on those topics and will walk away from the conversation if brings them up, even vaguely. And then you have to be willing to do so – to literally walk away, hang up or otherwise end the interaction when he crosses that line.

If and when he’s ready to either listen or to let go of those beliefs, let him do so without commentary. That last part is critical. If he doesn’t feel like he has a way out that will allow him a measure of dignity, he won’t take it. Similarly, the last thing you want is to penalize him for the behavior you want to see. Saying “well, thank god you quit being stupid” or “it’s about time” is functionally slapping him for doing what you were asking for in the first place, and it’s more likely to discourage him from trying again than to teach him a lesson. It’s better to forgo having the last word and instead to reaffirm that you’re glad he’s back.  

I understand how frustrating it can be. Believe me, I can understand the desire to beat him about the head and shoulders with the Chair Leg of Truth until you crack his skull enough to let reason back in. And I can absolutely relate to wanting to break down every argument so thoroughly that there is no universe in which he could pretend to have been correct. But a lot of those impulses are ultimately counterproductive if you want a chance to walk him back from the edge and keep him as your brother. Set boundaries, refuse to engage – either on his terms or at all – and give him room to back down with grace. Hopefully this will end up being an uncomfortable blip in an otherwise good relationship with him.                                   

Good luck.

Please send your questions to Dr. NerdLove at his website (www.doctornerdlove.com/contact); or to his email, doc@doctornerdlove.com

DEAR DR. NERDLOVE: I’ve been stuck in a crossroads of the self-acceptance or self-improvement. Because, well, honestly, I don’t really like term or concept of “acceptance” because well it just sounds like “You’re perfect just the way you are and there nothing to change” at best it breeds complacency and laziness, and at worst it’s the kind of mentality Andrew Tate and Kanye West have and why they’re so unlikable (yeah I know Kanye is mentality ill but that’s not an excuse for his actions). But at the same time, I have almost this very unhealthy obsession with improvement and working out. And honestly the sole reason for I’m going to the gym and working out is so I can attract the women who are essentially my type.

Essentially, I’m into a Morticia kind of woman, not exclusively but she’s overwhelmingly her type. I wanna be her Gomez even though I don’t look like the idealized desirable Gomez (Raul Julia) but more the Luis Guzman or original 30s comic strip IE short and chubby. Am I aiming outta my league? I guess but a small part of me thinks he can do it. But an even bigger part of me says that’s never going to happen because well I’m not slim enough or not suave enough to be a Gomez even when I practice in the mirror or try my best to be romantic both in dating apps and IRL, my brain will call me a needy pathetic cringe try hard who women would laugh at and ridicule me for daring to approach them. Because you yourself said neediness and try-hard-ing is anti-sexy.

So what do I do? How do I simultaneously self-acceptance and self-improve? To become the man I truly desire to be.

Wannabe Gomez

DEAR WANNABE GOMEZ: First and foremost, WBG: acceptance isn’t the same thing as being lazy. There’s a quote from Zen master Shenryū Suzuki that’s relevant here: “Each of you is perfect as you are, and you can use a little improvement”. This is precisely what we mean when we talk about self-acceptance; it’s recognizing your inherent worth and value without qualification, while also saying “and you can still work to make things a little better.”  

Self-acceptance means recognizing that while there will be things that you could work on – which is true of everyone, no matter who – you aren’t worth less or are less deserving of love or good things in life for having them. Being “the best” isn’t a prerequisite for love or dating or anything else. It’s a reminder that you are enough, even as you work on things that you might want to improve. A house can be beloved home, even if you need to do a little maintenance here and there, or you might want to knock out a wall or add an extension.

You are looking at yourself with compassion, rather than disdain or disapproval, and that’s important. You cannot shame yourself into improvement; all that does is exhaust you and demotivate you because no amount of “improvement” will stop the shaming. All that happens is that the goal posts get moved again. Lost a lot of weight? “You never should’ve gained it in the first place you lazy little s--t, and you’re not yoked enough.” Got a raise that brought you up to a six-figure salary? Not good enough, you should have these other things too.

(I’d also dispute that this sort of thinking leads to things like Kanye’s self-aggrandizement or his abusive behavior, seeing as Ye’s dealing with bipolar disorder; or anything involving Andrew Tate, especially since his whole schtick is to be a twelve-year-old’s idea of “cool” and weaponize other people’s insecurities to sell them bulls--t, but that’s neither here nor there.)

Now, the next issue is that I think you misunderstand the why of Gomez Addams or his appeal. The problem is that you’re focusing on the wrapping, not what’s inside. Trying to mimic Gomez’ mannerisms isn’t going to get you a Morticia, nor will trying to copy his style.

Though, considering that he’s a snappy dresser in every incarnation, it certainly wouldn’t hurt.

If you want to find the appeal that comes from Gomez Addams, you have to recognize what makes Gomez different from, say, Don Diego De La Vega or – at the other end – someone like Hugh Heffner.

It’s not that he’s conventionally good-looking, Raul Julia aside, nor is it his fencing or his money, nor his stylish sense of fashion or plummy upper-crust mannerisms; it’s that he’s an unabashed wife guy, full of joi de vivre and passion and does not give a single, solitary f--k for what’s considered ‘normal’. Things like “restraint” or “moderation” are for other people; when it’s something that he cares about, he expresses his love for it with his whole chest and pursues it with abandon. He’s a living example of what it means to love without shame or care for what other people think. That’s central to his character and his appeal.

Also, focusing on Julia and Guzman – and excuse me, Luis Guzman is quite fine, thanks – is John Astin erasure and we do NOT stand for that in this dojo!

The reason why his behavior doesn’t feel cringe or try-hard – another term I think you’re misunderstanding – is because it’s 100% him, without any sort concern for what other people think or care about. He’s absolutely true to himself; he behaves the way he does because that’s authentic to who he is. He’s not putting on a performance for others, he’s being his most authentic self, and if other people think it’s weird… well, so the f--k what? His entire family and community are full of weirdos – the macabre, the off-beat, the outcast, the creepy, ooky and occasionally kooky and as far as he’s concerned, they’re all wonderful and perfect and if other people don’t understand them, that’s other people’s problem.

(In the original comics, they’re actually fairly malicious – doing things like pouring boiling oil on Christmas carolers – but that’s not relevant for our purposes.)

He’s suave, in no small part because that’s who he is; he’s a reflection of a specific idea of the debonaire aristocrat in a funhouse mirror. He’s romantic because he loves with his whole being; he’s both in love with love and also with his wife, who is the moon he howls to every night. The things that define him do so because he lives them to the bone.

Just as importantly, Morticia doesn’t love him because he looks like Raul Julia or because he has a dancer’s build; she loves him because he’s Gomez Addams. If he’s short and squat, long and lean, a feral beast or a lowly worm, he’s still Gomez and that makes him dearer to her than all the bats in all the caves in the world. Which is saying a lot because bats are pretty goddamn awesome. And this goes both ways. Gomez would love Morticia even if she looked like Barbara Eden or someone utterly normie because she’s Morticia.

So, I think the question you need to ask yourself is: are you trying to be someone playing Gomez Addams, or are you trying to embody Gomez Addams? Because to embody Gomez Addams isn’t to take on the surface aspects – the style, the mannerisms, the mustache, etc. – but to take on the energy. The unrepentant enthusiasm and self-acceptance, the willingness to be totally and unapologetically himself. That’s what you need to find in yourself if you want to be like Gomez – the security and drive to be your best and most authentic self, regardless of whether you’re thin or plump, short or tall, weedy or jacked as hell. Neediness, after all, comes from insecurity and poor self-esteem; it’s asking others to manage your emotional state for you. Try-hard comes from acting in ways that are inauthentic to who you are in order to appeal to someone else. We talk about fedora-wearing m’lady types precisely because it’s an affectation; it’s an attempt to cobble together a Frankenstein personality from other aesthetics and traits, instead of being genuine to who one is, because they think that’s what will make them appealing.

Which brings us right back to self-acceptance and self-improvement. If you want to be Gomez, the first thing you have to do is accept yourself for who you are and to embrace it. Are there aspects that you could work on and polish? Sure… but that’s the self-improvement part. Loving yourself for yourself and choosing to be unabashedly your best self? That’s how you get the Gomez energy and how you find your own Morticia… even if you aren’t wearing a crushed velvet waistcoat and she’s not wearing a floor-length sheath dress. And then you both not just to love one another to distraction but to make that love last by continuing to treat each other like you’re still in the throes of courtship and trying to woo and win one another each day.

Good luck.

Please send your questions to Dr. NerdLove at his website (www.doctornerdlove.com/contact); or to his email, doc@doctornerdlove.com

DEAR DR. NERDLOVE: My girlfriend split up from her ex of 7 years almost 2 years ago, and they have a 2-and-a-half-year-old together. Co-parenting with the ex has gotten worse and worse, to the point where the ex and his lawyer slandered me in their objection to our recent move (namely because they don’t have anything else to stand on).

Before communication started breaking down about a year ago, her ex had insisted she had his DS and games, yearbooks, and a few other books and that he should get to come over and go through all her stuff to find them. He’d also demanded that she still “owed him nudes and/or sex.” She told him that if she found the items, she would return them, reminded him he had a new girlfriend now, and otherwise skipped over the part where he demanded to be let in and demanded nudes, telling me it wasn’t worth the fight. She told me that he had a habit of stealing from places they went to together and she didn’t want to give him the opportunity to steal from her, and I believe her as she’s stuck up for him in areas she didn’t have to.

Over the Christmas holidays when we were decorating, she found some family ornaments of her ex’s and his brothers’ in the Christmas box and attempted to give them back to him when she picked their son up. He almost flung them back in her face and said “oh, now you want to give stuff back?” and slammed the door in her face.

Flash forward to moving recently. We started finding a few more items of his here and there as we were packing up, and when her ex came over to pick up their son for the weekend, we had 2 fantasy books of his and his class ring. My girlfriend said “here’s your stuff!” in a bright and cheery voice, and I kid you not, the ex turned away, picked up their son, and nearly sprinted away. We were left in the doorway blinking with the books and the ring.

And then you guessed it: we did find the DS and games. They’d accidentally gotten packed up in her stuff when she’d hurriedly moved out. However, he never let her back in the house (they owned together) since July of last year and sold in October, and he presumably threw out her remaining items. She had asked repeatedly for items she’d left behind but he wouldn’t let her in and wouldn’t give her anything.

I’m torn on what we should do. Obviously, the ex did ask for them back and we do have them, even though we originally thought he was using it as an excuse to go through her stuff. My girlfriend thinks we should still give them back, but it doesn’t feel worth it to me at this point. It just opens up their son’s transition time to hostility (recently, my girlfriend was trying to soothe their son when he started crying at pickup, telling him she was sorry it was hard. Her ex hissed at her “No, you’re not, don’t f--king lie”). And since we’re in a court battle, I don’t want him to be able to claim he never received the items if we drop it off with one of his relatives.

I want to model good behavior for their son as well, even though he’s a little young to be understanding the nuances. It doesn’t feel 100% right to just give the items back to his dad when his dad has been so nasty, but I recognize I don’t own them, either. My mom suggested keeping the sentimental and/or valuable items for the son when he gets older, but that’s not exactly correct, either, as the items didn’t originally belong to him and his dad isn’t dead.

Do you think we should make one last effort to try and give back at least the DS and some games (gf says some of them are hers but isn’t 100% sure which are which)? Or do you think that proverbial ship has sailed with his behavior the last few times we tried to give him his stuff back?

Sincerely,

Trying to Step-Parent Responsibly

DEAR TRYING TO STEP-PARENT RESPONSIBLY: a I understand the feeling that you shouldn’t reward someone’s s--tty behavior, and I certainly understand the appeal of a break-up tax. I also understand wanting to model good behavior for your girlfriend’s son. But seeing as you casually mention that there’s actual litigation involved here, I think that this is the sort of situation where the only reasonable and responsible answer is “talk to your lawyer,” especially if said court cases involve a custody dispute. This is one of those times where doing what seems right (or satisfyingly petty) is precisely the sort of thing that some unscrupulous lawyer could turn against you, and you don’t need to make their job any easier.

Admittedly, seeing as his lawyer seems to be on board with this s--tty behavior, I’d think a formal complaint to the state bar association might be in order, especially if he’s throwing around accusations in open court. Unfortunately, I suspect that unless you can actually prove slander, it might be an uphill climb; a lot of people will throw complaints at the opposing council during contentious divorces or custody disputes. Check your state’s bar website for the relevant information about whether filing a formal complaint would be in order; the grievance committee would have the relevant information and staffers who could help find it.

As it is, I strongly recommend documenting her exes’ behavior whenever possible and saving whatever emails, texts and letters he’s sent. If, for example, he texted her that she still “owes him nudes and/or sex”, those are precisely the sort of things that you should be saving and archiving for her lawyer. And while she may not necessarily have video evidence of his behavior when she’s picking her son up or trying to return his stuff, having a list of dates, times and what her ex said and did can be very helpful if and when she decides that it is worth the hassle of sorting this out in court.

(For the record, I think it’s usually worth it, and doubly so in this case. If he’s making demands for nude pictures or sex, then a case could be made that he’s attempting blackmail or extortion; as it is, that’s the sort of behavior that makes lawyers start to drool…)  

Documentation is always your friend when it comes to these sorts of matters, up to and including trying to return things to a contentious ex or get personal items back. Having that dated list of, say, times she tried to return his stuff or when he refused to let her into their communal property will be handy when paired with evidence of good-faith efforts on her part to return his belongings.

And that’s precisely why it’s time to quit dealing with him face to face and to deal with him through the federal government – specifically, the US Postal Service. Rather than giving him the opportunity to lie and say that she never actually returned his things, box them up and send them as a certified package with a delivery receipt – especially requiring that they sign for delivery. Document what’s in the box with pictures, get pics of the box with the certified sticker and return receipt attached and send it on its merry way. Even if he refuses to sign and accept delivery, certified mail will confirm a delivery attempt was made.

And sending it to his relatives, at the very least, means the two of you made a good faith effort to get it to him. If he refuses to get it from his relatives or they never contact him about it, that’s on them.

Seeing as you two are dealing with him in court, you want to be able to show that you’ve been going above and beyond in trying to be reasonable and to handle things like mature, grown-ass adults, and he’s being a belligerent little s--t. Having proof that you’ve been trying to return his things and he’s been metaphorically (and apparently, literally) throwing them back in your face will go a long, long way to improving your position with the judge. Doubly so if you have other documentation about his bad – and frankly offensive – behavior. So document everything with exact times, dates and locations, use the services offered by the federal government to prove that you’ve been making a sincere effort and otherwise avoid dealing with him in person as much as you reasonably can. There’s no point in drawing more aggro than is actually necessary, especially if he’s going to be acting like a weird little freak in front of his son.

However, I will remind you: not only is Dr. NerdLove not a doctor, he’s also absolutely not a lawyer or legal expert in any way, shape or form, so talk to your lawyer about all of this. Get their input before you do anything else; there’s no point in the court case any easier on her s--tty ex.

Good luck.

Please send your questions to Dr. NerdLove at his website (www.doctornerdlove.com/contact); or to his email, doc@doctornerdlove.com