My sister Dani often adopts the language of a 60-year-old British kindergarten teacher when she’s really mad at someone.

She re-states the offense that’s been committed, highlights what about it is wrong, and explains how and why it must stop.

So what would be – “Johnny, I know that you took Susie’s hair bow and flushed it down the toilet. It is not appropriate to take other people’s things and destroy them. I am very disappointed in your behavior and want you to go apologize to Susie and take a seat in the time-out corner for five minutes.”

Becomes:
___________ completely disregarded _________, which is inappropriate and reflects terrible manners, and so ________ needs to ___________ immediately.

She thinks in action items.

She’s planning to go to Law School, but I think she should host a show like Nanny 911 but for grown-up misbehaviors. She could call it “You’re An Adult” – heavy on the tone.

Whether rooted in the princples of law or kindergarten – her process is probably effective. I can’t say for sure because she doesn’t reprimand me as I am both older and rarely wrong.

But it’s true that when tempers fly, bottom lines get lost and fights become about all sort of other lines not at or near the bottom.

Dani is a fighter of wars not battles — a general not a private. Her strategy: to keep her opponent focused. Her tactic: to argue with a clearly expressed thesis statement. It’s sort of like a 5-paragraph essay you’d write for high school english. Example: Thesis statement: you are acting like an asshole. I will now argue that premise with the use of three, clear supporting details concluding in direction on how you should stop.

There’s more than just sisterly pride slash fear in this story. Dani’s fight mode makes me wonder how her tactic would perform in less combative environments like – say – the dating arena.

There’s no lack of moments in my supposed adult life that I need direction on how to make something happen as quickly and painlessly as possible. That usually involves getting someone else to do something. So could Dani’s kingergarten-literary analysis-Nanny-General approach work in communicating all sorts of confusing dating thoughts, as a start. Considering the following:

• Dani making someone get her a date:

Shelley, as you know I’m looking for someone with like interests and goals to casually date until I know there’s potential for something more. I’d like you to recommend three options for our follow-up discussion next Wednesday.

• Dani reflecting on the date:

_______ met my interest in like activites but was unclear on life goals. I’ve asked him to think about it and email me an answer for consideration of a potential second date.

• Dani dumping said date

_________, your decision to hook up with someone else while dating me goes against my previously explained life goal of not dating douchebags. I’d like you to apologize and then never call me again.

• Dani explaining to me why my writing about her entire dating process is unwelcome and frankly exploitive

Right.
Tomorrow: what do a house parties and a husband have in common?