More Family Ethics: The Estranged Child Problem

The New York Times now sends me all of its advice columns in a nice, neat, email package. I have ignored “Social Qs” for some time because its columnist, Philip Galanes, is a left-biased goof and his perspective is not to be trusted. (Here was the last time EA pondered a “Social Qs” column.) However, by presumably pure coincidence, Galanes’s latest column supplements the issue raised in this recent Ethics Alarms post about the adult child who wants to have old Mom talk to a bot about her problems because the adult child is sick of listening to her.

The “Social Qs” inquirer named “Mom” says that after a single heated argument with her adult daughter, the daughter declared that she would have no further contact with her mother “and has stuck to it.” She asked Galanes what she should do.

My answer would be along the lines of, “Good luck: you raised an ungrateful, cruel, socially handicapped asshole.” Galanes, naturally, suggests that the mother see a therapist (the daughter rejected joint counseling) because “it would probably mean a lot to your daughter.” Sure it would: that would be a tacit admission that the mother was in the wrong. However, in the course of offering his advice, Galanes made an interesting observation that had never occurred to me but has the ring of truth. He wrote,

“Another observation — which, again, I won’t assume applies to you — is generational: My parents, for instance, believed that family was everything. So they took a lot of guff from their parents and siblings — who, in turn, tolerated unpleasantness from them. But my siblings and I are more focused on our mental health and well-being: You can push us only so far before we make our exit.”

Notice that Galanes said “we,” meaning that he endorses the daughter’s cutting off her mother and might do the same. This comes on the heels of another column from “The Ethicist,” in which an inquirer asked “Is It Wrong to Leave My 85-Year-Old Mother Alone on Thanksgiving?” the Ethicist thought it was a reasonable question and I ruled that even asking it was evidence of ethics rot. My own offspring barely speaks to me despite living rent free in my home and my wife and I rescuing him from an orphanage in a horrible country.

Is this a vile new cultural norm? Did the Boomers raise a generation that don’t respect their elders and look upon their families as casual connections to be cut off on a whim? How did that happen? Is this another side effect of Marxist indoctrination? And most of all, now what?

[Note: that scene above is what I believe is an excellent portrayal of a father-daughter estrangement being healed. The scene was written and directed by Aaron Sorkin. I recommend the film, “Molly’s Game,” highly, from an ethical, legal, and artistic perspective.]

End Of Day Ethics Reflections, 5/7/2020: Obama! Klobuchar! Flynn! Fake Winston Churchill!

Tired and anxious here.

You?

1. This is discouraging. A quote extolling the virtues of perseverance  that I am especially fond of because it defines me as a success despite all outward appearances to the contrary is not, as I have been told repeatedly, most recently in the film “Molly’s Game”—more on that later— from Winston Churchill. Nobody knows who said it, if anyone did. It fits Churchill’s career, philosophy and wit, but he just didn’t say it. The quote: “Success is the ability to move from one failure to another without losing your enthusiasm.”

2. Tonight’s Democratic female VP candidate hypocrisy and double-talk update.         a) Senator Amy Klobuchar: Congressional reporter Manu Raju asked the Senator if she believes Tara Reade (the way she reflexively believed Christine Blasey Ford). Her answer: “I think he’s answered all the questions and he’s made clear that he supports her right to come forward.”  Raju then asked about criticism that Democrats are exhibiting a double-standard, Klobuchar “didn’t answer and walked into an awaiting car.” b)  Stacy Abrams, who has virtually no relevant experience to recommend her as a potential vice-president (well, she did lose an election for governor) has been aggressively promoting herself for the slot, because the only qualifications that matter, as Joe has made clear to all, are x-chromosomes and the right skin pigment. While being interviewed by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour yesterday, Abrams responded to a rambling question about her “auditioning” and why “as a black woman,” she felt it was appropriate to do so, with this:

I haven’t been pitching myself, which has been a mischaracterization, I think, because I answer questions honestly. I’ve been getting this question for 14 months, since March of 2019. I’ve repeatedly received the question, and I’m honored that people would put me into the category and think that that was a question to ask. My responsibility is not to question what journalists think is a valid question, but to answer for the audience that they’re speaking to. And as a woman, as a person of color, as a woman of color, it is my responsibility to answer honestly and forthrightly. And if the question is about whether I am competent and qualified for the job, my answer must be unequivocal, because I’m not simply speaking for myself. I’m also speaking to that young woman of color who is thinking about what is in her future. And if I deny her, and deny myself, then I’m doing a disservice to women, to communities of color, and to any disadvantaged community that does not see themselves as the face of leadership.”

Authentic Frontier Gibberish! Continue reading →