Nearsighted Solutions

We raise generations of Barbie dolls to believe they are lionesses, when so many of us are still being shaped into lambs ready for the Jeffrey Epstein slaughter. Only if we make it through can we renegotiate the ending.

A society that takes on the logic of a predator, that defends, even glorifies, the chaser, has set a foundational rot. A world that loves its men not just far more than it loves its women, but more even than it loves its children, its girls, can never be just.

Rose Hackman, published in The Guardian

Very often, the healthiest person has to leave.

Jim Rigby, in conversation on December 20, 2024

I’m deliberating how to weave these threads together without alienating you, my reader,^[1] by oversharing.

My fiancée has decided to no longer speak to her parents, and to weather the consequences of family and self-doubt in exchange for the control of asserting agency over her environment, its interactions, and her life in years to come.

I’ve been present through this decision, and heard it discussed through out periphery: directly to, and indirectly around her. Regardless of whether third parties are courageous enough to speak to her directly, there’s a common thread that mistakes her agency for causality, and misplaces causality at her feet. “Why would you do this?”

Many in this periphery are informed, aware, and intelligent individuals. Yet when engaging, they comment towards their personal discomfort in her decision: “what did they discuss?” and the performatively-woke “did she try therapy? Family therapy?”^[2] And given this time of year: “is she going home for the holidays?” Or, pending our wedding: “what if she regrets this in twenty years? Could she hold her nose?”

Despite knowing what happens in families, and to young girls worldwide, reactions consistently limit consideration to her choice. In the best case, “why did she cut them off?” is nearsighted. In a more dishonest case, it knowingly obfuscates the reality of lived experience: that a parent must’ve really fucked up for their child to cut them out of their lives. We damn well know the shapes this takes.

This shape resembles a society that blames young girls and women for their assault, and enshrines their abusers. This shape—assertively on the part of overt misogynists and implicitly by the concerned liberal—teaches and reinforces that victims are responsible for both their abuse and their response to abuse. This framework teaches society “to bemoan the loss of innocence in girls and women, while simultaneously lusting after them” (Rose Hacket, The Guardian). This patriarchal underpinning so pervades that even the well-meaning progressive implicitly blames the victim. Why would you do this to your parents?

We discussed with Jim Rigby on Friday, and while I wasn’t surprised by his perspective, I was both deeply appreciative and impressed by his readiness. Instead of the repeated “why would you?”, he responded that “very often, the healthiest person has to leave.” Like the accusers, he recognized her agency, but he lauded her decision and agency.

Worse is the well-intentioned but critically-unthinking: “this is so sad, why would you do this?” One recognizes tragedy but misattributes responsibility and causality, unable to look beyond the immediate decision. How nearsighted.

Friends, I invite you to lower your blinders^[3] and when discomforted, to step away from the decision-maker, and investigate the context that informed their decision. Few reject family without reason.^[4]