Everything you wrote here, Steven, and one thing more. I try to keep in mind that my primary duty, from the start and even today, is to be a responsible parent to my son and a role model to my grandchildren. How then could I allow them to see such tactics as used in estrangement ideology pay off? How do I square being the one who showed them that if you press hard enough people will buckle and self-centered control games will pay off? If my son is mainly responding to his wife's ham-handed plans, if my grandchildren are also victims of emotional terrorism, won't they need someone to model something other than meek submission? Yes, I might get some immediate relief from this estrangement, but what have I done as a parent and grandparent? I may be long gone if and when they reconsider their actions, but I don't want my legacy to be a contribution to any notion that being cruel and self-centered is worthwhile.
What you have to do is overhaul your character and apologize in full for what you did wrong and offer specific ways to make it up to them.
But no, you'd rather pretend that you're some kind of hero for refusing to do your part.
No one said anything about being cruel or self-centered, that is you making up a straw man argument so you can knock it down and feel better.
And anyway, which is it? Cruel and self-centered, or meek and submissive? You have stated that fully apologizing would be both of these things. Pick a lane.
Leave it to an abuser to think that apologizing is being submissive. What a twisted, backward thought.
Stop making excuses for being lazy. Fix the relationship. You know how to do it. You've been told. You refuse. The ball is in your court and you are choosing to do this.
You do it to yourself, just you, you and no one else.
You're right. It struck me today really strongly that this entire ideological movement is very much like a cult. It really does seem to have all the hallmarks.
While there are certain cult-like features, it lacks many others, such as a charismatic leader. I compare it more to a sub-movement within a larger program aimed at re-engineering society, with the traditional family being seen as a core pillar to be weakened and removed.
I haven’t had the opportunity to read through all your Substacks yet, but I’m working on it.
I feel the article does touch on some real struggles estranged parents face:
1. Some estranged adult children do hold rigid, unforgiving views, where no apology or attempt at change is enough.
2.Parents may feel like they are in emotional limbo, unsure of whether they should reach out or remain silent.
3.Reconciliation is often conditional, and those conditions may be difficult or painful for parents to accept.
4.Not all estrangements are due to abuse…some stem from misunderstandings, personality clashes, or societal shifts in how family dynamics are viewed.
These points deserve discussion, but not under the assumption that estrangement is simply an ideology designed to punish parents.
This article presents estrangement as a systemic problem that victimizes parents, rather than as a deeply personal and often painful decision made by adult children for a variety of reasons. It ignores the valid reasons that lead to estrangement in the first place and reduces the conversation to a battle for control rather than one of healing and boundaries.
A more balanced approach would acknowledge that while some adult children do set rigid or unrealistic terms for reconciliation, estrangement is often the result of deep, unresolved harm. The real challenge isn’t that parents have “no good options” but that healing a fractured relationship requires more than just wanting reconciliation—it requires true self-reflection, accountability, and respect for the other person’s autonomy.
I feel this article presents estrangement as an ideological framework that inherently disadvantages parents, positioning them in a no-win situation where any attempt at reconciliation is either dismissed, weaponized, or met with further rejection. While there are certainly cases where estranged parents feel trapped in these dynamics, the framing of “Estrangement Ideology” itself seems to assume bad faith on the part of adult children rather than acknowledging the complexities of estranged relationships.
The article frames estrangement as a one-sided power play, with adult children using their autonomy to punish parents. However, estrangement doesn’t happen in a vacuum…there are often real reasons why an adult child chooses to distance themselves. Abuse, neglect, chronic invalidation, or even unresolved generational trauma are legitimate factors that can lead to estrangement. The piece focuses almost entirely on the parent’s frustration with being cut off while ignoring that an adult child’s choice to go No Contact is often a last resort, not an impulsive or ideological move.
The argument that parents have no viable choices in repairing relationships assumes that they should have equal footing in setting the terms of reconciliation. However, in many cases, the parent-child relationship started with a significant power imbalance…the parent had control for most of their child’s life. If harm occurred in childhood, it makes sense that an adult child would want control over the terms of reconnection, especially if trust has been repeatedly broken. Framing this as an unfair "ideological" structure overlooks the reality that trust must be rebuilt on the terms of the harmed party.
One of the most harder aspects of this piece is its portrayal of accountability as "submission." It suggests that parents must "grovel" and "unconditionally accept" all accusations in order to have a relationship again. However, genuine accountability isn't about erasing one's perspective…it's about listening, validating the harm caused, and demonstrating change through action. If an adult child is unwilling to reconnect even after sincere efforts, that may be painful, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are manipulating the situation. It could mean that the harm was too great, or that they no longer feel safe in the relationship.
The article repeatedly claims that No Contact is framed as both "the only acceptable response" and proof that the parent "never cared." This is a contradiction if an adult child values No Contact, they likely don’t want the parent to fight to keep them. The expectation that a parent must chase their child to prove they care implies an entitlement to the relationship, rather than an acknowledgment that respect for boundaries is a form of love. Estrangement is not always about a lack of effort; sometimes, it is about a lack of safety.
It seems to presents estrangement as a systemic problem that victimizes parents, rather than as a deeply personal and often painful decision made by adult children for a variety of reasons. It ignores the valid reasons that lead to estrangement in the first place and reduces the conversation to a battle for control rather than one of healing and boundaries.
A more balanced approach would acknowledge that while some adult children do set rigid or unrealistic terms for reconciliation, estrangement is often the result of deep, unresolved harm. The real challenge isn’t that parents have “no good options” but that healing a fractured relationship requires more than just wanting reconciliation..it requires true self-reflection, accountability, and respect for the other person’s autonomy.
Thank you for taking the time to engage with my work so thoughtfully—I appreciate that you are working through the series and approaching this discussion with nuance. As you rightly point out, estrangement is a deeply painful and complex issue and there are undoubtedly many different perspectives.
This particular article was written primarily with parents in mind, specifically those who find themselves subjected to No Contact regimes and struggling to navigate a situation that often feels like a no-win scenario. That said, I fully acknowledge that there is another side to this—something I have discussed in Part 16: Yes, Some Parents Are Far From Perfect and Part 19: How Estrangement Has Changed. My analysis is not based on mere opinion but on personal experience and an extensive review of estranged child forum conversation threads over the course of some months. The themes I have outlined are not speculative—they are patterns that appear consistently in discussions around estrangement, which I have documented in depth over the course of this ongoing series of articles.
While I agree with some of your points, I would gently challenge a few assumptions:
1. "Estrangement isn’t simply an ideology designed to punish parents."
o My argument is that estrangement has increasingly taken on ideological dimensions, rather than being purely a personal and case-specific decision. The language of therapy culture, the reinforcement of estrangement narratives online and the systemic one-sided framing of parents as inherently responsible for all harm create an environment where estrangement is more readily validated and encouraged than ever before.
2. "The article presents estrangement as a systemic problem that victimises parents."
o The article explores how parents often feel victimised by the rules imposed on them—rules that they did not agree to and do not fully understand, particularly given the generational gap in language and expectations. That does not mean all estranged parents are innocent, but it does highlight how No Contact regimes, as reinforced in online spaces, are often set up as unilateral conditions without room for negotiation or dialogue.
3. "The real challenge isn’t that parents have ‘no good options’ but that healing requires self-reflection, accountability and respect for autonomy."
o I do not dispute that accountability is necessary where real harm has been done. However, the way “doing the work” is framed in these communities often makes it an indefinite and shifting goalpost, where parents are expected to unconditionally accept blame without any opportunity to express their own perspectives or pain. What does "accountability" actually mean? Who defines it? How much is enough? These are critical questions that rarely receive clear answers.
4. "Estrangement is often the result of deep, unresolved harm, not an impulsive or ideological move."
o While some estrangements are undoubtedly necessary due to severe harm, the forum threads also involve many documented cases of misunderstandings, worldview differences, personality conflicts and shifting cultural expectations rather than outright abuse. The online reinforcement of estrangement as a form of self-actualisation plays a role in solidifying decisions that might otherwise have been temporary breaks or conflicts that could have been worked through.
5. "The parent-child relationship started with a significant power imbalance, so adult children should have control over reconciliation terms."
o Yes, parents hold authority in childhood, but we are now talking about people who describe themselves as adults and that entails some expectation of emotional maturity and resilience. The notion that their parents must submit to a rigid set of demands later in life as a form of atonement or retributive justice creates a new power imbalance—one that negates the possibility of mutual repair and shared accountability.
6. "The article suggests accountability means submission."
o As previously discussed, the issue isn’t “accountability” itself, but how it is defined and whether it allows for open, two-way dialogue. As I have documented in Part 2, the dominant framework in estrangement spaces often leaves parents in a position where any response other than total acceptance of blame is framed as further proof of their emotional immaturity or toxicity.
7. "No Contact isn’t about proving parents don’t care; it’s about safety and boundaries."
o In theory, No Contact is presented as an act of self-protection, yet many estranged adult children express deep frustration when parents don’t fight for them after being cut off. This contradiction—expecting parents to persist while enforcing rigid estrangement—reveals the emotional complexity that is often denied in the ideological framing.
I fully respect that your experience may differ and I acknowledge that estrangement is sometimes the only viable option. However, the broader patterns emerging from estrangement communities suggest that the framing of parental accountability is often one-sided and unrealistic, leaving many parents in an impossible position.
I encourage you to continue engaging with my Estrangement Ideology series, as I explore these issues from multiple angles—including the pain felt on both sides of the divide. Looking forward to further discussion!
This article and reply to the commenter both propagate common emotionally immature deflections around estrangement.
Allow me to counterpoint the counterpoint
1. "Estrangement isn’t simply an ideology designed to punish parents."
o Your "argument is that estrangement has increasingly taken on ideological dimensions, rather than being purely a personal and case-specific decision. The language of therapy culture, the reinforcement of estrangement narratives online and the systemic one-sided framing of parents as inherently responsible for all harm create an environment where estrangement is more readily validated and encouraged than ever before."
FALSE: Every case of estrangement is based upon personal and case-specific decisions. There are, however, common themes. Differences of values and beliefs has always been among the reasons for estrangement. Estrangement is in fact, nothing new. It is simply that the communication culture of constant access through phones and social media platforms has made it such that in order to gain distance from dysfunctional family relationships, stronger and more directly communicated boundaries are necessary. There is increasing understanding of what constitutes emotional intelligence and the impact of emotional abuse and neglect, and with that, there is increased awareness of the terminology that surrounds it. Correlating the use of such language as being contributory to estrangement is ignorant. Therapists do not "encourage" estrangement, they guide their clients to the conclusions they need to come to for themselves and what will be healthy for them.
2. "The article presents estrangement as a systemic problem that victimizes parents."
o Your response is that your "article explores how parents often feel victimized by the rules imposed on them—rules that they did not agree to and do not fully understand, particularly given the generational gap in language and expectations. That does not mean all estranged parents are innocent, but it does highlight how No Contact regimes, as reinforced in online spaces, are often set up as unilateral conditions without room for negotiation or dialogue."
AGAIN FALSE: Parents feeling that there are "rules imposed upon them" are again demonstrating their emotional immaturity and their feeling of entitlement to a relationship with their adult children. Quality relationships are based in accountability and repair. In the parent/child relationship, it is the job of the parent to establish the foundation of the relational dynamic and to be attuned to the relational and emotional needs of their child at every age and stage. They are the ones establishing the relational rules. Parents need to be accountable for the impact of their parenting on the unique human on the receiving end of it and to adjust their behaviors as needed to meet their needs. If they continually fail to do so, and if the relational dynamic is one of continual harmful dynamics, then it gets to the point in adulthood where the adult child has to establish what those relational dynamics need to be to maintain relationship. Estrangement happens when those parents are unreceptive to the dialogue. If they had been accountable and attuned all along and had engaged in ongoing relationship maintenance and repair, there would be no need for "rules" because the relationship would have continued to evolve as nourishing and supportive.
3. "The real challenge isn’t that parents have ‘no good options’ but that healing requires self-reflection, accountability and respect for autonomy."
o Your response: "I do not dispute that accountability is necessary where real harm has been done. However, the way “doing the work” is framed in these communities often makes it an indefinite and shifting goalpost, where parents are expected to unconditionally accept blame without any opportunity to express their own perspectives or pain. What does "accountability" actually mean? Who defines it? How much is enough? These are critical questions that rarely receive clear answers."
There is no "indefinite and shifting goalpost." Relationships evolve. Again, they require ongoing maintenance and repair. That is what accountability is. It is having curiosity and responsibility for the impact of your behaviors upon the other party in the relationship. It is acknowledging harm inflicted and changing patterns of harmful behavior. Once things get to the point of estrangement, it has become clear to the adult child that the parent is unwilling or unable to hear their perspective or care about their experience within the relationship. Claiming an inability to define accountability is lazy and, again, emotionally immature/ignorant.
4. "Estrangement is often the result of deep, unresolved harm, not an impulsive or ideological move."
o Your response "While some estrangements are undoubtedly necessary due to severe harm, the forum threads also involve many documented cases of misunderstandings, worldview differences, personality conflicts and shifting cultural expectations rather than outright abuse. The online reinforcement of estrangement as a form of self-actualization plays a role in solidifying decisions that might otherwise have been temporary breaks or conflicts that could have been worked through."
Emotional maltreatment is the most prevalent and most harmful form of childhood maltreatment even on it's own and not accounting for its common co-occurrence with other forms of abuse. Once again, the measuring stick of "severe harm" as being acceptable for estrangement but ongoing unresolved relational conflict as not is emotionally immature and ignorant. The number one reason cited by estranged adult children for going no contact is toxicity, defined as continual situations of hurtfulness, anger, cruelty and disrespect from the parent. It also is usually not the only reason cited but also in combination with emotional abuse/neglect, differences of beliefs and values, etc. In order to "work through" conflict, there has to be that previously mentioned foundation of accountability and repair. That has to be modeled and established by the parent from childhood on. The decision to estrange typically comes at a trigger point, perhaps seemingly minor, but something that represents a unchanging pattern of harmful behavior that becomes untenable.
5. "The parent-child relationship started with a significant power imbalance, so adult children should have control over reconciliation terms."
o Your response" Yes, parents hold authority in childhood, but we are now talking about people who describe themselves as adults and that entails some expectation of emotional maturity and resilience. The notion that their parents must submit to a rigid set of demands later in life as a form of atonement or retributive justice creates a new power imbalance—one that negates the possibility of mutual repair and shared accountability."
Again, the foundation of the relationship dynamic is established and maintained BY THE PARENT. A parent who has never held themselves accountable to their child in childhood is not likely to do so when that child is an adult. They have also not modeled to their child conflict resolution in order to set the stage for those conversations. It is the PARENT who has to relinquish the power dynamic THROUGH - say it again with me - ACCOUNTABILITY - in order for that repair to occur.
6. "The article suggests accountability means submission."
o Your response "As previously discussed, the issue isn’t “accountability” itself, but how it is defined and whether it allows for open, two-way dialogue. As I have documented in Part 2, the dominant framework in estrangement spaces often leaves parents in a position where any response other than total acceptance of blame is framed as further proof of their emotional immaturity or toxicity."
Once again, the establishment of two -way dialogue is modeled by the parent. If that parent has always been resistant to apologizing for how they have hurt their child and if that parent has always refused to change behaviors that have been pointed out to be harmful, that parent is indeed demonstrating emotional immaturity and toxicity.
7. "No Contact isn’t about proving parents don’t care; it’s about safety and boundaries."
o Your response: "In theory, No Contact is presented as an act of self-protection, yet many estranged adult children express deep frustration when parents don’t fight for them after being cut off. This contradiction—expecting parents to persist while enforcing rigid estrangement—reveals the emotional complexity that is often denied in the ideological framing."
Estrangement tends to be a cyclical experience with adult children moving in and out of different levels of contact at different times. Whether that is due to a family circumstance that re-engages contact, an attempt to reconcile driven by personal initiative or through the societal pressures to do so, or an outreach by the parent. Research shows that it is often found by that adult child that nothing in the relationship dynamic has changed and they then go no contact again until eventually it becomes permanent. Of course an adult child wants their parent to "fight" for the relationship and to prove to them that they do indeed care. The wound of having to remove oneself from a parental relationship is deep and permanent. But if that "fight" by the parent is in fact only more of the same denial of the issues or an escalation of harmful behaviors, there is nowhere to go but back to estrangement. There is no denial of "emotional complexity." Trying to minimize estrangement to ideological framing is reductive and deflective. The fact is that estrangement is when the pain of the absence of that parent is less than the pain of their presence.
JM, I appreciate your engagement with the article and your willingness to counterpoint. However, your response heavily relies on the emotional immaturity trope, which Part 9: The Emotional Immaturity Paradox discusses as a rhetorical device used to dismiss and discredit estranged parents' perspectives rather than engage with their concerns. Part 20: The No Contact Double Bind for Parents specifically explores how estranged parents are placed in an impossible situation—any attempt at reconciliation can be framed as overstepping boundaries, while silence is taken as proof that they never cared. Labeling parents as "entitled" for feeling blindsided by unilateral No Contact decisions ignores the very real generational divide in expectations around communication, conflict resolution and emotional language. Evidence from the online forums shows that many of these parents were never given the chance to understand or discuss these so-called "rules" before being cut off, and to suggest that their distress is proof of their own failings only reinforces the one-sided power dynamic explored in Part 3: The One-Sided Path to Redemption. Accountability, when defined only in vague, ever-shifting terms, ceases to be about reconciliation and becomes an arbitrary test of compliance—one that no parent can ever truly "pass." This aspect of parents not being expected to measure up is frequently admitted in the forum threads
The core argument in Part 20 is that estrangement—when framed as an ideological structure rather than a last-resort personal decision—places parents in a no-win scenario, where the path to potential reconciliation is often obscured by rigid demands, conditional engagement, and the expectation that parents must "do the work" without any clear end point. Your assertion that estrangement is always a deeply personal, case-specific decision rather than an ideological shift overlooks the clear cultural and social reinforcements that normalise and encourage it. As Part 17: The Lasting Emotional and Relational Toll on Estranged Adult Children documents, many estranged adult children express lingering resentment, frustration and even pain over their decisions, which suggests that estrangement is not always the simple, rational act of self-protection it is often framed as. The expectation that parents should still “fight” for them after being cut off exposes an unresolved emotional contradiction—one that the ideological framework of estrangement, with its rigid boundaries and therapeutic justifications, often fails to address. Rather than being a final step toward healing, estrangement—particularly when actively encouraged through online communities, as it is—may instead create an unresolved state of emotional limbo, trapping both parties in a cycle of blame rather than resolution. That is the key point I am making in Part 20.
I fully acknowledge that estrangement has always been a reality for some families, but I submit that the way it is understood, framed and enacted has changed dramatically in recent years. As discussed in Part 19: How Estrangement Has Changed, past generations viewed estrangement as a regrettable, private matter—often a last resort for cases of extreme conflict, abuse or irreconcilable differences. In my observation, estrangement has been reframed as a normalised, even celebrated, act of self-liberation. It has been codified through therapy language, reinforced in online communities and increasingly justified as a necessary boundary-setting measure rather than a painful rupture. The shift from viewing estrangement as a personal and unfortunate circumstance to a widely promoted, structured identity has fundamentally altered its meaning and long-term consequences.
Again, many thanks for taking the time to express your comments. I hope the discussion will bring light to many on both sides of this divide.
The "heavy reliance" on emotional immaturity is a reflection of that term being an UMBRELLA under which a number of maladaptive behaviors fall.
Estranged parents demonstrate a lack of empathy or perspective taking for the experience of their child/adult child in the relationship. That is emotional immaturity.
Estranged parents deflect to external factors for the estrangement versus relational-based factors. This is a consistent finding from the body of academic research on estrangement. Deflection is emotional immaturity.
Emotional immaturity captures the behaviors of estranged parents in refusing to reflect upon their patterns of behaviors that create a dysfunctional relationship. It represents their sense of entitlement to a relationship with their children without having to actually put in the emotional labor to build and nurture a healthy one.
Emotional immaturity reflects the common one-directional expectation of "respect" by parents from their children - a term they do not fully understand. They believe "respect" is equivalent to deference and obedience and not the valuing of the other person. They do not demonstrate value or appreciation of their child for who they are leading that adult child to have to walk away to preserve or in some cases begin to build the sense of self that was denied them. That is emotional immaturity.
Emotional (and intellectual) immaturity is reflected in the dismissiveness and reductive positioning by estranged parents of the issues underlying estrangement and is reflective in your arguments in this piece.
Categorizing the use of the term emotional immaturity as a "trope" is a deflection and is a poor argument reflective of intellectual immaturity. A trope is a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression - the use of emotional immaturity in the discussion around estranged parents behavior is neither figurative nor metaphorical. It is factual and used intentionally to reflect the scope of behaviors it represents.
Adult children going no contact are not pursuing something "ideological." That again is either a disingenuous or ignorant position. That argument is again an act of deflection from the core truth of what is underneath estrangement which is a dysfunctional relationship that the parent refuses to acknowledge their foundational role in establishing and perpetuating.
Blaming online communities for any perceived expansion in estrangement is again an ignorant deflection. There are no longitudinal studies showing an increase in estrangement and therefore no causality to attach to that unfounded assertion. Even if there is an increase in estrangement, the "cause" would more likely be due to recognition that the cultural edict that the parent/child bond is inviolable and that it is the child/adult child in that dynamic that must tolerate ongoing harm and dysfunction is invalid. It is the paradox of tolerance - there is recognition that there is no more tolerance for the intolerable.
Estrangement is still highly stigmatized and not openly discussed within one's "real life" social networks. Online communities provide a space for those experiencing estrangement to share their stories and actually FEEL a sense of community within a highly painful and traumatic personal experience. The "language" used is just how any language is used - to reflect shared and understood meaning within the experience. Being seen and heard - something estranged adult children never experienced within their dysfunctional families - is possible within those online spaces. Trying to clap back against those communities is an act of oppression against people speaking their truths and sharing their traumas and finding that they are not alone. It is a an abusive position.
I have no interest in reading any of your other "parts" to your propaganda filled treatise demonstrating ignorance (perhaps intentional or simply truly ignorant) around estrangement. I have read enough to recognize a lack of credibility or good faith intention in its creation.
Perhaps your time would be better spent trying to truly move into a good faith effort to understand the causality from the perspective of those who are the initiators of estrangement vs exemplifying the unproductive deflections of those on the receiving end. In each situation of estrangement, those deflections have only ever served to underscore why the estrangement was necessary in the first place and to exacerbate the dysfunction that the EAC walked away from.
I appreciate you taking the time to engage with my work, and I respect that we have differing perspectives. However, I’d like to clarify a few points.
Your comment relies heavily on circular reasoning, assuming from the outset that all estranged parents exhibit emotional immaturity, and then using that assumption as proof of their emotional immaturity. This does not allow room for alternative explanations—such as misunderstandings, generational differences, or the influence of external framing. Similarly, the idea that any parental disagreement is “deflection” creates an unfalsifiable position where only total agreement with the estranged child’s framing is deemed acceptable. This is not an argument—it’s an ideological assertion.
Additionally, your dismissal of online spaces as a contributing factor contradicts itself. On the one hand, you say there are no longitudinal studies showing an increase in estrangement, yet you also argue that estrangement is increasing due to cultural recognition of familial harm. If no studies exist to measure estrangement’s rise, how can its causes be so confidently asserted?
Finally, personal attacks and outright refusal to engage with further discussion do not serve to strengthen your position. Calling an argument “ignorant” or “propaganda” does not disprove it—it merely shuts down dialogue. I stand by my research and analysis, but I leave it to the readership to decide for themselves whether estrangement ideology is purely a reflection of personal experiences or if it has taken on broader cultural and ideological dimensions.
Your response only further proves and illustrates my points.
I responded to your blanket assertion that emotional immaturity is a trope with explanation of how it is an umbrella term that represents a variety of maladaptive behaviors. Your response here ignores those points entirely and moves into predicable deflections.
No room for alternative explanations such as misunderstandings? Within the realm of emotional immaturity is the inability to address misunderstandings. As already stated, there is the inability of the emotionally immature parent to self reflect, have empathy or see the perspective of the unique human being on the receiving end of their parenting. THAT is where misunderstandings derive. Yet you conveniently ignore the point already made.
You have introduced another deflective argument of "generational differences" without any intelligent discourse as to its relevance on either side of the equation. It again remains the role of the parent to factor generational differences and to be MATURE enough to do so.
Intergenerational trauma and the emotional immaturity of the parent in recognizing or proactively addressing what they experienced and thus carrying those dysfunctional behaviors and mentalities forward into the relationship with their children is another component that again, speaks to the responsibility of the parent within the relationship and not the child/adult child.
I am not surprised that you attempted to distort and misrepresent my discussion around online communities. My commentary is clear and not at all contradictory. There are no longitudinal studies on any trends of increased estrangement. My follow up comment was that IF THERE WERE an increase (as a supposition to the common unproven claim that there IS an increase), the hypothesis would be an attribution to the growing recognition that there is no obligation to endure ongoing, unchanging familial dysfunction.
Calling out intellectual ignorance and fallacies in a treatise on a subject is not a personal attack - it is an evaluation of what you have chosen to present in a public forum and the failure to do so credibly. When you choose to present your views, you are open to evaluation and commentary as the the strength - or weakness - of those views.
I call out propaganda for what it is. It is in fact intended to call out this particular framing of the discourse as unproductive, ignorant and harmful. It is entirely intended to shut it down because it is not helpful to the discourse nor to any actual level of true understanding behind estrangement. Should you change your perspective and produce commentary that is worth engaging in, perhaps there is a dialogue to be had.
Everything you wrote here, Steven, and one thing more. I try to keep in mind that my primary duty, from the start and even today, is to be a responsible parent to my son and a role model to my grandchildren. How then could I allow them to see such tactics as used in estrangement ideology pay off? How do I square being the one who showed them that if you press hard enough people will buckle and self-centered control games will pay off? If my son is mainly responding to his wife's ham-handed plans, if my grandchildren are also victims of emotional terrorism, won't they need someone to model something other than meek submission? Yes, I might get some immediate relief from this estrangement, but what have I done as a parent and grandparent? I may be long gone if and when they reconsider their actions, but I don't want my legacy to be a contribution to any notion that being cruel and self-centered is worthwhile.
Well said.
What you have to do is overhaul your character and apologize in full for what you did wrong and offer specific ways to make it up to them.
But no, you'd rather pretend that you're some kind of hero for refusing to do your part.
No one said anything about being cruel or self-centered, that is you making up a straw man argument so you can knock it down and feel better.
And anyway, which is it? Cruel and self-centered, or meek and submissive? You have stated that fully apologizing would be both of these things. Pick a lane.
Leave it to an abuser to think that apologizing is being submissive. What a twisted, backward thought.
Stop making excuses for being lazy. Fix the relationship. You know how to do it. You've been told. You refuse. The ball is in your court and you are choosing to do this.
You do it to yourself, just you, you and no one else.
This is perfect. Pkease leave this up. It contains all the defensiveness and unfounded assumptions this cult practices.
You're right. It struck me today really strongly that this entire ideological movement is very much like a cult. It really does seem to have all the hallmarks.
While there are certain cult-like features, it lacks many others, such as a charismatic leader. I compare it more to a sub-movement within a larger program aimed at re-engineering society, with the traditional family being seen as a core pillar to be weakened and removed.
Yes. We are living the “Kobayashi Maru” from Star Trek, a no win battle.
Hi Steven!
I haven’t had the opportunity to read through all your Substacks yet, but I’m working on it.
I feel the article does touch on some real struggles estranged parents face:
1. Some estranged adult children do hold rigid, unforgiving views, where no apology or attempt at change is enough.
2.Parents may feel like they are in emotional limbo, unsure of whether they should reach out or remain silent.
3.Reconciliation is often conditional, and those conditions may be difficult or painful for parents to accept.
4.Not all estrangements are due to abuse…some stem from misunderstandings, personality clashes, or societal shifts in how family dynamics are viewed.
These points deserve discussion, but not under the assumption that estrangement is simply an ideology designed to punish parents.
This article presents estrangement as a systemic problem that victimizes parents, rather than as a deeply personal and often painful decision made by adult children for a variety of reasons. It ignores the valid reasons that lead to estrangement in the first place and reduces the conversation to a battle for control rather than one of healing and boundaries.
A more balanced approach would acknowledge that while some adult children do set rigid or unrealistic terms for reconciliation, estrangement is often the result of deep, unresolved harm. The real challenge isn’t that parents have “no good options” but that healing a fractured relationship requires more than just wanting reconciliation—it requires true self-reflection, accountability, and respect for the other person’s autonomy.
I feel this article presents estrangement as an ideological framework that inherently disadvantages parents, positioning them in a no-win situation where any attempt at reconciliation is either dismissed, weaponized, or met with further rejection. While there are certainly cases where estranged parents feel trapped in these dynamics, the framing of “Estrangement Ideology” itself seems to assume bad faith on the part of adult children rather than acknowledging the complexities of estranged relationships.
The article frames estrangement as a one-sided power play, with adult children using their autonomy to punish parents. However, estrangement doesn’t happen in a vacuum…there are often real reasons why an adult child chooses to distance themselves. Abuse, neglect, chronic invalidation, or even unresolved generational trauma are legitimate factors that can lead to estrangement. The piece focuses almost entirely on the parent’s frustration with being cut off while ignoring that an adult child’s choice to go No Contact is often a last resort, not an impulsive or ideological move.
The argument that parents have no viable choices in repairing relationships assumes that they should have equal footing in setting the terms of reconciliation. However, in many cases, the parent-child relationship started with a significant power imbalance…the parent had control for most of their child’s life. If harm occurred in childhood, it makes sense that an adult child would want control over the terms of reconnection, especially if trust has been repeatedly broken. Framing this as an unfair "ideological" structure overlooks the reality that trust must be rebuilt on the terms of the harmed party.
One of the most harder aspects of this piece is its portrayal of accountability as "submission." It suggests that parents must "grovel" and "unconditionally accept" all accusations in order to have a relationship again. However, genuine accountability isn't about erasing one's perspective…it's about listening, validating the harm caused, and demonstrating change through action. If an adult child is unwilling to reconnect even after sincere efforts, that may be painful, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are manipulating the situation. It could mean that the harm was too great, or that they no longer feel safe in the relationship.
The article repeatedly claims that No Contact is framed as both "the only acceptable response" and proof that the parent "never cared." This is a contradiction if an adult child values No Contact, they likely don’t want the parent to fight to keep them. The expectation that a parent must chase their child to prove they care implies an entitlement to the relationship, rather than an acknowledgment that respect for boundaries is a form of love. Estrangement is not always about a lack of effort; sometimes, it is about a lack of safety.
It seems to presents estrangement as a systemic problem that victimizes parents, rather than as a deeply personal and often painful decision made by adult children for a variety of reasons. It ignores the valid reasons that lead to estrangement in the first place and reduces the conversation to a battle for control rather than one of healing and boundaries.
A more balanced approach would acknowledge that while some adult children do set rigid or unrealistic terms for reconciliation, estrangement is often the result of deep, unresolved harm. The real challenge isn’t that parents have “no good options” but that healing a fractured relationship requires more than just wanting reconciliation..it requires true self-reflection, accountability, and respect for the other person’s autonomy.
Hi Carri,
Thank you for taking the time to engage with my work so thoughtfully—I appreciate that you are working through the series and approaching this discussion with nuance. As you rightly point out, estrangement is a deeply painful and complex issue and there are undoubtedly many different perspectives.
This particular article was written primarily with parents in mind, specifically those who find themselves subjected to No Contact regimes and struggling to navigate a situation that often feels like a no-win scenario. That said, I fully acknowledge that there is another side to this—something I have discussed in Part 16: Yes, Some Parents Are Far From Perfect and Part 19: How Estrangement Has Changed. My analysis is not based on mere opinion but on personal experience and an extensive review of estranged child forum conversation threads over the course of some months. The themes I have outlined are not speculative—they are patterns that appear consistently in discussions around estrangement, which I have documented in depth over the course of this ongoing series of articles.
While I agree with some of your points, I would gently challenge a few assumptions:
1. "Estrangement isn’t simply an ideology designed to punish parents."
o My argument is that estrangement has increasingly taken on ideological dimensions, rather than being purely a personal and case-specific decision. The language of therapy culture, the reinforcement of estrangement narratives online and the systemic one-sided framing of parents as inherently responsible for all harm create an environment where estrangement is more readily validated and encouraged than ever before.
2. "The article presents estrangement as a systemic problem that victimises parents."
o The article explores how parents often feel victimised by the rules imposed on them—rules that they did not agree to and do not fully understand, particularly given the generational gap in language and expectations. That does not mean all estranged parents are innocent, but it does highlight how No Contact regimes, as reinforced in online spaces, are often set up as unilateral conditions without room for negotiation or dialogue.
3. "The real challenge isn’t that parents have ‘no good options’ but that healing requires self-reflection, accountability and respect for autonomy."
o I do not dispute that accountability is necessary where real harm has been done. However, the way “doing the work” is framed in these communities often makes it an indefinite and shifting goalpost, where parents are expected to unconditionally accept blame without any opportunity to express their own perspectives or pain. What does "accountability" actually mean? Who defines it? How much is enough? These are critical questions that rarely receive clear answers.
4. "Estrangement is often the result of deep, unresolved harm, not an impulsive or ideological move."
o While some estrangements are undoubtedly necessary due to severe harm, the forum threads also involve many documented cases of misunderstandings, worldview differences, personality conflicts and shifting cultural expectations rather than outright abuse. The online reinforcement of estrangement as a form of self-actualisation plays a role in solidifying decisions that might otherwise have been temporary breaks or conflicts that could have been worked through.
5. "The parent-child relationship started with a significant power imbalance, so adult children should have control over reconciliation terms."
o Yes, parents hold authority in childhood, but we are now talking about people who describe themselves as adults and that entails some expectation of emotional maturity and resilience. The notion that their parents must submit to a rigid set of demands later in life as a form of atonement or retributive justice creates a new power imbalance—one that negates the possibility of mutual repair and shared accountability.
6. "The article suggests accountability means submission."
o As previously discussed, the issue isn’t “accountability” itself, but how it is defined and whether it allows for open, two-way dialogue. As I have documented in Part 2, the dominant framework in estrangement spaces often leaves parents in a position where any response other than total acceptance of blame is framed as further proof of their emotional immaturity or toxicity.
7. "No Contact isn’t about proving parents don’t care; it’s about safety and boundaries."
o In theory, No Contact is presented as an act of self-protection, yet many estranged adult children express deep frustration when parents don’t fight for them after being cut off. This contradiction—expecting parents to persist while enforcing rigid estrangement—reveals the emotional complexity that is often denied in the ideological framing.
I fully respect that your experience may differ and I acknowledge that estrangement is sometimes the only viable option. However, the broader patterns emerging from estrangement communities suggest that the framing of parental accountability is often one-sided and unrealistic, leaving many parents in an impossible position.
I encourage you to continue engaging with my Estrangement Ideology series, as I explore these issues from multiple angles—including the pain felt on both sides of the divide. Looking forward to further discussion!
This article and reply to the commenter both propagate common emotionally immature deflections around estrangement.
Allow me to counterpoint the counterpoint
1. "Estrangement isn’t simply an ideology designed to punish parents."
o Your "argument is that estrangement has increasingly taken on ideological dimensions, rather than being purely a personal and case-specific decision. The language of therapy culture, the reinforcement of estrangement narratives online and the systemic one-sided framing of parents as inherently responsible for all harm create an environment where estrangement is more readily validated and encouraged than ever before."
FALSE: Every case of estrangement is based upon personal and case-specific decisions. There are, however, common themes. Differences of values and beliefs has always been among the reasons for estrangement. Estrangement is in fact, nothing new. It is simply that the communication culture of constant access through phones and social media platforms has made it such that in order to gain distance from dysfunctional family relationships, stronger and more directly communicated boundaries are necessary. There is increasing understanding of what constitutes emotional intelligence and the impact of emotional abuse and neglect, and with that, there is increased awareness of the terminology that surrounds it. Correlating the use of such language as being contributory to estrangement is ignorant. Therapists do not "encourage" estrangement, they guide their clients to the conclusions they need to come to for themselves and what will be healthy for them.
2. "The article presents estrangement as a systemic problem that victimizes parents."
o Your response is that your "article explores how parents often feel victimized by the rules imposed on them—rules that they did not agree to and do not fully understand, particularly given the generational gap in language and expectations. That does not mean all estranged parents are innocent, but it does highlight how No Contact regimes, as reinforced in online spaces, are often set up as unilateral conditions without room for negotiation or dialogue."
AGAIN FALSE: Parents feeling that there are "rules imposed upon them" are again demonstrating their emotional immaturity and their feeling of entitlement to a relationship with their adult children. Quality relationships are based in accountability and repair. In the parent/child relationship, it is the job of the parent to establish the foundation of the relational dynamic and to be attuned to the relational and emotional needs of their child at every age and stage. They are the ones establishing the relational rules. Parents need to be accountable for the impact of their parenting on the unique human on the receiving end of it and to adjust their behaviors as needed to meet their needs. If they continually fail to do so, and if the relational dynamic is one of continual harmful dynamics, then it gets to the point in adulthood where the adult child has to establish what those relational dynamics need to be to maintain relationship. Estrangement happens when those parents are unreceptive to the dialogue. If they had been accountable and attuned all along and had engaged in ongoing relationship maintenance and repair, there would be no need for "rules" because the relationship would have continued to evolve as nourishing and supportive.
3. "The real challenge isn’t that parents have ‘no good options’ but that healing requires self-reflection, accountability and respect for autonomy."
o Your response: "I do not dispute that accountability is necessary where real harm has been done. However, the way “doing the work” is framed in these communities often makes it an indefinite and shifting goalpost, where parents are expected to unconditionally accept blame without any opportunity to express their own perspectives or pain. What does "accountability" actually mean? Who defines it? How much is enough? These are critical questions that rarely receive clear answers."
There is no "indefinite and shifting goalpost." Relationships evolve. Again, they require ongoing maintenance and repair. That is what accountability is. It is having curiosity and responsibility for the impact of your behaviors upon the other party in the relationship. It is acknowledging harm inflicted and changing patterns of harmful behavior. Once things get to the point of estrangement, it has become clear to the adult child that the parent is unwilling or unable to hear their perspective or care about their experience within the relationship. Claiming an inability to define accountability is lazy and, again, emotionally immature/ignorant.
4. "Estrangement is often the result of deep, unresolved harm, not an impulsive or ideological move."
o Your response "While some estrangements are undoubtedly necessary due to severe harm, the forum threads also involve many documented cases of misunderstandings, worldview differences, personality conflicts and shifting cultural expectations rather than outright abuse. The online reinforcement of estrangement as a form of self-actualization plays a role in solidifying decisions that might otherwise have been temporary breaks or conflicts that could have been worked through."
Emotional maltreatment is the most prevalent and most harmful form of childhood maltreatment even on it's own and not accounting for its common co-occurrence with other forms of abuse. Once again, the measuring stick of "severe harm" as being acceptable for estrangement but ongoing unresolved relational conflict as not is emotionally immature and ignorant. The number one reason cited by estranged adult children for going no contact is toxicity, defined as continual situations of hurtfulness, anger, cruelty and disrespect from the parent. It also is usually not the only reason cited but also in combination with emotional abuse/neglect, differences of beliefs and values, etc. In order to "work through" conflict, there has to be that previously mentioned foundation of accountability and repair. That has to be modeled and established by the parent from childhood on. The decision to estrange typically comes at a trigger point, perhaps seemingly minor, but something that represents a unchanging pattern of harmful behavior that becomes untenable.
5. "The parent-child relationship started with a significant power imbalance, so adult children should have control over reconciliation terms."
o Your response" Yes, parents hold authority in childhood, but we are now talking about people who describe themselves as adults and that entails some expectation of emotional maturity and resilience. The notion that their parents must submit to a rigid set of demands later in life as a form of atonement or retributive justice creates a new power imbalance—one that negates the possibility of mutual repair and shared accountability."
Again, the foundation of the relationship dynamic is established and maintained BY THE PARENT. A parent who has never held themselves accountable to their child in childhood is not likely to do so when that child is an adult. They have also not modeled to their child conflict resolution in order to set the stage for those conversations. It is the PARENT who has to relinquish the power dynamic THROUGH - say it again with me - ACCOUNTABILITY - in order for that repair to occur.
6. "The article suggests accountability means submission."
o Your response "As previously discussed, the issue isn’t “accountability” itself, but how it is defined and whether it allows for open, two-way dialogue. As I have documented in Part 2, the dominant framework in estrangement spaces often leaves parents in a position where any response other than total acceptance of blame is framed as further proof of their emotional immaturity or toxicity."
Once again, the establishment of two -way dialogue is modeled by the parent. If that parent has always been resistant to apologizing for how they have hurt their child and if that parent has always refused to change behaviors that have been pointed out to be harmful, that parent is indeed demonstrating emotional immaturity and toxicity.
7. "No Contact isn’t about proving parents don’t care; it’s about safety and boundaries."
o Your response: "In theory, No Contact is presented as an act of self-protection, yet many estranged adult children express deep frustration when parents don’t fight for them after being cut off. This contradiction—expecting parents to persist while enforcing rigid estrangement—reveals the emotional complexity that is often denied in the ideological framing."
Estrangement tends to be a cyclical experience with adult children moving in and out of different levels of contact at different times. Whether that is due to a family circumstance that re-engages contact, an attempt to reconcile driven by personal initiative or through the societal pressures to do so, or an outreach by the parent. Research shows that it is often found by that adult child that nothing in the relationship dynamic has changed and they then go no contact again until eventually it becomes permanent. Of course an adult child wants their parent to "fight" for the relationship and to prove to them that they do indeed care. The wound of having to remove oneself from a parental relationship is deep and permanent. But if that "fight" by the parent is in fact only more of the same denial of the issues or an escalation of harmful behaviors, there is nowhere to go but back to estrangement. There is no denial of "emotional complexity." Trying to minimize estrangement to ideological framing is reductive and deflective. The fact is that estrangement is when the pain of the absence of that parent is less than the pain of their presence.
JM, I appreciate your engagement with the article and your willingness to counterpoint. However, your response heavily relies on the emotional immaturity trope, which Part 9: The Emotional Immaturity Paradox discusses as a rhetorical device used to dismiss and discredit estranged parents' perspectives rather than engage with their concerns. Part 20: The No Contact Double Bind for Parents specifically explores how estranged parents are placed in an impossible situation—any attempt at reconciliation can be framed as overstepping boundaries, while silence is taken as proof that they never cared. Labeling parents as "entitled" for feeling blindsided by unilateral No Contact decisions ignores the very real generational divide in expectations around communication, conflict resolution and emotional language. Evidence from the online forums shows that many of these parents were never given the chance to understand or discuss these so-called "rules" before being cut off, and to suggest that their distress is proof of their own failings only reinforces the one-sided power dynamic explored in Part 3: The One-Sided Path to Redemption. Accountability, when defined only in vague, ever-shifting terms, ceases to be about reconciliation and becomes an arbitrary test of compliance—one that no parent can ever truly "pass." This aspect of parents not being expected to measure up is frequently admitted in the forum threads
The core argument in Part 20 is that estrangement—when framed as an ideological structure rather than a last-resort personal decision—places parents in a no-win scenario, where the path to potential reconciliation is often obscured by rigid demands, conditional engagement, and the expectation that parents must "do the work" without any clear end point. Your assertion that estrangement is always a deeply personal, case-specific decision rather than an ideological shift overlooks the clear cultural and social reinforcements that normalise and encourage it. As Part 17: The Lasting Emotional and Relational Toll on Estranged Adult Children documents, many estranged adult children express lingering resentment, frustration and even pain over their decisions, which suggests that estrangement is not always the simple, rational act of self-protection it is often framed as. The expectation that parents should still “fight” for them after being cut off exposes an unresolved emotional contradiction—one that the ideological framework of estrangement, with its rigid boundaries and therapeutic justifications, often fails to address. Rather than being a final step toward healing, estrangement—particularly when actively encouraged through online communities, as it is—may instead create an unresolved state of emotional limbo, trapping both parties in a cycle of blame rather than resolution. That is the key point I am making in Part 20.
I fully acknowledge that estrangement has always been a reality for some families, but I submit that the way it is understood, framed and enacted has changed dramatically in recent years. As discussed in Part 19: How Estrangement Has Changed, past generations viewed estrangement as a regrettable, private matter—often a last resort for cases of extreme conflict, abuse or irreconcilable differences. In my observation, estrangement has been reframed as a normalised, even celebrated, act of self-liberation. It has been codified through therapy language, reinforced in online communities and increasingly justified as a necessary boundary-setting measure rather than a painful rupture. The shift from viewing estrangement as a personal and unfortunate circumstance to a widely promoted, structured identity has fundamentally altered its meaning and long-term consequences.
Again, many thanks for taking the time to express your comments. I hope the discussion will bring light to many on both sides of this divide.
The "heavy reliance" on emotional immaturity is a reflection of that term being an UMBRELLA under which a number of maladaptive behaviors fall.
Estranged parents demonstrate a lack of empathy or perspective taking for the experience of their child/adult child in the relationship. That is emotional immaturity.
Estranged parents deflect to external factors for the estrangement versus relational-based factors. This is a consistent finding from the body of academic research on estrangement. Deflection is emotional immaturity.
Emotional immaturity captures the behaviors of estranged parents in refusing to reflect upon their patterns of behaviors that create a dysfunctional relationship. It represents their sense of entitlement to a relationship with their children without having to actually put in the emotional labor to build and nurture a healthy one.
Emotional immaturity reflects the common one-directional expectation of "respect" by parents from their children - a term they do not fully understand. They believe "respect" is equivalent to deference and obedience and not the valuing of the other person. They do not demonstrate value or appreciation of their child for who they are leading that adult child to have to walk away to preserve or in some cases begin to build the sense of self that was denied them. That is emotional immaturity.
Emotional (and intellectual) immaturity is reflected in the dismissiveness and reductive positioning by estranged parents of the issues underlying estrangement and is reflective in your arguments in this piece.
Categorizing the use of the term emotional immaturity as a "trope" is a deflection and is a poor argument reflective of intellectual immaturity. A trope is a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression - the use of emotional immaturity in the discussion around estranged parents behavior is neither figurative nor metaphorical. It is factual and used intentionally to reflect the scope of behaviors it represents.
Adult children going no contact are not pursuing something "ideological." That again is either a disingenuous or ignorant position. That argument is again an act of deflection from the core truth of what is underneath estrangement which is a dysfunctional relationship that the parent refuses to acknowledge their foundational role in establishing and perpetuating.
Blaming online communities for any perceived expansion in estrangement is again an ignorant deflection. There are no longitudinal studies showing an increase in estrangement and therefore no causality to attach to that unfounded assertion. Even if there is an increase in estrangement, the "cause" would more likely be due to recognition that the cultural edict that the parent/child bond is inviolable and that it is the child/adult child in that dynamic that must tolerate ongoing harm and dysfunction is invalid. It is the paradox of tolerance - there is recognition that there is no more tolerance for the intolerable.
Estrangement is still highly stigmatized and not openly discussed within one's "real life" social networks. Online communities provide a space for those experiencing estrangement to share their stories and actually FEEL a sense of community within a highly painful and traumatic personal experience. The "language" used is just how any language is used - to reflect shared and understood meaning within the experience. Being seen and heard - something estranged adult children never experienced within their dysfunctional families - is possible within those online spaces. Trying to clap back against those communities is an act of oppression against people speaking their truths and sharing their traumas and finding that they are not alone. It is a an abusive position.
I have no interest in reading any of your other "parts" to your propaganda filled treatise demonstrating ignorance (perhaps intentional or simply truly ignorant) around estrangement. I have read enough to recognize a lack of credibility or good faith intention in its creation.
Perhaps your time would be better spent trying to truly move into a good faith effort to understand the causality from the perspective of those who are the initiators of estrangement vs exemplifying the unproductive deflections of those on the receiving end. In each situation of estrangement, those deflections have only ever served to underscore why the estrangement was necessary in the first place and to exacerbate the dysfunction that the EAC walked away from.
Hi JM,
I appreciate you taking the time to engage with my work, and I respect that we have differing perspectives. However, I’d like to clarify a few points.
Your comment relies heavily on circular reasoning, assuming from the outset that all estranged parents exhibit emotional immaturity, and then using that assumption as proof of their emotional immaturity. This does not allow room for alternative explanations—such as misunderstandings, generational differences, or the influence of external framing. Similarly, the idea that any parental disagreement is “deflection” creates an unfalsifiable position where only total agreement with the estranged child’s framing is deemed acceptable. This is not an argument—it’s an ideological assertion.
Additionally, your dismissal of online spaces as a contributing factor contradicts itself. On the one hand, you say there are no longitudinal studies showing an increase in estrangement, yet you also argue that estrangement is increasing due to cultural recognition of familial harm. If no studies exist to measure estrangement’s rise, how can its causes be so confidently asserted?
Finally, personal attacks and outright refusal to engage with further discussion do not serve to strengthen your position. Calling an argument “ignorant” or “propaganda” does not disprove it—it merely shuts down dialogue. I stand by my research and analysis, but I leave it to the readership to decide for themselves whether estrangement ideology is purely a reflection of personal experiences or if it has taken on broader cultural and ideological dimensions.
Your response only further proves and illustrates my points.
I responded to your blanket assertion that emotional immaturity is a trope with explanation of how it is an umbrella term that represents a variety of maladaptive behaviors. Your response here ignores those points entirely and moves into predicable deflections.
No room for alternative explanations such as misunderstandings? Within the realm of emotional immaturity is the inability to address misunderstandings. As already stated, there is the inability of the emotionally immature parent to self reflect, have empathy or see the perspective of the unique human being on the receiving end of their parenting. THAT is where misunderstandings derive. Yet you conveniently ignore the point already made.
You have introduced another deflective argument of "generational differences" without any intelligent discourse as to its relevance on either side of the equation. It again remains the role of the parent to factor generational differences and to be MATURE enough to do so.
Intergenerational trauma and the emotional immaturity of the parent in recognizing or proactively addressing what they experienced and thus carrying those dysfunctional behaviors and mentalities forward into the relationship with their children is another component that again, speaks to the responsibility of the parent within the relationship and not the child/adult child.
I am not surprised that you attempted to distort and misrepresent my discussion around online communities. My commentary is clear and not at all contradictory. There are no longitudinal studies on any trends of increased estrangement. My follow up comment was that IF THERE WERE an increase (as a supposition to the common unproven claim that there IS an increase), the hypothesis would be an attribution to the growing recognition that there is no obligation to endure ongoing, unchanging familial dysfunction.
Calling out intellectual ignorance and fallacies in a treatise on a subject is not a personal attack - it is an evaluation of what you have chosen to present in a public forum and the failure to do so credibly. When you choose to present your views, you are open to evaluation and commentary as the the strength - or weakness - of those views.
I call out propaganda for what it is. It is in fact intended to call out this particular framing of the discourse as unproductive, ignorant and harmful. It is entirely intended to shut it down because it is not helpful to the discourse nor to any actual level of true understanding behind estrangement. Should you change your perspective and produce commentary that is worth engaging in, perhaps there is a dialogue to be had.
Many thanks for your story, Amanda. So many in the same position.
Abuse of other users of the forum won't be tolerated.
Have fun never meeting your grandkids strikes me as a very cruel statement.
Thank you for restating TLG's "sUsPeNdEddddd" comment.