Your article misrepresents the concept of "Flying Monkeys" and oversimplifies the reality of estrangement. First, Flying Monkeys are people who minimize or dismiss the valid reasons for estrangement, whether they fully understand the situation or not. And a parent doesn’t have to be a narcissist to have Flying Monkeys acting on their behalf. Plenty of estranged parents are not diagnosable narcissists, but they may still be controlling, emotionally neglectful, dismissive, or otherwise harmful in ways that justified estrangement. Flying Monkeys step in to defend these parents, sometimes believing they are helping, but often ignoring or downplaying the real harm that led to estrangement in the first place. Some do this because they don’t know the full story; others because they don’t think the issues are "bad enough" to justify estrangement; and some simply believe that the "family unit" matters more than an individual’s well-being. None of this requires the parent to be a narcissist, only that they have people willing to advocate for them, regardless of whether they deserve it.
Second, you downplay the gravity of estrangement, as if it’s a rash decision rather than the result of years of unresolved harm. Most estranged adults don’t arrive at this choice lightly. It often follows repeated mistreatment, manipulation, or a pattern of toxic behavior. Attempts at “reconciliation” from Flying Monkeys frequently ignore the estranged person’s perspective, pushing for reunion at any cost rather than addressing the real issues of why a person becomes estranged in the first place.
You seem to believe that estranged individuals are being manipulated into an "ideology of estrangement" rather than making rational, independent decisions. You portray estrangement as a movement that people are pressured into, rather than a response to real, personal experiences. This minimizes the pain and complexity of estrangement and paints estranged people as unthinking followers of pop-psychology trends rather than individuals who have made hard, painful choices.
Thank you for your comment and for sharing your perspective on the term “Flying Monkeys.” Your clarification of the term, particularly that it does not require the parent to be a narcissist—although that clearly falls out of the Wizard of Oz metaphor—but rather reflects how some individuals dismiss or minimise the reasons for estrangement, is a valuable addition to the discussion. Your explanation provides a useful alternative understanding that may help readers who are engaging with different interpretations of estrangement dynamics.
The article critiques how the term "Flying Monkeys" is often used within estrangement discourse to classify those who intervene on behalf of the object of estrangement actions. However, your perspective highlights that for some, the term applies not simply to those who encourage reconciliation, but to those who actively dismiss the experiences of the estranged individual. This distinction is important and helps to broaden the conversation.
I appreciate your insights and welcome further discussion from readers engaging with both perspectives. Thank you for contributing to the dialogue!
Your article misrepresents the concept of "Flying Monkeys" and oversimplifies the reality of estrangement. First, Flying Monkeys are people who minimize or dismiss the valid reasons for estrangement, whether they fully understand the situation or not. And a parent doesn’t have to be a narcissist to have Flying Monkeys acting on their behalf. Plenty of estranged parents are not diagnosable narcissists, but they may still be controlling, emotionally neglectful, dismissive, or otherwise harmful in ways that justified estrangement. Flying Monkeys step in to defend these parents, sometimes believing they are helping, but often ignoring or downplaying the real harm that led to estrangement in the first place. Some do this because they don’t know the full story; others because they don’t think the issues are "bad enough" to justify estrangement; and some simply believe that the "family unit" matters more than an individual’s well-being. None of this requires the parent to be a narcissist, only that they have people willing to advocate for them, regardless of whether they deserve it.
Second, you downplay the gravity of estrangement, as if it’s a rash decision rather than the result of years of unresolved harm. Most estranged adults don’t arrive at this choice lightly. It often follows repeated mistreatment, manipulation, or a pattern of toxic behavior. Attempts at “reconciliation” from Flying Monkeys frequently ignore the estranged person’s perspective, pushing for reunion at any cost rather than addressing the real issues of why a person becomes estranged in the first place.
You seem to believe that estranged individuals are being manipulated into an "ideology of estrangement" rather than making rational, independent decisions. You portray estrangement as a movement that people are pressured into, rather than a response to real, personal experiences. This minimizes the pain and complexity of estrangement and paints estranged people as unthinking followers of pop-psychology trends rather than individuals who have made hard, painful choices.
Hi Hilda,
Thank you for your comment and for sharing your perspective on the term “Flying Monkeys.” Your clarification of the term, particularly that it does not require the parent to be a narcissist—although that clearly falls out of the Wizard of Oz metaphor—but rather reflects how some individuals dismiss or minimise the reasons for estrangement, is a valuable addition to the discussion. Your explanation provides a useful alternative understanding that may help readers who are engaging with different interpretations of estrangement dynamics.
The article critiques how the term "Flying Monkeys" is often used within estrangement discourse to classify those who intervene on behalf of the object of estrangement actions. However, your perspective highlights that for some, the term applies not simply to those who encourage reconciliation, but to those who actively dismiss the experiences of the estranged individual. This distinction is important and helps to broaden the conversation.
I appreciate your insights and welcome further discussion from readers engaging with both perspectives. Thank you for contributing to the dialogue!