We teach our children to be kind. They now think that they are being kind to themselves by expecting pure emotional safety in all relationships. Anything else is abusive.
Yes, online communities have undermined parent-child relationships, but I feel that the greatest damage has been done by 'new thought' therapists who counsel that any criticism/uncomfortable dialogue is abuse. If somehow some of these therapists could change their approach, then reconciliation could be possible.
There's an element in modern therapy culture that is certainly a major factor, it informs media and is strongly reflected in online forum discussions and narratives. Many therapists seem to also have the presumption of abuse so that a client presents --> is assumed to be broken --> someone broke him or her --> first in line is parents --> find childhood abuse --> demand accountability and apology --> denials or failure to satisfy --> self protection. I have a couple of articles in the series on the role of therapists—see Parts 4 and 25.
The estranged adult child seeks self protection via estrangement. So, if this closed circle is 'opened' via an apology for " perceived wrongs/ blindspots", then the parent has an opportunity to have a relationship and change the narrative over time. It is not fair to many parents who have lovingly, but imperfectly parented, but if the goal is to reconcile, justice and fairness is secondary.
"They now think that they are being kind to themselves by expecting pure emotional safety in all relationships"
Yes, psycho. All relationships should be emotionally safe. You just revealed *way* more about yourself than you meant to. You have absolutely no idea how you look. It's obvious why your offpsring do not contact you. Have fun dying alone.
The internet is not reality. You can say anything and be anything and becomes real. Like photo shop. I can look 25 in a bikini at 60.....SCARY. No matter how fit (not my case) but the point is the forums are a tool of escape and denial, deflection and constant pain aiding.
The framing of estrangement forums as manipulative and ideologically rigid overlooks the primary reason why people join these spaces: support. Many estranged individuals turn to these forums because they feel unheard, invalidated, or gaslit by their families and larger society, which tends to prioritize family unity over individual wellbeing. Dismissing the validation provided by these spaces as mere “emotional reassurance loops” ignores the fact that for many, this validation is the first time their experiences have been acknowledged and understood.
Additionally, the characterization of these forums as discouraging reconciliation is an oversimplification. While some members may be firmly against reconciliation, others use these spaces to process their experiences and set boundaries before deciding on next steps. The focus on "No Contact" as an ideological position ignores the reality that for some individuals, estrangement is the safest or healthiest option.
As you know, I’m someone who has “chosen” estrangement, though I use that term loosely. Unlike those who turn to online forums, I turned inward and sought therapeutic help in many forms. I was fortunate in that I didn’t encounter the so-called “social media therapist” on my journey. Instead, I navigated this process with the support of my husband and close friends, only making my situation public recently.
It never occurred to me to seek out estrangement forums, but reading about them now, I can see how easy it would be for someone in a vulnerable emotional state to replace one form of control with another. Ironically, for people who claim to have escaped “toxic” or “abusive” parental control, many seem to have traded one set of rigid expectations for another. These forums impose new, unspoken rules: any doubt about estrangement is framed as backsliding, and any attempt at reconciliation is met with suspicion or outright hostility.
It’s as if these individuals have merely exchanged one dogma for another one that dictates strict emotional distancing, unquestioning loyalty to the group’s narrative, and rejection of any alternative perspectives. While I hesitate to use the word “cult” (a term that has become another overused buzzword), the dynamics at play resemble some of the psychological mechanisms seen in highly insular communities. The emphasis on total separation, moral purity, and reinforcement of a singular narrative leaves little room for personal growth, healing, or even genuine emotional independence.
The article claims that estrangement forums foster a moral superiority complex and a victim/oppressor dynamic, making reconciliation nearly impossible. While it’s true that some people may develop a rigid view of their estranged family members, this is not unique to online spaces. It is a natural response to long-term emotional pain and trauma. Furthermore, estranged individuals are often met with societal pressure to “forgive and forget,” making it necessary f r these forums to provide a strong counter-narrative that reaffirms their right to set boundaries.
However, the rigid ideological structure of these forums can create an environment where estrangement becomes more than a personal choice and it becomes an identity. Members who once resented their parents for dictating how they should feel now accept a new set of rules about what their emotions “should” be. Doubt and grief are dismissed as manipulation, and reconciliation is framed as a sign of weakness. Instead of helping people process their pain and move forward in a way that works for them as individuals, these spaces sometimes demand continued estrangement as proof of personal strength and healing.
The idea that estranged individuals are being "trapped" in these communities dismisses the fact that many people find peace and healing through estrangement, even if it is difficult.
That said, what does it mean when a space that claims to offer “healing” and “freedom” discourages independent thought? When people feel afraid to express doubts or challenge group norms, it suggests that they have simply found a new source of emotional control. Instead of reflecting on their past relationships and deciding for themselves what role, if any, their family should have in their lives, they are met with rigid, pre-packaged answers that remove any ambiguity.
Social media (and I include Substack in this) can be quite helpful and it can provide insight, validation, and even a sense of community. But it can also create an echo chamber on the other end. Too much of something is always a bad thing, and currently, we live in a highly divisive world that doesn’t allow for differences. I can absolutely agree with that.
The problem isn’t just with estrangement forums; it’s with the way online communities function in general. Whether we’re talking about estrangement, political ideology, or even health and wellness spaces, the internet encourages black-and-white thinking. You’re either on one side or the other, and once you’ve committed to a particular viewpoint, questioning it becomes a form of betrayal. This is exactly what you see happening in estrangement forums once someone embraces “No Contact,” any reconsideration is framed as emotional weakness or manipulation.
However, if these spaces truly aim to support personal growth and healing, they should also encourage open discussion, self-reflection, and the freedom to reconsider estrangement without fear of judgment. Otherwise, they risk becoming just another controlling force in the lives of people who were trying to escape precisely that.
Hi Carri, Your nuanced perspective highlights the dual reality of estrangement forums: while they undeniably offer useful validation to individuals who need it, their rigidity can be seen to mirror the very controlling dynamics users seek to escape. Ultimately, genuine healing requires spaces that affirm personal autonomy, encourage self-reflection and remain open to diverse paths forward—including realistic pathways ways to reconciliation when it aligns with individual wellbeing. Their closed echo chamber dynamics and tendency to take a highly oppositional stance to parents, whose attempts to reconcile—clumsy and ill-conceived as they may be—are publicly picked apart and vilified tends to make this highly unlikely.
Since you have a lot of experience in these groups, I trust your perspective. It also seems like some individuals are projecting their own trauma onto others simply to avoid feeling alone. I think our society struggles with solitude and many people can’t sit with their emotions and process them independently; instead, they seek out others to validate their pain and reinforce their grievances rather than work through them.
Our entire system is designed to isolate and alienate, it produces not communities of people but isolated consumers, not independent strong people but categories of victims. In the end of this process there will only be the individual and the State. Much like in Logan's Run...
You make an interesting point about the modern system fostering isolation and alienation rather than genuine communities. There’s definitely a shift toward individualism, but not necessarily in the empowering sense it’s more in the sense of fragmentation, where people are disconnected from traditional support structures and increasingly dependent on external forces, whether that’s the state, corporations, or curated online communities like you’ve experienced.
The idea that we’re being funneled into categories of victims rather than strong, independent individuals is worth considering. Victimhood, when turned into an identity rather than a stage in healing, can be a powerful tool for control both politically and socially (I speak from an American perspective on this). If people see themselves primarily as victims, they are less likely to challenge the system itself, instead directing their grievances at one another.
The dystopian novels from the 60s really were getting at something. Logan’s Run, for example, presents a world where society maintains order by eliminating anyone who reaches a certain age, ensuring compliance and uniformity. While we may not be dealing with literal extermination, there’s certainly a parallel in how people are encouraged to self-isolate, self-police, and align themselves with rigid ideological frameworks rather than forming strong, organic communities.
I’ve personally related more to the Dune series (one of my favorite novels) especially after spending the last 12 years in the Middle East. Dune captures not only the themes of control and survival but also the resilience found in tightly bonded communities that operate outside of state influence. The Fremen’s ability to resist domination through collective strength and adaptation stands in stark contrast to the kind of fragmentation we see in today’s societies, where people are kept isolated and dependent rather than empowered through real connections.
The question then becomes: How do we push back against this? How do we cultivate real independence and meaningful relationships instead of falling into the system’s trap of isolation and controlled victimhood?
My husband was a government program evaluator, I did decades of real community organizing on controversial issues. We like to describe the public engagement as building networks not communities.
Estrangement Ideology is very cult-like. And, as in the most successful cults, the pain of belonging and adhering becomes not a drawback, but a reinforcement.
Feels like these estrangement forums are some sort of cult.
There are certainly a number features that align with cult behaviour.
Worshipping constructed identity, failing to integrate ambivalent feelings.
We teach our children to be kind. They now think that they are being kind to themselves by expecting pure emotional safety in all relationships. Anything else is abusive.
Yes, online communities have undermined parent-child relationships, but I feel that the greatest damage has been done by 'new thought' therapists who counsel that any criticism/uncomfortable dialogue is abuse. If somehow some of these therapists could change their approach, then reconciliation could be possible.
There's an element in modern therapy culture that is certainly a major factor, it informs media and is strongly reflected in online forum discussions and narratives. Many therapists seem to also have the presumption of abuse so that a client presents --> is assumed to be broken --> someone broke him or her --> first in line is parents --> find childhood abuse --> demand accountability and apology --> denials or failure to satisfy --> self protection. I have a couple of articles in the series on the role of therapists—see Parts 4 and 25.
It's almost always the victim seeking therapy, not the abuser. Check the stats and stop lying.
The estranged adult child seeks self protection via estrangement. So, if this closed circle is 'opened' via an apology for " perceived wrongs/ blindspots", then the parent has an opportunity to have a relationship and change the narrative over time. It is not fair to many parents who have lovingly, but imperfectly parented, but if the goal is to reconcile, justice and fairness is secondary.
Thank you. Well- covered.
"They now think that they are being kind to themselves by expecting pure emotional safety in all relationships"
Yes, psycho. All relationships should be emotionally safe. You just revealed *way* more about yourself than you meant to. You have absolutely no idea how you look. It's obvious why your offpsring do not contact you. Have fun dying alone.
The internet is not reality. You can say anything and be anything and becomes real. Like photo shop. I can look 25 in a bikini at 60.....SCARY. No matter how fit (not my case) but the point is the forums are a tool of escape and denial, deflection and constant pain aiding.
The framing of estrangement forums as manipulative and ideologically rigid overlooks the primary reason why people join these spaces: support. Many estranged individuals turn to these forums because they feel unheard, invalidated, or gaslit by their families and larger society, which tends to prioritize family unity over individual wellbeing. Dismissing the validation provided by these spaces as mere “emotional reassurance loops” ignores the fact that for many, this validation is the first time their experiences have been acknowledged and understood.
Additionally, the characterization of these forums as discouraging reconciliation is an oversimplification. While some members may be firmly against reconciliation, others use these spaces to process their experiences and set boundaries before deciding on next steps. The focus on "No Contact" as an ideological position ignores the reality that for some individuals, estrangement is the safest or healthiest option.
As you know, I’m someone who has “chosen” estrangement, though I use that term loosely. Unlike those who turn to online forums, I turned inward and sought therapeutic help in many forms. I was fortunate in that I didn’t encounter the so-called “social media therapist” on my journey. Instead, I navigated this process with the support of my husband and close friends, only making my situation public recently.
It never occurred to me to seek out estrangement forums, but reading about them now, I can see how easy it would be for someone in a vulnerable emotional state to replace one form of control with another. Ironically, for people who claim to have escaped “toxic” or “abusive” parental control, many seem to have traded one set of rigid expectations for another. These forums impose new, unspoken rules: any doubt about estrangement is framed as backsliding, and any attempt at reconciliation is met with suspicion or outright hostility.
It’s as if these individuals have merely exchanged one dogma for another one that dictates strict emotional distancing, unquestioning loyalty to the group’s narrative, and rejection of any alternative perspectives. While I hesitate to use the word “cult” (a term that has become another overused buzzword), the dynamics at play resemble some of the psychological mechanisms seen in highly insular communities. The emphasis on total separation, moral purity, and reinforcement of a singular narrative leaves little room for personal growth, healing, or even genuine emotional independence.
The article claims that estrangement forums foster a moral superiority complex and a victim/oppressor dynamic, making reconciliation nearly impossible. While it’s true that some people may develop a rigid view of their estranged family members, this is not unique to online spaces. It is a natural response to long-term emotional pain and trauma. Furthermore, estranged individuals are often met with societal pressure to “forgive and forget,” making it necessary f r these forums to provide a strong counter-narrative that reaffirms their right to set boundaries.
However, the rigid ideological structure of these forums can create an environment where estrangement becomes more than a personal choice and it becomes an identity. Members who once resented their parents for dictating how they should feel now accept a new set of rules about what their emotions “should” be. Doubt and grief are dismissed as manipulation, and reconciliation is framed as a sign of weakness. Instead of helping people process their pain and move forward in a way that works for them as individuals, these spaces sometimes demand continued estrangement as proof of personal strength and healing.
The idea that estranged individuals are being "trapped" in these communities dismisses the fact that many people find peace and healing through estrangement, even if it is difficult.
That said, what does it mean when a space that claims to offer “healing” and “freedom” discourages independent thought? When people feel afraid to express doubts or challenge group norms, it suggests that they have simply found a new source of emotional control. Instead of reflecting on their past relationships and deciding for themselves what role, if any, their family should have in their lives, they are met with rigid, pre-packaged answers that remove any ambiguity.
Social media (and I include Substack in this) can be quite helpful and it can provide insight, validation, and even a sense of community. But it can also create an echo chamber on the other end. Too much of something is always a bad thing, and currently, we live in a highly divisive world that doesn’t allow for differences. I can absolutely agree with that.
The problem isn’t just with estrangement forums; it’s with the way online communities function in general. Whether we’re talking about estrangement, political ideology, or even health and wellness spaces, the internet encourages black-and-white thinking. You’re either on one side or the other, and once you’ve committed to a particular viewpoint, questioning it becomes a form of betrayal. This is exactly what you see happening in estrangement forums once someone embraces “No Contact,” any reconsideration is framed as emotional weakness or manipulation.
However, if these spaces truly aim to support personal growth and healing, they should also encourage open discussion, self-reflection, and the freedom to reconsider estrangement without fear of judgment. Otherwise, they risk becoming just another controlling force in the lives of people who were trying to escape precisely that.
Hi Carri, Your nuanced perspective highlights the dual reality of estrangement forums: while they undeniably offer useful validation to individuals who need it, their rigidity can be seen to mirror the very controlling dynamics users seek to escape. Ultimately, genuine healing requires spaces that affirm personal autonomy, encourage self-reflection and remain open to diverse paths forward—including realistic pathways ways to reconciliation when it aligns with individual wellbeing. Their closed echo chamber dynamics and tendency to take a highly oppositional stance to parents, whose attempts to reconcile—clumsy and ill-conceived as they may be—are publicly picked apart and vilified tends to make this highly unlikely.
Since you have a lot of experience in these groups, I trust your perspective. It also seems like some individuals are projecting their own trauma onto others simply to avoid feeling alone. I think our society struggles with solitude and many people can’t sit with their emotions and process them independently; instead, they seek out others to validate their pain and reinforce their grievances rather than work through them.
Our entire system is designed to isolate and alienate, it produces not communities of people but isolated consumers, not independent strong people but categories of victims. In the end of this process there will only be the individual and the State. Much like in Logan's Run...
You make an interesting point about the modern system fostering isolation and alienation rather than genuine communities. There’s definitely a shift toward individualism, but not necessarily in the empowering sense it’s more in the sense of fragmentation, where people are disconnected from traditional support structures and increasingly dependent on external forces, whether that’s the state, corporations, or curated online communities like you’ve experienced.
The idea that we’re being funneled into categories of victims rather than strong, independent individuals is worth considering. Victimhood, when turned into an identity rather than a stage in healing, can be a powerful tool for control both politically and socially (I speak from an American perspective on this). If people see themselves primarily as victims, they are less likely to challenge the system itself, instead directing their grievances at one another.
The dystopian novels from the 60s really were getting at something. Logan’s Run, for example, presents a world where society maintains order by eliminating anyone who reaches a certain age, ensuring compliance and uniformity. While we may not be dealing with literal extermination, there’s certainly a parallel in how people are encouraged to self-isolate, self-police, and align themselves with rigid ideological frameworks rather than forming strong, organic communities.
I’ve personally related more to the Dune series (one of my favorite novels) especially after spending the last 12 years in the Middle East. Dune captures not only the themes of control and survival but also the resilience found in tightly bonded communities that operate outside of state influence. The Fremen’s ability to resist domination through collective strength and adaptation stands in stark contrast to the kind of fragmentation we see in today’s societies, where people are kept isolated and dependent rather than empowered through real connections.
The question then becomes: How do we push back against this? How do we cultivate real independence and meaningful relationships instead of falling into the system’s trap of isolation and controlled victimhood?
My husband was a government program evaluator, I did decades of real community organizing on controversial issues. We like to describe the public engagement as building networks not communities.
Estrangement Ideology is very cult-like. And, as in the most successful cults, the pain of belonging and adhering becomes not a drawback, but a reinforcement.
well.... I doubt those who are estrangement ideologues could ever understand much less tolerate a Mike Leigh film