In a single act of cowardice, Mr. Pollack betrayed himself, his wife, and his son.

It’s not about circumcision. It’s about enabling and perpetuating the pathology we celebrate as “family” – an absurd, arbitrary and destructive construction which drives behavior not from autonomy, empathy or relatedness, but from fear, guilt and obligation, as Mr. Pollack disclosed, and as we all know from direct experience.

Mr. Pollack’s redemption lies in the possibility that, as a result of his sharing his experience, some readers may be encouraged to begin to move toward adulthood, to adopt a healthy attitude toward extended family, let them go, and begin making choices in their own lives which don’t hurt those they have chosen to love.

LW,

The solution to the issue you remain trapped in is disarmingly simple and obvious, and at the same time nearly impossible to accept: that person you wrote about is not your “Dad”, because there is no such thing as a “Dad”. The false obligations, fear and guilt you carry around in your concept of “Dad” keep you stuck.

There is only a made-up symbol, an utterance, “Dad” which has the single purpose for adults of distracting us from our cowardice – the cowardice that traps us in relationships with individuals who very often we don’t particularly like, we don’t find interesting, who have harmed us, who elicit feelings of fear, annoyance, rage, or creepiness, who guilt us into maintaining the relationship and into all sorts of behaviors we would never choose otherwise, etc.

Regardless of whether there was sexual abuse, the feelings of anger, creepiness, etc. you experience are real, are telling you something important, and have a function.

If an older male who you encountered regularly at work or in some other context engaged in the same clearly inappropriate behaviors which this guy you write about does, and which elicited similar feelings, you would (hopefully and healthfully) simply change your routine or make other adjustments to set boundaries, stop the unwanted behavior, or simply avoid him, cut him off. By maintaining the guilt-driven, involuntary relationship, you stunt his growth at the same time that you resist your own.

Despite the overwhelming need of your culture and its advice-givers to project their arrested dependency and infantilism on you, you should treat this guy you write about no differently than any other boundary violator, because he has no more real or chosen relationship with you at this point, apart from the guilt, fear and obligation created by this absurd and meaningless fabrication: “Dad”.

Good luck.

The study’s authors may be afraid to suggest the obvious interpretations, but we don’t have to be.

The role of caregiver for young children comes with a certain level of adaptive anxiety or worry – (almost) any parent knows this from direct experience. The more stressors involved in, and the more difficult the parenting situation, the greater the potential for anxiety.

On top of the daily intake of food needed to maintain health, people ingest food to manage negative emotional states (including anxiety) a type of substance abuse which we normalize as “comfort food” or “compulsive noshing”. Duh.

No need to blame anyone, but what might be interesting would be to look at additional variables related to childrearing which might increase associated anxiety: lack of access to medical, educational, financial and other resources, deficits in social support or parenting skills, interference and criticism form family, conflicts over parenting, etc. -types of stressors which most writers of letters here may never have experienced.

Prediction: level of stressors and anxiety related to childrearing is positively correlated with food intake.

BTW, in view of Ms. Lloyd’s obvious owning of adult responsibility for food selection and preparation, how should we understand the backlash against her?

I found this to be the most insightful and important contribution from Ms. Traister in memory, her somewhat unbecoming need to pathologize Ms. Winfrey notwithstanding.

RT is not only exactly on with the observation that what Oprah seems most driven (by her own dynamic and needs) to provide these girls – material comfort and the rewards of status, power and class – is NOT what they most need for healthy development; but also that the ascendancy of these values along Oprah’s apparent trajectory to public influence (and their reflection in the American family system) is indeed “dark”. RT’s most important insight is that in misidentifying her own deprivations and needs with the emotional, relational, and actualization needs of the students, Oprah actually subordinates their best interests and autonomy. As writer collin put it simply, Oprah may tend to succumb to the falsity of “lavishing money as an expression of love”, a point that paul475 also seems to get.

Of course adequate education can be important, and Oprah’s generosity is praiseworthy. But lavish furnishings, a “leadership” track, and being told you’re pretty can never substitute for relatedness, love, and support of autonomy. Again, RT is right on with her take that if these are “daughters” to Oprah, then Oprah, out of her own needs, is over-identifying and over-investing in them, as extensions of her self, with predictable results.

Maybe that discomforting insight about parental over-investment helps explain the remarkable virulence (and underlying defensiveness) of the responses to Ms. Traister’s piece – parents in our culture tend, like Oprah and despite best intentions, to become trapped in the mistaken and ill-fated substitution of material wealth and access to social status for what their children really need: unconditional love and autonomy. In analyzing that dysfunction, Ms. Traister seems to have generously, and hopefully productively, touched a raw nerve.

HH the new Wonder Showzen,

and petulant letter the new temper tantrum.

But why?

Why do the columns always have to end?

the social and environmental factors underlying anger (those giving rise to stress, anxiety and insecurity) are also related to CAD?