Letters to the Editor
susan sunflower
Published Letters: 1373 Editor's Choice: 29
-
I think this really comes down to trust and respect ... they don't trust you and you don't respect their decision(s) ....
[Read the article: My husband has Chinese ancestry but his son wants to keep it secret]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't understand their decision to perpetuate this intended lifelong deception with regard to Delores' "lineage." Seems unnecessarily complicated. I doubt it will survive a lifetime, but it used to be a fairly commmon deception and often succeeded.
Regardless, it's really none of your business. I don't see it as something Delores "needs to know" (although anecdotally she may already know or suspect or have been told by a nasty cousin at some long-ago Thanksgiving).
... having embarked on this path, they do not seem interested in having their decision challenged ... all in good time, let sleeping dogs lie, made their bed, etc. Accept it.
My guess is that they suspect LW is using this "geneology" as a pretext for challenging their decision. I suspect they consider LW a meddler and possibly a busybody and a gossip, oh, and a nonbeliever.
If LW wants to continue to have any sort of non-hostile relationship with her stepson, his wife and her not-biologic but-she-doesn't-know-it-(yet) granddaughter, she needs to take a deep breath and accept them as they are ... and work on being "trustworthy," because I think their suspicions about LW wanting to pick and poke and undermine their lives are correct.
I don't think their lack of interest is "racism", I suspect it's a can of worms that they consider irrelevant to their lives.
Leaving aside the "consider the alternative" arguments regarding adoption, there seem to be a lot of hurting adoptees out there. I think a lot of people thought that being open about adoption would represent a BIG step forward, but it appears the pain of knowing you were somehow "given away" c ontinues for many people to be keen and defining.
Regarding geneology: I've had very little contact with geneology/family history ...but have felt oddly uncomfortable with the tenuous ties and "exceptionalism" that is often cited as being so "fascinating" ... as if somehow the accomplishments of previously unknown, long-dead ancestors actually "mattered" ... it has generally sounded and felt like rather tired, unsubtle "boasting"; probably, imho, best shared with other enthusiasts.
-
"Twenty-two years ago, my husband's younger son, "Shep," married a woman, "Cynthia," with a 6-month-old baby girl, "Delores." Shep adopted the girl, .... "
[Read the article: My husband has Chinese ancestry but his son wants to keep it secret]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The "child" in question here is 22+ years old ...
If ANYONE thinks LW has not already made her disapproval of this "secret" business WELL KNOWN and CRYSTAL CLEAR ... well, there's this bridge for sale in Brooklyn ...
The "not your kid" rule is pretty hard and fast (as in, do what you want with your own kid, but ...) is one of those things people learn ... often, as I did, the hard way.
It's fine to have an opinion and to even voice your opinion (to the adults) ... for LW to "inform" this young woman -- regardless of how "well intentioned", short of a medical emergency -- is an act of egotistical hubris and will likely rift the extended family significantly.
As some other responses has noted, this "secret" isn't just about Delores ... it does involve other people, Delores' other grandparents, for instance.
I think too many people know this secret for it to stay silent, but LW is almost certainly NOT the person to spill the beans.
-
Jane Fonda was striking back -- hard -- against the au courant public perception that she's a humorless scold --
[Read the article: Fondling Stephen Colbert]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is pretty much a whole generation of movie goers who have likely been turned OFF-OFF-OFF by her repeated public scolding of Lindsay Lohan ... regardless of how well deserved or how odd welcome some sort of comeuppance for Lohan may be ... contradictory much?
Fonda's always had problems with being perceived as "too serious" and has now, daringly, launched a new career in "light domestic comedies" ... skipping over (so far) Mrs. Robinson-like roles, and heading straight for Shirley McClaine independent woman, avoiding (so far) Olympus Dukakis territory ... nor "competing" with relative young'uns like Diane Keaton, Goldie Hawn (entering into mother of young adult children / grandmother of precious tykes territory) who in turn are "older" than Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan who are likely to turn up in roles with teenaged children any day now ...
Too bad that Chevy Chase and franchise has already remade most of the domestic comedy classics ... There are simply not a lot of roles out there ... I give Fonda a lot of credit for bravery for attempting to ressurect the genre and I hope she succeeds.
For an under-30 young adult today, Barbarella and Golden Pondand The Morning After are probably all the Jane Fonda they've seen. Klute and Coming Home appear on TV very rarely... I haven't seen Julia for ages and I doubt it would hold much appeal for young'uns. I'm not sure gems like The Dollmaker are ever shown.
As I think she would agree, she's a smart cookie ... and she can in fact USE humor, even if by nature she appears quite serious. I found her contribution to the recent Marlon Brando documentary unnessarily grim and unenlightening.
What we saw on Colbert was the NEW JANE FONDA ... get used to it.