I agree MM answered the questions about the demands of "polite society" well at the end of her response and that you are right that this is what the LW "probably" chose this venue for, but it's possible she just didn't know better advice columns to go to for dealing with abusive situations.
The problem is that MM went beyond the direct questions and started her answer with a coy behest for the LW to make up with her mother while denying she was getting into that issue--a coyness that is always inappropriate with the subject of abuse, which goes beyond the dictates of polite white, propertied society's etiquette, and the rotten side of what those rules of politeness are designed to hide. They are designed to keep the vulnerable from naming their abuse by the powerful in this iteration and not for kindness, the good uses of this kind of speech.
MM phrases her initial response in such a way that, on the surface it can be taken as a behest to make up with her mother, or conversely as an ironic slap at the people who are advising this, allowing her to be noncommittal. This indeterminacy of language is not a kind response to such a painful issue and the rules of kindness supersede the rules of politeness, in my personal rulebook. And if MM is trying to be direct in saying the LW should reconcile with an abusive mother, she phrased it badly, and I also call bullshit on this advice.
And about "fair play" in speaking ill of the dead by the living, where was the fair play when a bigger person abused a smaller one in her care? I would like to have seen MM say that the LW's needs for healing might be more important to worry about than breaking the rules of polite society before giving her then that useful advice about it being OK to not go to the funeral and, if she goes, how to interacti with people the LW does not wish to speak more intimately with but wants to have a polite relationship. You're right--she just may not know how to handle discussions of abuse and how to respond to those who are subject to it, and answers badly.
no subject
The problem is that MM went beyond the direct questions and started her answer with a coy behest for the LW to make up with her mother while denying she was getting into that issue--a coyness that is always inappropriate with the subject of abuse, which goes beyond the dictates of polite white, propertied society's etiquette, and the rotten side of what those rules of politeness are designed to hide. They are designed to keep the vulnerable from naming their abuse by the powerful in this iteration and not for kindness, the good uses of this kind of speech.
MM phrases her initial response in such a way that, on the surface it can be taken as a behest to make up with her mother, or conversely as an ironic slap at the people who are advising this, allowing her to be noncommittal. This indeterminacy of language is not a kind response to such a painful issue and the rules of kindness supersede the rules of politeness, in my personal rulebook. And if MM is trying to be direct in saying the LW should reconcile with an abusive mother, she phrased it badly, and I also call bullshit on this advice.
And about "fair play" in speaking ill of the dead by the living, where was the fair play when a bigger person abused a smaller one in her care? I would like to have seen MM say that the LW's needs for healing might be more important to worry about than breaking the rules of polite society before giving her then that useful advice about it being OK to not go to the funeral and, if she goes, how to interacti with people the LW does not wish to speak more intimately with but wants to have a polite relationship. You're right--she just may not know how to handle discussions of abuse and how to respond to those who are subject to it, and answers badly.