agonyaunt | Ask Amy: My in-laws voted for that man

DEAR AMY: I appreciate your straightforward advice. For years I’ve had a good, respectful relationship with my in-laws. We see each other regularly, despite being on the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

However, this election changed all of that. I can’t get over that they supported a candidate whose actions directly impact me (and hence my family), in a negative way.

They have not acknowledged how drastically things changed for me since the election, yet they continue to carry on like nothing happened. How do I move past this? -- DISAPPOINTED

DEAR DISAPPOINTED: Did you offer an acknowledgment to your in-laws when your candidate won the election eight years ago? You can assume that they were probably pretty disappointed, but (I assume) you expected them to cope with their disappointment without a special acknowledgment from you.

We are currently experiencing a period of extreme political and cultural challenges. But the way for you to move past this is to buck up, get busy, let your anger turn toward advocacy and simply stop expecting people on the other side of the political spectrum to feel sorry for you.

My theory is that when you understand and accept this about your in-laws, you will be able to peacefully and respectfully wave at them from across the divide.

Remember this feeling, and … come the revolution, be kind.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

... oh do fuck off.

Eloquently put.

The first sentence of Amy's response got my back right up. There is less than no similarity to the right wing's "disappointment" with the first election of Barack Obama and everyone but the right wing's bone-deep horror with the first election of the president we've got now. (At the time, eight years ago, I did offer an acknowledgment when my candidate won - comparing people's disappointment to our disgust with the first election of Bush43 eight years earlier and noting that that was also no comparison, because there was at no time any suggestion that Obama had been elected by any untoward means. McCain voters at the time agreed with me; they wished it had gone their way but they didn't have any sense anything had been stolen from them. I'm just saying.)

Anyway. Being disappointed that your candidate didn't win is worlds different from being scared to death that the other guy did. That's what the LW wants her in-laws to acknowledge. But of course they'll likely tell her she's being hysterical. It is probably accurate that she'd be better off not expecting them to feel sorry for her; that's what's disappointing here (rather than terrifying).

But then the rest of Amy's advice answering the actual question that was asked (how do I move past this?) was not wrong, I feel. And the last sentence, which on my screen appeared below a button inviting me to sign up for national news alerts - where I could easily have missed it - blew me away.

It's an interesting question. I woke up on November 9 distraught that I'd been so wrong to think as well as I did of so many people. I know plenty of folks who are not interested in being kind to anyone responsible for the mess we're in now at any time. Fuck 'em: the wolf said "I am going to eat you" and whether they believed him or not, they voted for the fucking wolf. And I understand the sentiment. But at what point will we resume demonstrating, not just insisting, that we're better than that? That we're better, to put it bluntly, than they are? We don't treat people kindly because they are necessarily decent people; we do it because we are decent people.

I genuinely don't know.

If someone has hurt me, deliberately or through carelessness, kindness does not prevent me from telling them that and asking them not to do it again. And kindness doesn't require me to keep people in my life who continue to hurt me.

Honestly, I don't know that kindness is the right frame here. We treat people decently because we are decent people. But I think part of the problem is that our side and theirs disagree fundamentally on what constitutes decent treatment. Their version doesn't include things we consider basic human rights, like bodily autonomy and access to education and health care and clean water; it does include--in fact, is based on, and contains very little other than--automatic deference to white people and Christians. Which is the one thing we're not willing to grant them. So we can be both decent and kind by our lights as much as we want and still be perceived as oppressing them.

And honestly I don't know what to do about that. I agree there's usually no reason to be gratuitously unkind, but when people are determined to see unkindness and even oppression in anything other than their own acknowledged precedence, I think that's on them.

But I think part of the problem is that our side and theirs disagree fundamentally on what constitutes decent treatment.

I think the problem is that our side and theirs disagree fundamentally on who counts as people. They want education, health care, clean water, etc. for people, which is them and their dearest, but not bipedal flesh robots, which is what they seem to regard the rest of us as.

What you said.

Honestly, I don't know that kindness is the right frame here. We treat people decently because we are decent people. But I think part of the problem is that our side and theirs disagree fundamentally on what constitutes decent treatment. Their version doesn't include things we consider basic human rights, like bodily autonomy and access to education and health care and clean water; it does include--in fact, is based on, and contains very little other than--automatic deference to white people and Christians. Which is the one thing we're not willing to grant them. So we can be both decent and kind by our lights as much as we want and still be perceived as oppressing them.

Perfectly said. Thanks for this.

n o p e

There's a huge difference between disappointed and horrified. I was disappointed when Dubya was elected and then re-elected. I was horrified when Buttercup was elected.

I don't think the LW is expecting their in-laws to feel sorry for them; I think the LW is expecting some acknowledgement from their in-laws that their life has become measurably harder and/or less safe. That they aren't getting that acknowledgement from their in-laws is going to make them feel like their in-laws don't care about them as a person.

'Come the revolution, be kind' is just about the only bit of the response that has any worth.

Dear Amy:

🖕 🖕 🖕 🖕 🖕 🖕 🖕 🖕

Ugh, seriously. Equating racists being upset about Obama to the current situation is just not on. Amy can go fuck herself.

Dear Amy: nice false equivalence. What the fucking fuck. LW doesn't want their inlays to feel sorry for them: LW wants to feel again like their inlays actually think they're a person. I'm dealing with this at work -- I look at my vocal coworkers and wonder how safe our hijabi coworkers are around them, how safe *I* am around them.

Oh LW. I want to hug you. I hope your spouse will listen to you and hug you. If I were qualified to give advice, which I'm not, I would recommend turning your relationship with your inlaws as superficial and limited as possible. talk about weather and puppies (and don't mention that the current administration has actually taken steps to protect puppy mills). Allood luck. It sucks when the best you can hope for is to be an exception to someone's condemnation; I've been there. All good luck.

Ask Amy: My in-laws voted for that man

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject