Family Fuel

Posted by fxckfeelings on July 24, 2014

All of us suffer from a Cassandra complex at one time or another, where we see something so clearly—from how your brother will regret eating that gas station sushi to why your wife will wish she’d never paid for a year of intensive aerial Pilates up front—but can’t get anyone to heed our vision. Sometimes you can see a disaster looming because people are too angry and agitated, and sometimes it’s because they’re complacent and don’t give a damn. In either case, before you try to sound the alarm, give thought to the reasons for their feelings and the probable impact of your attempts to warn them so that your attempts to change opinions don’t accidentally cement them. Provide wise counsel if you can, but don’t expect anyone to listen until events, even painful sushi-related ones, put them in a more receptive state of mind.
–Dr. Lastname

As long as I avoid certain (mostly political, mostly right wing) topics, I get along with my in-laws pretty well. The problem is that such topics sometimes become unavoidable, usually when they get really wound up about a specific current event, and right now, they’re very vocal about being rabidly pro-Israel. I’m Jewish (they aren’t), so they assume I feel the same way as them and shower me with links and e-mail forwards that are nothing short of anti-Palestinian propaganda, but I don’t agree with them necessarily, and that kind of thing makes my skin crawl. They see the issue as black and white, and let’s just say I just see it as complicated, infuriating and heartbreaking, and their warmongering just angers and depresses me. I want to find a way to respond to them that gets them to see how damaging and foolish their angry rhetoric is, or to at least find some consensus in getting them to agree that killing isn’t answering anything. My goal is to get my in-laws to drop the subject in an enlightening, non-provocative way, even if I can’t change their minds.

One reason it’s hard to stop angry war rhetoric, particularly if it comes from nice people who aren’t particularly angry in non-political situations, is that they feel that aggressive action is necessary to prevent or overcome a dangerous threat. From annoying e-mail forwards to amassing an arsenal, fear rarely leads to thoughtful, positive action.

So if you suggest that your in-laws are advocating useless conflict with and killing of Palestinians, you’re questioning their morality at a time that they’re calling for moral sacrifice. You’re not just spilling blood in front of a shark, but a shark who thinks he’s being chased by a kraken.

Rather than questioning the morality of those who take a hardline, aggressive position in defense of Israel (or in support of any armed conflict), confine yourself to challenging war’s effectiveness. In that way you can avoid being unnecessarily provocative—even if you’re morally offended by your in-laws’ argument, but don’t start a battle of your own—while making an argument that will probably be true as time goes on.

Remember, you and your in-laws both want a safe, peaceful world; once Israel is no longer threatened, no one wants Palestinians to suffer. You’re on the same side, even if their rhetoric is disturbing and the means they advocate repugnant.

Of course, once you accept the fact that they won’t change their position and will become more argumentative if you challenge them, your choices are limited. You can shut up, excuse yourself, or explain that you find that talking about Israel triggers anxiety attacks that you’d rather avoid by talking about other things.

In any case, don’t feel you’ve failed to advocate for peace by not confronting views that are war-friendly. Respect your in-laws’ good intentions and the fact that life usually teaches its own lessons about aggressive intervention, even if we need to re-learn the lesson, and experience the same fear, over and over.

STATEMENT:
“I can’t listen to my in-laws talk about Palestinians without feeling they want to punish them, but I know this is their reaction to a real threat to Israel and that accepting this threat as unavoidable is hard to do. I will respect their concern and practice my diplomatic skills within the family.”

I’m one of five kids, but I often feel like an only child since I’m the only sibling who lives anywhere near our aging parents and their care often falls on my shoulders. My father can get around alright, but my mother is showing signs of dementia, and she’s starting to do things that scare me, like forgetting to turn off the stove or saying she needs the car keys to drive to visit her long-dead parents. Dementia is also making her mean, so when I suggest that she might need some in-home care, like a part-time nurse, she’s gotten furious to the point of near-violence, and my father, who fears her rage a lot more than I do, just agrees with her. My siblings could help me, but they tell me I must be over-reacting or just don’t want to deal with it. My goal is to find a way to get my siblings to help me help our parents, because if I can’t make them give a shit, something awful is going to happen.

As hard as it is to watch your mother deteriorate into dementia and threaten to hurt your father, it’s not unusual for siblings who aren’t on the scene to back away and devalue the concern of the brother or sister who is immersed in what’s happening. In most cases, it’s not because they don’t give a shit, although that’s what it feels like to you. It’s because they aren’t yet ready to accept the sad truth about your parents’ decline.

As impossible as it might feel to step back, don’t take responsibility for protecting your parents when you really can’t. Yes, there’s substantial danger that something bad and possibly fatal could happen, but that doesn’t mean you can stop it, at least not yet.

When people begin to deteriorate, there’s often a stage when they look fairly normal to caregivers, even though their behavior has become dangerous, and until this problem becomes obvious, it’s hard to get support for the appointment of a guardian. If you press the issue too hard before the evidence is obvious, you’ll seem over-protective or vindictive and support will evaporate.

That’s why you have to avoid the vicious circle of responsibility, concern, helplessness, and anger. You’ll wind up blaming everyone for the bad things that you’re afraid will happen to your parents, thus driving them away. Instead, recruit people to help you as soon as they decide that your parents require intervention. Even if your siblings are useless, don’t tell them they don’t care, not just because that’s probably unfair, but because attacking them for being unloving, uncaring kids is a good way to start a war. Instead, keep that thought to yourself and tell them that you know they care and will want information about your parents’ ability to care for themselves.

Don’t wait for their support, however, before speaking to a lawyer about the grounds for appointing a guardian or conservator. If you have any reason to think your father is being abused, call his physician and/or a state hotline.

In the end, something bad—although hopefully not too bad—may have to happen before people will agree to step in. In the meantime, don’t blame yourself or your sibs. Continue to monitor your parents’ condition, accept the painful helplessness that goes with watching them fail, and be proud of your ability to tolerate that pain while you wait for the right time to rally the troops and intervene.

STATEMENT:
“I feel like a disaster is about to happen to my parents and no one will help me prevent it, but I know it may be impossible to protect them until their impairment becomes more advanced. I’ll continue to share information about their condition with their doctor and others until I have the power to act. I’ll expect my sibs to respond with non-acceptance until events get them to see how much our parents have declined. I’ll restrain my anger and recruit whatever help I can get.”