Carolyn Hax: Inked gay daughter feels stifled at parents' conservative community
Dear Carolyn: My parents, who are in their 60s, are starting to spend more and more time in the Floridian country club community where they recently purchased a condo. The expectation around the holidays is that we will come and visit them and stay for a while. My younger brother brings his wife and small children, who absolutely love it there.
I feel betrayed and stifled. There are strict rules around the condo complex, at the club itself and on the beach — no tattoos, specific attire, no body piercings. I am a heavily tattooed, body-hair-covered lesbian whose general existence is policed in this place. At first, it was fine, but it became clear quickly that my mother loves to have a reason to tell me to cover up while being able to hide behind the fact that it's 'just the rules.' The final straw for me was when I offered to take my niece outside, but my mother informed me that some of the neighbors were outside who had more conservative views and might not approve of my appearance.
To her, she was just suggesting I would be more comfortable avoiding an unpleasant reaction. To me, she was saying that she would absolutely not consider standing up for me and that a smooth relationship with her new neighbors was more important than her own daughter.
I am at a loss. I want to see my family, particularly the children, and enjoy the holidays somewhere warm and beautiful. I cannot stand to basically keep myself inside or fully covered at all hours just to avoid the slightest bit of unpleasantness for my parents.
Is there a way to talk to them about this that won't escalate to a larger fight about whether they should be expected to sell their condo and move to accommodate me? Am I forced to choose between my comfort and ever spending the holidays with my family?
They are always so generous with their time, money and space, and they themselves have always been liberal and somewhat accepting — but I have spent so much of my life trying to fit into the country club box, and I just don't know if I can do it much longer.
— In Distress
In Distress: I am sorry your generous and accepting-ish parents chose such an ungenerous place to settle in for their grandparent years.
I am also sorry for the message. I don't think you got the wrong one from your mother — that in a complicated world, she likes the simplicity of letting 'the rules' make your differences in personal expression go away.
I realize that's a lot of conclusion to draw just from your brief account. But of all the condo complexes in all of Florida, they bought into this one? Huh.
(Brief disclaimer, my column is about relationships, not how enforceable these rules might be.)
As sympathetic as I am, though, the idea that a conversation would ever veer into a brawl over their accommodating you by selling the condo they just bought seems bonkers to me.
Not that you don't 100 percent deserve a place where you feel comfortable. You absolutely do.
But the time for your parents to shop for that right thing just happened, and they zeroed in on Rearstick Estates. So I guess I just don't see anything for you to gain by trying to relitigate their decision now.
Do tell them you're hurt. That's fair. Admit you feel rejected and forced to choose between your comfort and ever spending the holidays with your family.
But don't ask them for anything beyond awareness of how you feel. No escalating, certainly.
Instead, I suggest de-escalating. Decide on a general approach to these visits you can live with, then ask your parents to accept it on principle. Then don't refight the battles again.
The most obvious approach is not to go. Plan to see your parents and your brother and his family at other places and times.
Another approach is to reach an agreement with your mother beforehand. Something like: 'Send me the bylaws, I'll pack and even shop accordingly' (time with the kids time with the kids time with the kids, that's your mantra here), 'but no correcting me during the visit. It's insulting. Deal?'
Another approach is just to do you, in all your glory. 'Love you guys. But I'm coming dressed as me. I'll handle the side-eye from neighbors.'
Or maybe a fourth or fifth approach suits you better. What matters is your peace with it. Not mine or theirs or the neighbors'.
Here's a travel-size version: You can't change their hurtful decision; you can only minimize its effects on you; all those little do-I-or-don't-I questions force you to relive (i.e., maximize) the effects; so decide your approach to visits up front, wholesale; tell your parents you're hurt and this is your answer; either secure their support or declare it's not up for debate.
Whew. Again, I'm sorry — it's a reflection on them, not you.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Ken Jennings: Trivia and ‘Jeopardy!' Could Save Our Republic
When I first stepped behind the host lectern on the quiz show 'Jeopardy!,' I was intimidated for two reasons. Most obviously, I had the hopeless task of filling the very large shoes of Alex Trebek, the legendary broadcaster and pitch-perfect host who'd been synonymous with the show since 1984. But I was also keenly aware that the show was one of TV's great institutions, almost a public trust. Since I was 10 years old, I'd watched Alex Trebek carve out a safe space for people to know things, where viewers get a steady diet of 61 accurate (and hopefully even interesting) facts every game. And I wondered: Even if 'Jeopardy!' could survive the loss in 2020 of its peerless host, could it survive the conspiracy theories and fake news of our post-fact era? Facts may seem faintly old-timey in the 21st century, remnants of the rote learning style that went out of fashion in classrooms (and that the internet search made obsolete) decades ago. But societies are built on facts, as we can see more clearly when institutions built on knowledge teeter. Inaccurate facts make for less informed decisions. Less informed decisions make for bad policy. Garbage in, garbage out. I've always hated the fact that 'trivia,' really our only word in English for general-knowledge facts and games, is the same word we use to mean 'things of no importance.' So unfair! Etymologically, the word is linked to the trivium of medieval universities, the three fundamental courses of grammar, rhetoric and logic. And much of today's so-called trivia still deals with subjects that are fundamentally academic. Watch a game of 'Jeopardy!' tonight, or head down to your local pub quiz, and you're sure to be asked about scientific breakthroughs, milestones of history and masterpieces of art. Trivia, maybe — but far from trivial. There might also be questions about pop lyrics and sports statistics, but even those are markers of cultural literacy, the kind of shared knowledge that used to tie society together: the proposition that factual questions could be answered correctly or not, that those answers matter, and that we largely agreed on the authorities and experts who could confirm them. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
A Starter Pack for Aspiring Wine Lovers
Here's a little secret about wine — it's great fun. It's delicious, too. You would never know this to hear people talk about wine. Too often, it is buried under a mass of nonsense that has nothing to do with the pleasure and joy it offers. It's discussed with painstaking precision using complex terminology and pretension, as tasters grapple with metaphorical descriptions of aromas and flavors, and conjecture about methodology and equipment. They ultimately deconstruct wine like anatomy students dismembering a cadaver. It makes wine seem like very serious business, which, for many people, is a turnoff. Wine does deserve academic discussion. It can be complicated, with many mysterious elements that people strive to understand. Yet it's also a simple pleasure, a great drink. The serious, rational side of wine should not overwhelm its emotional appeal. Dry talk about learning to 'appreciate' wine obscures the fact that people deeply, passionately love it. It's the difference between fulfilling an obligation and being moved by desire. Reconciling these two sides of wine can be baffling. It's no wonder that people are hesitant about wine, especially young people, many of whom also fear alcohol as risky. Almost everybody finds it intimidating and often more expensive than other alcoholic drinks. Nonetheless, people are often curious, too. Perhaps they've seen people enjoying it, and they may have heard that humans have considered wine a great pleasure for thousands of years. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
At City Ballet, Casting, Coaching and Dances Worth Watching
Looks can be deceiving, even in ballet. On paper, the spring season of New York City Ballet looked safe and dutiful, with no premieres, except the stage performance of a pandemic-era dance film and more recent contemporary works, some welcome (by Alexei Ratmansky), others not so much (everything else). But the season had a surprising sense of purpose, which came from casting, coaching and commendable repertoire. Suzanne Farrell, the former City Ballet star, worked with the dancers on four ballets. The 50th anniversary of the Ravel Festival made for a memorable trip back to 1975. And debuts were plentiful; more than that, they were meaningful choices, the kinds of roles that challenge dancers at the right time and give them the space to grow. Ratmansky didn't need to present a premiere. Two sides of his artistry were already on display. There was the buoyant, technical 'Paquita,' his spirited look at classicism in the 21st century; and 'Solitude,' a remarkable ballet illustrating the inner turmoil and outer tragedy of the war in Ukraine, with dancing shaped by and seeped in sorrow. It is even stronger now — quietly devastating with an icy spareness and, from the dancers, deep, grounded conviction. Its placement on a program between Caili Quan's 'Beneath the Tides' and Justin Peck's 'Mystic Familiar' seemed clueless, as if all of contemporary ballet is on an equal playing field. It's not. Other programs were dragged down by ballets that felt like needless filler — Peck's blandly lush 'Belles-Lettres' and Christopher Wheeldon's drippy 'After the Rain' pas de deux. The pas de deux made what should have been a strong program of ballets by Jerome Robbins and Ratmansky interminable. Ballet is an art, but its athletic demands can be cruel: Gilbert Bolden III, a new, much-valued principal dancer, tore his Achilles during a performance of 'Scotch Symphony.' His recovery will take months. But that show went on — Jules Mabie filled in for him — and the season, which included a farewell to the longtime principal Andrew Veyette, ended on a cheerful note with Balanchine's enchanting 'A Midsummer Night's Dream,' made even more so by the debut of Mira Nadon, dancing with Peter Walker, in the second act divertissement. She moves like silk. Here are a few other standout ballets and performances. Kyle Abraham Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
