On the other hand, she only saw her son twice in 30 years. I would be pretty upset at my mom if she did that, and I can’t imagine doing that to my kids. Not meeting my grandkids, even though I am still alive? That is unimaginable to me.
Furthermore, some people have little contact with their children for even weaker reasons. The fact is that we are inclined to judge women harshly for actions which would hardly seem remarkable for, say, a male rock star.
I don't think this is true. Walk-out dads are judged very harshly by our culture too.
There is be way to become nun or monk without leaving your parents, siblings, friends, literally everyone.
Completely agree about "abandoning" your adult children.
Having an injunction on naming a child isn't disownment. It's protecting the privacy of the child. Name it, and now it needs police protection 24/7.
Your characterisation is way off track IMO, but it's a popular viewpoint on Twitter and in the Guardian.
That's rubbish. His public life has nothing to do with his private life. The fact that he is a politician doesn't mean the public has to know about his relationship with his children. His public actions speak loud enough for people to judge his quality (or lack thereof) as an elected official.
I think the cultural gap between American and European on this point will probably never be bridged.
Others have commented on how absolutely ridiculous and insane this is, but it also highlights one reason (among many) that we generally have such shitty politicians. If you believe that running in national elections should make every single aspect of your private life open to public scrutiny, don't be surprised if the types of people willing to run for public office only care about increasing their own power.
Most 18 year olds aren't remotely ready for complete isolation from their parents, though.
I was independent, buyi was definitely not ready for isolation.
We're talking about the US here. Most 18 year olds do not have the ability to acquire their own healthcare AND afford their own housing.
Even aside from that, when a young person starts a family for the first time, they often lean on their parents for advice because this is life experience they don't have and there are plenty of issues that someone without that experience would not anticipate.
This person did not revoke financial support from her kids. She revoked emotional support from them.
With regards to emotional support, it sounds like her youngest child was close to 30, so I don't think that's a big issue. Of course it's nice to have contact with your mother even if you're 30, but it's a bit rich to suggest she "abandoned" her grown children. Presumably she discussed it with them first.
And most likely the kids married people that had at least one parent to get parenting advice from.
My only point is that it’s absurd to talk about “abandoning your children” when these children are close to and over 30!
It sounds like she considered it for five years, most likely in communication with her children, and then decided to go ahead with the plan. Of the many things one could decide to do at age 60, this one doesn't sound too bad.
I see expensive college and unlike it used to be it is nowadays an open question wether you will recoup the cost. Military recruiters trying to "get" your kids. In some countries you can get paid therapy via health care.
Some parents and some children don't deserve to be seen more than twice in 30 years. Some children should never suffer being exposed to their grandparents.
Monastic life is a sacrifice, in part because those who follow it do want to see their family etc. She felt that following Christ in a life of prayer separate from the world was what her heart most wanted, it was what God was calling her to do, and it was important for her salvation. You do not understand that but any faithful Catholic child would even though it is bittersweet for them too.
Are you or your kids Catholic? I mean... some parents would be upset if their children decided to become vowed celibates, but if you're Catholic, and all your children decided to do this, you may be able to be happy. I am honestly shocked here that Hacker News is responding to this happening as if it is taking place in secular society, when the entire family seems religious.
I’m very surprised at this reaction. I feel like the right approach would be to respect her right to make a personal decisions.
If my mother decided she was going to join not just a religious order but one of the most strict and one of the only ones preventing her to see us I would not be particularly happy about her choice.
> I would not be particularly happy about her choice.
This seems just being upset in general; which, I agree, isn’t inappropriate.
Doesn’t matter who they are to me, but life is complicated and ultimately it’s easier to just be understanding and let go.
Also, from back-of-envelop calculations, by the time she joined the convent her youngest child was in their 30s, the oldest in her 40s. It's not too different, in practice, from entering a hospice because of health issues.
A parent roamed the earth with their own desires and business long before a child came into the world. Children may feel they are the most important thing in a parent’s life because they are constantly fed, watered, and sheltered without fail, and they have known their parent their whole life. But a child is only a small phase of a parent’s life, a small piece of a larger plan, or sometimes no plan at all.
Of course it does - while they actually are children they should be your number 1 priority and the focus of all you do. But once they're adults it's a different story altogether.
Even other cloistered orders allow letter-writing, and there are semi-cloistered orders where family can come visit any time. There is nothing about the act of becoming a nun that mandated her cutting of her connections to her children.
I can only sympathise with the socialite renouncing the society that continues to criticise them; which in much of this entire thread amounts to judging her for not dedicating her entire life to motherhood.
Her grown-ass children will either be happy for her, or they'll be mourning their loss. Or maybe a mix of both. But they'll deal and life will go on.
I would imagine most people wouldn’t judge her if she was a firefighter who died in the line of duty because she “could have chosen a safer job.” This is because people generally appreciate this kind of sacrifice. Your attitude is based on the assumption that her sacrifice wasn’t worthwhile, well she thought it was and Catholics think it was. Her children were grown, she felt a calling from God, and ultimately it was her life.
I do not think this is a noble action. Certainly some will disagree with me. So be it, then we disagree.
I dont know whether this is being edgy contrarian or sexism in which women dont get to make choices for themselve. HN contains plenty of those.
But projecting 5 years old thinking into her adult children is uttery absurd. Especially since I have never seen outrage over literally anyone else not being involved or leave for long or risks death when his kids are small.
Something to keep in mind: I am the one who posted my opinion. Not the nebulous Hacker News gestalt. I, speaking just for myself, find parents willfully rejecting all of their children, at any age, to be ugly across the board. I would say the same if it had been the husband fleeing to a Monastic order, and I would say the same about (for example) Jobs' treatment of his first daughter.
I know we all form general ideas of how any particular forum will think. Boards have moods. But if we allow ourselves to see that impression as a person, of course we will be annoyed at the perceived inconsistencies and hypocrisies. But that is a false impression- those would only hold true if it were an single individual making such varied claims.