CAROLYN HAX, the Washington Post advice columnist, is an incarnation of modern non-judgmentalism, which decrees that when someone does something utterly outrageous in his personal life, others must accept it and say, “Well, who are we to judge?” A woman writes to Hax and tells her that her husband has left her and their children for a man and is now posting indecent ads online with his boyfriend:

Is it ever OK to make a real scene at a social gathering? The kind that may be talked about for generations to come?

I have a major family gathering soon that I can only get out of by hurting one of my children. The ex-husband will be there with his new boyfriend (nope, not a typo). I’ve already endured a few conversations in which family members express how hard this must have been for him, and I managed to bite my tongue. (After all, lying and cheating are hard work, right?)

But I don’t think I can stand to listen to any more sympathetic support for my ex. I’ve had my life destroyed and lost almost everything I own. I fantasize about telling these people off or even just handing them the detailed sex ads my ex and his friend have posted online so they get a clue about what I’ve been through. But then I remind myself how upset my children would be.

Hax responds:

No, making a scene isn’t OK, but “whether” is not the interesting question; the “why” is. Why is the impulse so strong?

Specifically, why did your husband’s coming out mean you “had my life destroyed and lost almost everything I own”? It’s as if you just told us that 2 + 2 (equal sign) 10. Where’s the 6 you left out? Then I’ll be better able to help. Thanks.

The woman spells out for her what it means. Hax predictably recommends that she see a therapist – the advice columnist’s equivalent of passing the ball.

                                           — Comments —

A. writes:

I too have been there and suffered the non-judgmentalism even by my children for having been left after 24 years of putting H through undergraduate school, med school and after and working in his office for 8 years. In addition, there was lying, cheating, hiding assets, cruelty toward me and children and all who had helped him over the years. He used the legal system to harass me with lies, however, he lost every time but one which now looking back just fueled his fury. He also exhibited violence to the extent of shooting a gun over the head of someone who tried to calm him down after he verbally abused me. And my children for the most part still won’t judge him for that behavior. I used to tiptoe in that morass of non-judgmentalism, but no more. 

Now that I won’t be in his presence at any time, there is fierce judgmentalism directed toward me. 

TOO BAD! 

On the other hand, my sister who is in business with her husband is being divorced by her husband after helping build that asset. As part of the business, they have a public event every Friday night which is well attended and which both usually attend as gracious host and hostess. One evening her husband brought his new girlfriend to the event, even before the divorce papers had been filed and although they were separated with everyone’s knowledge that divorce was his intent. 

My sister who had not appeared yet, did not appear that night. The next day, she told her soon to be ex-husband not to ever bring any girlfriend on the property. His response was it was his property also and what was she going to do about it. 

Her response was bring one and be prepared for a scene. 

He has not done so since. 

That woman letter writer should refuse to participate in the craziness everyone is buying in to. She should take the stupid journalist’s advice to the extent that she should just ignore it and go on with her life even if it means also taking the wrath of her children and others for being so “judgmental.” 

May those of us still steeped in the Judeo/Christian civilization demonstrate the courage of just discrimination against those acts which will destroy us.

Laura writes:

This fear of a scene or of any explicit friction is moral indolence. It’s laziness. People want to get on with their lives and not be bothered with a close relative to whom a great injustice has been done if it involves having to choose sides and create open tension. In the case of the woman writing to Hax, they also approve of and worship homosexuality and are afraid to do anything to censure it.

Adriana writes:

I’m not saying Hax is right or wrong, but I am curious — what would you have this woman do? I don’t think Hax’s advice is all that off — she tells the woman to get on with her life. Unfortunately, as much as it sucks, this is what the woman should do. There’s really not much else she can do, except make a scene that will ultimately do nothing good for anyone. As the woman has already said, she’s refraining from making a scene because of her children. But if she had no children, what would making a scene accomplish, aside from (perhaps) eliciting useless pity and sympathy for her? 

It’s not so much that others “must accept it,” it’s more that there’s nothing you can do about it. And revenge is virtually always unsatisfying and a waste of time.

Laura writes:

I was dismayed by Hax’s initial response in which she asked the woman why she was so upset.

As for what the woman should do, she should explain to her child why it is impossible for her to attend this event. Her children must learn to understand. And she should approach her relatives individually and tell them that she is sad and angry at their lack of sympathy for her and their approval of her husband.

Hax spends many words on coaxing the woman not to ruin her life with bitterness. But there is a time for righteous anger before moving on. And one way anger can be dealt with in a constructive way is by sharing it with others who understand. Hax should have been indignant at what has happened to her. She was not. This woman should be more than, as Hax put it, “ticked off.”

A. writes:

Your response to Adriana is right on. 

There comes a time for righteous anger indeed. Until a victim of such injustices can tell that not only to the initiator of such immoral destruction, but to those nonjudgmental enablers also, she will not have a sense of self regard that everyone should possess. 

Jesus certainly castigated with whips those who would degrade his Father’s house. And these children are better than Jesus by not castigating those who would degrade their Mother’s house?

Jill Farris writes:

The proper response to evil and immoral acts should be anger and revulsion. A woman who is sickened by a husband who leaves her for another man and posts sex ads is doing her children a favor by showing her emotions. It is the right thing for her to do.

I grew up in the 1960’s when my parents and all their Ivy League colleagues were divorcing their wives and acting very immorally. It was the accepted thing among everyone we knew so the children kept quiet about their deep pain and sorrow over the break -up of their families.

When I became a Christian in college, I remember the first time I casually told another member of our church that my parents were divorced and I saw (for the first time) someone react with sadness and shock over it. It was very healing for me to see my long repressed feelings reflected on the face of an acquaintance and to know I wasn’t alone in believing that divorce was a horrible thing. Of course, as I gained an understanding of the absolute truth recorded in the Holy Scriptures, I learned that the sense of right and wrong that was written in my conscience had been placed there by a Holy and Loving God. It was His standard that my parents and their friends had violated.

This woman may be alone in showing shock and sorrow over her husband’s behavior but she should still do it. Ten years from now, if she is wallowing in bitterness and anger over her husband’s abandonment then she will have her own sin to confess but right now horror and sadness is not only appropriate it is right. May God give her strength in the midst of this insanity.

James P. writes:

Is there anything in the world more worthless than a non-judgmental advice columnist? If you ask someone for advice, then axiomatically you are asking someone who has good judgment to recommend a sound course of action. If she lacks good judgment then she shouldn’t have a column in the first place, and if she has good judgment she should express it in her column.

Please follow and like us: