Being Your Friend Doesn’t Mean I Cover for Your Mom

So, this is mildly interesting if you’re into Palin gossip. It’s also completely unsurprising. I just think this has got to go to prove how much we are no longer a rural society because, people, of course. Jesus Christ, of course. Do people actually not know women like Sarah Palin? Do they just not exist in cities? I don’t know.

But that’s not what I find interesting. What I find interesting are the comments, multiple comments berating Cho for revealing this bit of gossip. As if, because Cho considers herself Bristol Palin’s friend, she has some obligation to keep her mouth shut about how poorly Palin’s mom treats her.

I’ve been giving this a lot more thought than is warranted, probably because I come from a family where people pick on babies are we’re all supposed to pretend to not notice it for the sake of… I don’t know… not hurting the baby maligner’s feelings I guess, but I am noticing more frequently the ways bad behavior is covered up. And this idea that it’s a violation of the bonds of friendship to notice and refuse to be silent about a friend’s mom’s bad behavior towards that friend?

As if it’s a favor to the friend and not a way to protect the mother?


4 thoughts on “Being Your Friend Doesn’t Mean I Cover for Your Mom

  1. I know we talked about this the other night and I expressed then how completely ridiculous I find it that people are up in arms about a dance competition with a stupid mirror ball trophy as the prize.

    But, on the topic of Margaret Cho – this all goes back to my pet peeve about how the word “friend” is thrown around too often. (Maybe it’s Facebook’s fault)

    Just b/c Cho was on a TV program with the Palin daughter, that’s not something that constitutes friendship – that is what is appropriately labeled as “an acquaintance”. So, no, in this case, Cho didn’t sell anyone out. She just wrote a blog entry about someone with whom she shared an experience.

  2. I knew kids with abusive parents, and they didn’t want to hear my comments–at the time it puzzled me. Now I think that it’s because it disables their coping mechanism, the sort of day to day denial that keeps them going in a bad situation. They can’t leave or aren’t ready to, and they don’t like being reminded of how shitty their life looks to an outsider.

    I feel for Bristol more than ever. A baby, a deadbeat boyfriend for the baby’s dad, and having to live her life in a fishbowl because she’s been turned into a prolife poster girl. If she wanted to leave, where would she go? How would she live and take care of the baby? She’s not a big enough celebrity to live off of that. And if her mom is abusive, she’s got to have issues. On top of that, the whole world is watching her every move.

    Poor kid.

  3. Well, I had an abusive parent and I know it made me feel better to hear others confirm that — it meant that I wasn’t crazy or exaggerating. But everyone’s different.

    The thing is, the only people who could have confirmed it were people who knew me and my father personally. I’m sure it would have distressed me intensely to have millions of complete strangers knowing anything about me. Even good things. All this publicity has to be difficult for anyone.

  4. I think a good part of “not hurting the baby maligner’s feelings” ties into the whole “I don’t want to think I’m a bad person, so if I ignore really hard that this person is being bad and showing I care for their feelings too, then I’m couldn’t possibly be mistaken for a bad person.

    That almost makes sense. I just can’t quite grasp what I’m thinking….

Comments are closed.