A reader, whose parents divorced four years ago after their father had an affair, is struggling with whether to include his new partner in family events. The reader and their brother, both in their 40s at the time, felt a profound sense of betrayal. They have maintained a relationship with their father but insisted on seeing him alone, as they still view the other woman as the cause of the family's breakup. The father, however, has become aggressive about wanting his new partner included and has been reluctant to attend family events without her.
The Reader's Dilemma
The reader describes feeling stressed and anxious before seeing their father, fearing that the other woman might unexpectedly join. They worry that meeting her could damage their relationship with their mother. Some friends suggest it's time to move on and meet her, but the reader feels they owe her nothing. The core question is: should they 'suck it up' and start including her to prevent further family deterioration?
Eleanor Gordon-Smith's Advice
Gordon-Smith notes that the reader and their father may have different narratives of the affair. To the reader, it was the unfair collapse of a happy marriage; to the father, the marriage might have already been over emotionally. She points out that it's common for someone to privately decide a relationship is over, leave, and start a new relationship without informing their partner, leading to surprise at the indignation when the affair is discovered.
She writes: 'You could spend the rest of your earthly lives trying to prove who’s right. Or figuring out whether the other woman is a nice person, deserves your forgiveness or is to blame. As with all conflicts where one side insists on important-seeming details while the other is trying to communicate the emotional semiotics of what happened, it could drag on for ever.'
The Choice Between Woundedness and Closeness
Gordon-Smith emphasizes that being close with someone eventually becomes incompatible with holding onto the legitimate pain they've caused. 'You can be righteously wounded in perpetuity, or you can be close,' she writes. She acknowledges that this is unfair, requiring the wronged party to do restorative work, but it is the truth. The reader must decide whether preserving the relationship is worth the cost.
She adds that if the reader wants to preserve the relationship with their father, it's hard to imagine keeping her out forever. The father has decided to be with his new partner at considerable cost, and this relationship matters to him. However, there may be valid reasons not to include her, such as sparing the mother's feelings or if the father fails to recognize that forgiveness is a kindness, not a demand.
Ultimately, Gordon-Smith concludes that trying to balance closeness with the father while insisting on not including the partner will lead to frustration. The father has put the reader in a difficult position where fairness and relationship preservation may conflict, but sometimes being close means giving more than one owes.
