The core issue involves a family conflict stemming from political differences following an election. The original poster (OP) has two adult daughters in college whose political and moral viewpoints sharply contrast with those of the OP’s parents and siblings, who are noted Trump supporters.
The conflict escalated when the daughters quietly left the family group chat. Upon confrontation, they announced they would skip major holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas because they believe their family’s political support condones unacceptable behavior, such as rape, lying, and cheating. This decision caused an intense reaction within the family, leading the OP to face pressure from parents and siblings to force the daughters to attend. The OP’s dilemma is whether to support their adult daughters’ moral stance or yield to family demands, particularly given that the OP financially supports both daughters’ education and living expenses.
My kids won’t come to Thanksgiving or Christmas.
According to Dr. Casey Brooks, a specialist in family dynamics and autonomy, “Establishing clear, non-negotiable personal boundaries is a critical developmental milestone for young adults, and parental support for those boundaries, even when costly, reinforces long-term psychological health over short-term appeasement.”
The OP’s decision to stand by their daughters reflects an understanding of modern familial roles where financial provision does not automatically equate to behavioral control over competent adults. The daughters have explicitly linked their attendance to the character demonstrated by their relatives’ political endorsements, framing this not as a disagreement over policy, but as a moral evaluation of behavior they are unwilling to normalize through their presence. Their action is a classic exercise of boundary setting, asserting that their peace and moral integrity outweigh obligation to association.
Conversely, the parents and siblings are exhibiting behavior rooted in maintaining the status quo and prioritizing relational continuity over acknowledging the children’s moral objections. The siblings’ accusation that the OP is ‘dividing the family’ is a common tactic used to externalize blame for the rift, shifting focus from the political choices that caused the rupture. The OP’s current position of financial support coupled with moral backing is a strong stance for parental advocacy, and the path forward involves maintaining these supportive boundaries while allowing the extended family the space to process the consequences of their own choices.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The OP is caught between upholding their adult daughters’ deeply held moral boundaries and the traditional expectations of family unity pressed by their parents and siblings. The conflict centers on whether financial support creates a right to control the adult children’s social choices, especially when those choices are rooted in the children’s perception of their relatives’ character.
The central question for debate remains: Should the OP prioritize their adult children’s autonomy and moral alignment by continuing to support them unconditionally, or is there an obligation to enforce attendance at family gatherings to preserve family ties, even if it requires the children to compromise their stated values?
