One of my favourite photos in April of this year (2026) is an impromptu selfie as we waited on time between activities. It’s a favourite because there is significance in that moment that goes beyond ‘mother and child together’; for me, it captures something that society tells us we ought to hide beneath a brave face.
My cheeky, feral child, arms swung around my neck in affection and love and pure need for connection. It’s beautiful. But no one mentions the weight of it. It’s there—in the strained smile only a best friend might detect, the unplucked eyebrows, the internal need for quiet solitude that mostly goes unmet—and yet, what’s also there is an inexplicable and unrivalled bond, one that holds this weight and more.
For those who know me, it’s enough. For those who know parenting, it’s enough. Outside of these lines, there isn’t enough context for some. And that’s okay. I no longer feel a need to explain myself or to prove myself. It’s simply enough to understand that we’re currently living in a time where we can say more than many of us ever dared to before. We’re naming our troubles and shining light on them. (That’s distinctive from placing a spotlight on individuals to shame or expose them or violate their privacy. Some people cannot make this distinction, instead choosing to hide behind positive labels like ‘advocate’ and ‘good citizen’ to thinly veil their violations.)
There seem to be many more of us who are unashamedly acknowledging the struggles, even quietly, defining ourselves not by society’s harsh verdicts but by our resilience to overcome the struggles without masking them, and more importantly, without teaching our children to mask.
But there’s more to be said here.
Let’s start with this: the initial response to this ‘cheeky, feral child’ with no mask might be: ‘she needs discipline’.
Well, she has that.
I’m her mother. I can balance discipline with expression and I can help her to do the same.
It is too often assumed that a parent is too strict or too lenient based on snapshots and snap judgments. Very few can understand the spectrums on which these ‘snapshots’ occur and are handled. A parent might be judged for being too playful according to one onlooker and too strict in the next moment, and this going to vary depending on viewpoint.
It should go without saying that temperamental differences create different parenting styles and these vary widely; heritage is a single but multi-faceted aspect. It then follows that what counts as ‘too much’ for one person is very different than what is a limit for another.
Cultural differences should be taken into account, even aspects like voice tone, rhythm of speech, gestures and mannerisms, can affect how a person might be perceived by persons from a particular group and it might be very different than perceptions made through consensual and conventional interaction versus eavesdropping, hearsay, or worse…
[In case you’re wondering, I’ve been a target of digital vigilantism, led by a horde of people who (mostly still) sit on high horses, proud for being able to outrun those of us on foot. Ironically enough, I was trampled not by hooves but human feet.
It’s interesting how easily bad boundaries and miscommunication can derail a perfectly decent-enough system, even when this system is a personal one rather than wide-scale. I’ve written more about this here.]
It’s vital to recognise boundaries, to make clear distinctions between what is acceptable within boundaries and to understand that boundaries shift depending on the relationship and role a person has. It’s equally important how we handle things and this shifts based on capacity.
When a person has reduced capacity, stigma offers an explanation that eclipses all other efforts, including efforts to appeal to the compassionate nugget at the centre of someone’s witch-hunt.
There seems to be a prevailing notion that unmasking is equivalent with return barbarism but it seems that barbarism is prevalent in today’s society, loosely veiled beneath technology and elitism. Dynamics between those who mask and those who form relationships or alliances with those who mask seem to result in situations which creates a bad rep for unmasking and recovery itself.
The ‘fallout’ that comes with someone standing their ground is not unmasking itself. The fallout seems to often be a response to a situation in which dynamics have shifted.
Unmasking (for me) means being less afraid to reject something (or someone), to say no, to keep my resting bitch face in position if I’m not moved, and to remain unmoved in the face of harassment and conflict. It’s a work in progress.
Unmasking is not equivalent with over-entitlement; it’s more a recognition of basic rights that have previously gone overlooked. Unmasking is not renouncing politeness but having the courage to abandon politeness when someone violates us. Unmasking doesn’t give an individual the right to mistreat someone, but in my experience it created a situation where a person who had become too used to mistreating me, reacted badly to my assertion.
‘That escalated quickly.’
Unmasking is likely a lifelong process, one that began for me when I moved away from the expectations that held me to unhealthy patterns and scripts. I broke down mid-process but eventually progress resumed. It happened when I re-acknowledged where these patterns show up despite the fear others flooded me with, and finally, when I found the courage to break those patterns without breaking apart.
