OK, so let me begin with a translation from slang to English: "parental unit" is a slang term for parent (male, female, or other, biological, adoptive, foster, or other), often affectionate or no worse than ironic (as I am intending it in this instance), but some people use the term with an element of savagery or hate. In cases where they've been abused (either passively [neglect] or actively) that may well be either justifiable or, at the very least, understandable.
Now, one of the matters I consider of considerable importance, despite being ignored or underplayed, is the desire of people to please their parents - even when they are adults.
In some cases, that isn't harmful - for instance, my parents emphasised caring for others.
And some parents don't view their children as "mini-me" versions of themselves - for instance, my partner, who presented values and aspects of a wide range of matters and allowed her children to be themselves.
But in some cases, that is damaging - for instance, children who learn racism, misogyny, or other forms of hate from their parents or their parents' designated stand-ins (such as the elitist schools some rich people send their children to).
There is also a subtler matter, and that is blind loyalty.
I came across this with someone I knew in the 80s, who - unbelievably - thought that my non-conventional approaches to many things was simply because I hadn't been exposed to conventional parenting, especially on housework. I had, but considered there were more efficient ways to approach life when one was not obsessed with making housework the centrality of one's existence.
Her patronising attitude was stupid, dismissive of my parents, and grossly offensive to me and my parents - and, as her blind loyalty to her parents ideology involved transphobia, was also actively and maliciously harmful to me as well. (She thought a trip to visit and be abused b her mother was OK because I was supposed to have the same memories and associations she had- and to ignore the abuse i was subjected to.)
On a larger scale, I consider George W Bush's fanatical addiction to ousting Iraq's despotic leader - an addiction which saw resources diverted away from Afghanistan and thus actively undermined overcoming the evil behind 911 - had an element of wanting to please his father, perhaps by doing what the younger saw as "completing" the mission of the first Iraq war. (The older had fought in war and knew personally the price, and seemed to be open to the dangers of going into Iraq - as mentioned in the film "Shock and Awe".)
Being aware of parental influences, and constructively addressing any harmful such influences, is important.
What is also important is addressing anything that is similar to that - such as becoming involved with ideologies. Some of those are either constructive or no worse than neutral (e.g., supporting organisations that are helpful) but some are actively harmful - such as conspiracy fantasists - and people involved with harmful conspiracies MUST be opposed using BPM means.
The place I see those influences doing most harm, however, is in the business world, where people get addicted to simplistic, easily understand, and destructive ideologies such as neoliberalism, and the simple-minded and environmentally & humanly destructive view that money is all that matters. Their lack of openness to persuasion of the value of caring is a measure of how much they have placed the ideology in a substitute parental position.
It is mentally unhealthy, and damaging socially, environmentally, and spiritually.
