NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/kids/28701

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 8.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!qmw-dcs!arodgers
From: [e-mail] (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Loving the disobedient was (Re: 20/20 and Spanking)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:54:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News System)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London
Lines: 190
Nntp-Posting-Host: theoryb.dcs.qmw.ac.uk

In <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:

>It is very easy to respond to a post before reading it in its entirety.  I
>believe that this is what you did since I later exclude "child abuse" and
>"neglect" as areas which parents deserve forgiveness.

I anticipated this semantic problem, but went ahead and posted anyway.

I prefer to reserve these two words for *physically* harmful actions, or
inaction, on the part of adults who are in charge of children. *Sexual*
abuse comes into this category; but the forms of *emotional* "abuse" and
"neglect" which I suffered, although real (even physically real) in their
effects, do not. Physically I was well cared for (unless I have repressed
some really awful memories, which for all I know I may have done).

(NB: I don't count most spanking as abuse in this sense, either.)

More to the point, perhaps, the kind of moral advice you were offering
is bound to be taken personally by people whose only complaints against
their parents are of this emotional kind, because you said nothing to
guard against the words "abuse" and "neglect" being taken in only the
narrower sense.

>I confess to not being
>able to see how, with these exceptions, there is much parental behavior that
>is so heinous it can never be forgiven.

One has to be very careful to define precisely what *are* the exceptions,
before offering moral advice to those not specifically excepted from
having to take it.

If you cannot do this, then it's better not to offer moral advice to
strangers at all (i.e. to "preach").

>If there is such a behavior that does not fall into these catagories that you
>believe still does not deserve forgiveness, please let me know.  The only ones
>I can think of are "they didn't love me" but wouldn't that fall under
>neglect?

Arguably!

You now seem to be saying that unloving parents do not necessarily
deserve forgiveness from their children.

In theory, then, we agree. In practice, though, how do you (i.e. you
personally) discriminate between those who were and those who were not
loved? The advice you have offered ("forgive, unless you were abused
or neglected") contains no qualifications which would allow it to be
given or taken in a responsible manner.

>[...] You complain that
>I have posted "unecessary advice" to the net.  Does this mean that I am to
>assume that everyone reading the net already knows everything and therefore
>no advice is necessary?  Or am I to try and read the minds of all net.readers
>to find what advice is unnecessary?

I mean that you are simply mistaken in presuming that those who
continue to blame their parents for their personal unhappiness
do so because of having made no effort to understand their parents'
point of view.

>Unnecessary advice abounds on the network.  I generally take advice I don't
>want with a grain of salt.

When the advice merely reinforces an existing societal prejudice against
children who do not love their parents, it rubs salt in a very painful
wound indeed, and you should be made aware of this.

>The second complaint is more valid.  You feel that I am being condescending.

It is condescending for the same reason as it is unnecessary: it makes
a false, insulting, and hurtful presumption.

>[...] Given
>that I was not addressing this post to anyone in particular, and if it were
>anyone in particular it would have been the person whose post I was responding
>to (which was not you) I fail to see how I have met the criteria of knowing
>your history.

Your knowledge of your own ignorance of people's personal histories
should have caused you to have second thoughts about posting the kind
of advice you did -- rather than acting as a pretended justification
after the fact.

>In point of fact, there are many people who do not try and imagine what their
>parent's lives were like.  I was one such person until I hit my early 30s.  I
>have conversed with another such person who is in her 40s.

All attempts I have ever made to converse with my parents about what
their lives were like, *or* about what my life has been like, have
been rebuffed.

And on the other hand, I was treated to unwanted confidences from my
mother, at an age when I was too young to be able to bear them, about:
(a) how she wished she hadn't married my father; (b) how she wished
to kill both herself and my mentally handicapped brother; and other
such delightful information.

As this is not my private psychotherapy session, I won't bother to
detail exactly how this sort of communication was coupled with
unjustified punishments, discriminatory treatment, vitriolic tirades
against my character, long periods of sulking on her part, and
indifference and gloom on my father's part, turning to anger and
violence against me only when I myself reacted against the woman
who was angry against both him and me, and who seemed (in retrospect)
to be using me as a hostage to get a reaction from him, which never
came -- etc. etc.

It would be impossible to explain; and this only underlines the fact that
one should not take sides in other people's personal conflicts, unless some
very clear moral imperative is being violated by one party or another.

Here is *my* advice: "Parents, don't do this sort of thing to your kids!"

>I am willing to accept that I might have been better recieved had I used a
>more personal form of expression along the lines, "I found that putting myself
>in my parent's shoes when they were the same age I am did wonders for me
>understanding what their life was like and forgiving them their mistakes in
>how they raised me."  I will work on more "I" statements in my discourse and
>less "you" statements.

Good idea!

>[...] Suffice it to say that there is enough diversity on
>the net that almost anyone can get insulted by almost anything I say.

The insult does not necessarily lie in the mind of the person receiving it.

>[...] there are some
>things which I feel very strongly about and feel that I have the right to voice
>that opinion on this network.

You have that absolute right; as it is the right for anyone you have
offended to let you know how they feel.

>I have the responsibility
>not to overstate my case (by repeating myself in 100s of posts on the same
>thread).  I have the responsibility to read with an open mind what others are
>saying.

Not aimed at me, I hope! :-)

>But I do not feel compelled, as I believe you would have me do, to keep silent

Nor would I wish you to feel compelled to keep silent about your most
deeply-held convictions about parent/child relationships -- in this of
all newsgroups.

>[...] there are times when
>an offensive post is acceptable.  This should be once a year at the most,
>however, since I consider this to be a very rare exception to the net.etiquette
>rules.

I agree.

>Anger is a valid response.  And discussing those ideas that anger you is
>a valid discussion, a dialogue I welcome.  After all, if you are angry, then
>you are not apathetic.  That means you're thinking about what I wrote.  That
>is all I will ever ask of any net.reader.

Agreed, warmly -- after disagreeing, hotly!

>The partial flame came when you extrapolated this feeling into "you don't
>ever reflect on what you might be doing to cause this."  In fact, this statement
>came accross in exactly the same condescending manner in which my statement
>hit you.  It came accross that way because you ASSUMED that I have never
>reflected on why people have flamed me.

No, I had independent evidence that you were not presently reflecting on
some very salient present effects of what you were presently writing. I
had no interest in, or knowledge of, past flame wars (although it's
interesting to learn some of this "parental" history, so to speak!).

>[...] However, since you are new to the list I will not
>expect you to know my past history and so I am not offended by what is really
>only partially a flame.

Thank you.

>Do you understand what I am trying to say?  Am I missing something that you
>think I should know?

I hope not, because I've spilled my guts in this newsgroup more than
enough already!
--
Angus H. Rodgers  (PhD student), | [e-mail]
Dept. of Computer Science, Queen | [ +44 | 0 ] 71 975 5241
Mary & Westfield College,  Mile  | "But what is contact? No two points
End Rd., London E1 4NS, England  | are in contact." -- A.N. Whitehead.