Ok, exaggerating a little but I really don't know how to feel about this. I agree that not smothering your kids is a good idea but I also think that she wen to an extreme to change that. In essence: I wanted to have kids, but I didn't want it to be an inconvenience, so I walked out and let them hang out on occasion. Now I want to rationalize the decision and get others to agree (forgive) me. Very strange.
She sounds like a selfish prick who refuses to shoulder her responsibilities as a parent.
Smoothing it over as 'in their best interests', on the one hand is a glib excuse of an abandoning parent with a good vocabulary, on the other hand, she's a selfish prick, so being distant from her is probably very beneficial to her biological children.
she cannot say her method works. she cant even say her methods work for herself
the only way she will know if her kids "are okay" is after the kids have lived their lives and not once have any of the kids say "i wish you were around more"
geez
i would like to think im turning out well (i have a job, a love life and i can afford some luxuries) but i know for a fact that a part of my life is irrevocably changed and can never be recovered because i grew up in a broken family
a dad leaving a kid behind is NOT acceptable. it is COMMON but definitely not acceptable.
do we really have to wait for mothers leaving their kids behind to be common too?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:She sounds like a selfish prick who refuses to shoulder her responsibilities as a parent.
Smoothing it over as 'in their best interests', on the one hand is a glib excuse of an abandoning parent with a good vocabulary, on the other hand, she's a selfish prick, so being distant from her is probably very beneficial to her biological children.
If she knows that she cannot be an effective mother if she's around all the time, then isn't choosing to do otherwise the responsible option?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bakerofish wrote:
i would like to think im turning out well (i have a job, a love life and i can afford some luxuries) but i know for a fact that a part of my life is irrevocably changed and can never be recovered because i grew up in a broken family
The same is true of children who grow up with both parents. I know plenty of kids that grew up with Tiger Mothers that absolutely wish one of their parents had been absent.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Man or woman, if you don't want to raise them, don't have them.
Accidents happen.
I knocked up a girl on the first date due to a broken condom at a very bad moment. You are preaching to the choir on that one.
But, He is still my son and my responsibility, and I don't just mean child support payments, I would love nothing more than to leave this armpit of the world known as SW Pennsylvania behind and find greener pastures, but that wouldn't be fair to my son. So I stayed to help raise my son, he moved in with me over Christmas as he inherited my wild streak and his mother cannot handle him anymore.
My point is if you don't take care of your responsibility and raise your kids your doing them a great disservice, and punishing them for something that is YOUR FAULT and that is, by definition a POS deadbeat.
I sort of understand where she's coming from. Obviously I'm not a mother, but my parents divorced at one point and my life got significantly better afterwords. If someone ultimately wants to be somewhere else or they have passions to chase, they're not going to be entirely happy where they are. I'm not saying everyone should abandon their kids, but if she goes through life and her kids turn out all right and she was happier, who can really judge? Society has held dated notions before (racist attitudes, sexism, etc) and been none the wiser.
I understand what you are saying but in the article this wasn't a divorce becuase of the father so much as she was divorcing the kids. She even states her epiphany was that she didn't want to be a full time mom so she left.
Kid: Are you getting divorced becuase of us?
Mom: Yes, I just don't want to be around you that much. I want to travel a see lots of other people and you would cramp my style.
That's not the only way it could have gone down. If you've been around someone who doesn't want to be in a situation, they tend to get downright unpleasant, even when they're trying not to be. The kids may well have understood that she was getting an amazing opportunity for her and the chance to be happy. We don't really know. She could have been a bad mother when she was around too
One thing we can all agree on is that having kids young is a stupid idea. Seriously, wait til you're 30, it isn't going to kill you and you'll most likely want to do things you can't do when you have kids.
I also think that when she's older and her kids most likely hate her for rejecting them she will regret this course of action. More self-centered, new age hippie nonsense from baby boomers. I really can't wait until they all retire and go away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Seriously, wait til you're 30, it isn't going to kill you and you'll most likely want to do things you can't do when you have kids.
You can't make generalizations about things like that. I had my first one at 22, on purpose, and am pretty happy with the way things are turning out.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:That's not the only way it could have gone down.
Except that that is how she said it went down. It isn't left as a riddle. She explains she didn't want to be a full time mom and took off and saw her kids occasionally. If that works for her I guess that is fine, but I don't think it is a good idea to go around saying others should trade their kids for themselves. People have to learn how to do both, and can. I also wouldn't compare being a parent to racism or sexism. My problem isn't that the parents split up, as sometimes it probably is better for the kids, the problem here is her motivations seem problematic.
My wife scanned it and understands completely, we both agree on this :
..My problem was not with my children, but with how we think about motherhood. About how a male full-time caretaker is a "saint," and how a female full-time caretaker is a "mother." It is an equation we do not question; in fact we insist on it. And we punish the very idea that there are other ways to be a mother....
This women seems fairly sane and sensible and probably took the right decisions for her and her family.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:That's not the only way it could have gone down.
Except that that is how she said it went down. It isn't left as a riddle. She explains she didn't want to be a full time mom and took off and saw her kids occasionally. If that works for her I guess that is fine, but I don't think it is a good idea to go around saying others should trade their kids for themselves. People have to learn how to do both, and can. I also wouldn't compare being a parent to racism or sexism. My problem isn't that the parents split up, as sometimes it probably is better for the kids, the problem here is her motivations seem problematic.
"We talked about it for months and we prepared together, not really knowing what being 3,000 miles apart might look like or feel like."
does not equal
Kid: Are you getting divorced becuase of us?
Mom: Yes, I just don't want to be around you that much. I want to travel a see lots of other people and you would cramp my style.
I can see how the idea of this particular traditional value getting threatened is more frightening than others, but I don't see the vast majority of people acting on it.
Monster Rain wrote:
You can't make generalizations about things like that. I had my first one at 22, on purpose, and am pretty happy with the way things are turning out.
Most people shouldn't have kids beneath 30 IMO. If it's working for you, cool, but it doesn't change my opinion. This isn't a comment on you and is only vaguely related, but I still see no need for people to be having kids until the orphanages are empty. That seems more selfish to me than anything else.
Being a parent isn't a 'traditional value'. This isn't a Republican wedge issue. Lesbian parents would think this was pretty messed up. There are different ways to be a parent, the one commonality is being there. Again, you are arguing a different problem unrelated to the article. This isn't a 'parents have to stay together' debate. At 3000 miles away you can't be there for birthdays, sports events, good grades, bad grades, first kiss, first sexual assault charges, ect ect. She wasn't even a part-time mom (as she called herself) at that distance.
She also talks about buying into the 50's style idea of motherhood, but almost none of the parents I know buy into that anymore. She bought into a bad philosophy, made herself miserable, and so moved across the continent to get away from her children. I find it ironic that she is a spiritual advisor.
Kid: Are you getting divorced becuase of us?
Mom: Yes, I just don't want to be around you that much. I want to travel a see lots of other people and you would cramp my style.
I thought it was fairly obvious that that was a joke and not in the article.
Most people shouldn't have kids beneath 30 IMO.
Yes, it is an opinion. Not a very good one, but nevertheless it is one. You are coming off as the Tracy Jordan quote in my sig.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Most people shouldn't have kids beneath 30 IMO. If it's working for you, cool, but it doesn't change my opinion.
Which is sad, because you're making a pretty uninformed generalization that is demonstrably false. I assure you that I'm not the only person that it's working for.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Man or woman, if you don't want to raise them, don't have them.
Accidents happen.
Use multiple layers of protection (pills to prevent ovulation, condoms, morning after pills, etc) if you're gonna have sex, and know that you might have kids anyway so if you really, REALLY aren't ready to have kids, don't have sex?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually it's best for the woman to have children BEFORE thirty. Due to the way eggs are formed, a woman has all of her eggs like four months after birth, and those are all she will ever have. The longer she waits to have a child, the more potential chance that the eggs (technically, oocytes, one or two of which mature into eggs once a month depending on the woman's cycle) have taken cellular damage due to aging, radiation, and so on and so forth.
A woman who has kids past the age of fourty has a very high risk of having genetic defects, for example.
Ahtman wrote:Yes, it is an opinion. Not a very good one, but nevertheless it is one. You are coming off as the Tracy Jordan quote in my sig.
Which is sad, because you're making a pretty uninformed generalization that is demonstrably false. I assure you that I'm not the only person that it's working for.
God forbid I state an opinion on a forum. I'm not saying that my view is best or even that it is right, I'm only voicing my view. Using anecdotal evidence, watching my high school class and some close friends exist, it leads to happiness but also lots of unhappiness. This may or may not be "right" and I've never declared one way or the other, so stop pretending I'm something I'm not. On the off chance, maybe I am though.
Actually it's best for the woman to have children BEFORE thirty. Due to the way eggs are formed, a woman has all of her eggs like four months after birth, and those are all she will ever have. The longer she waits to have a child, the more potential chance that the eggs (technically, oocytes, one or two of which mature into eggs once a month depending on the woman's cycle) have taken cellular damage due to aging, radiation, and so on and so forth.
I know this in general, though I'm fuzzy on the specifics since I'm not a woman. Pick a year then, having kids "young" is still a stupid idea to me.
Ahtman wrote:Yes, it is an opinion. Not a very good one, but nevertheless it is one. You are coming off as the Tracy Jordan quote in my sig.
Which is sad, because you're making a pretty uninformed generalization that is demonstrably false. I assure you that I'm not the only person that it's working for.
God forbid I state an opinion on a forum.
Take a breath there and move away from the martyr complex. No one said you can't or shouldn't post your opinion; that doesn't mean you won't be criticized for it. We have the option to disagree with it and to say so. You said something bad, people called you on it, try not to cry a river over it.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Using anecdotal evidence, watching my high school class and some close friends exist, it leads to happiness but also lots of unhappiness.
For the individual people to which you are referring, sure. Maybe they should have waited.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I know this in general, though I'm fuzzy on the specifics since I'm not a woman. Pick a year then, having kids "young" is still a stupid idea to me.
Define young?
I am speaking from a purely biological, physical standpoint. Late teens into the late twenties is generally the best time to have a child if you want the child to be healthy. Many would consider ANY year in that age range to be young.
Naturally ti's fully possible to have a child when you're sixty and the child is still completely healthy. Just unlikely. Assuming it's even possible for you to produce viable eggs at that point due to menopause.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I know this in general, though I'm fuzzy on the specifics since I'm not a woman. Pick a year then, having kids "young" is still a stupid idea to me.
It's healthier to have them young, and if you have kids in your 20s they're off to college by the time you're in your early to mid-forties. I think there's an argument for it, if one is ready to have them.
Dang. I thought I was fast enough for the auto-append... Melissia is too fast!
Ahtman wrote:Yes, it is an opinion. Not a very good one, but nevertheless it is one. You are coming off as the Tracy Jordan quote in my sig.
Which is sad, because you're making a pretty uninformed generalization that is demonstrably false. I assure you that I'm not the only person that it's working for.
God forbid I state an opinion on a forum.
Take a breath there and move away from the martyr complex. No one said you can't or shouldn't post your opinion; that doesn't mean you won't be criticized for it. We have the option to disagree with it and to say so. You said something bad, people called you on it, try not to cry a river over it.
Rather, I said something which you thought was bad. Saying "I disagree" and saying "I disagree and your view sucks objectively" are a little different from one another. I'm hardly crying a river, just a little irritated.
Monster Rain wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Using anecdotal evidence, watching my high school class and some close friends exist, it leads to happiness but also lots of unhappiness.
For the individual people to which you are referring, sure. Maybe they should have waited.
It doesn't apply universally.
...hence why I said "using anecdotal evidence" and never claimed it applied universally.
Melissia wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I know this in general, though I'm fuzzy on the specifics since I'm not a woman. Pick a year then, having kids "young" is still a stupid idea to me.
Define young?
I am speaking from a purely biological, physical standpoint. Late teens into the late twenties is generally the best time to have a child if you want the child to be healthy. Many would consider ANY year in that age range to be young.
Naturally ti's fully possible to have a child when you're sixty and the child is still completely healthy. Just unlikely. Assuming it's even possible for you to produce viable eggs at that point due to menopause.
"Young" is whenever you think you might want to do things like go to Japan and aren't completely ready for a sedentary lifestyle. I'm not speaking biologically here, I'm speaking in terms of being ready mentally and emotionally. If you only look at the biological side, the teenss on tv who have kids when they're 16 are the peak of responsibility.
Technically speaking no. Because having a child too early is also potentially detrimental to the child.
If your body is awash with hormones and you're still growing, not quite a full adult yet physically, it would very likely effect the child. Same with any drugs you might be taking, legal or otherwise.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Rather, I said something which you thought was bad.
I don't think it is bad, I know it is. It really isn't a matter of an opinion. Being a relativist makes it difficult to admit that just having an opinion doesn't make it valid, but believe me, it doesn't. If your thought had just applied to you than it can't be right or wrong necessarily becuase you make that choice, but when you try to apply it to all humanity you put it up for broader scrutiny. In this case your half thought out idea has been judged and found lacking. Just saying it is an opinion doesn't suddenly put an idea beyond reproach or judgment.
Melissia wrote:But me not being a relativist, I don't have that problem ^.^
Everyone has that problem. Whenever you try to generalize, even if you believe you're speaking from empirical fact, the standard of proof becomes sufficiently high as to preclude "its my opinion" from acceptable defenses.
I've never stated my view was ironclad so I'm not entirely sure why it's being treated as such. Again, stop pretending that I said my view was perfect or flawless.
Melissia wrote:Which isn't necessarily all that high to someone like me whom takes the very firm stance that opinions can not only be wrong, they're regularly so
You realize that if you were to apply your own standard, stripped of specificity, to many of your own beliefs you would be wrong almost constantly; given what you've just said, anyway.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I've never stated my view was ironclad so I'm not entirely sure why it's being treated as such. Again, stop pretending that I said my view was perfect or flawless.
We didn't, in fact we have stated it is the opposite of perfect or flawless. You keep trying to distance yourself from what you stated but in the end you stated it. People rarely ever start a statement they believe to be true with "This is an ironclad statement...". If a person believes something to be true they just state it, unless they are in academia, than they dissect it and state it in 6000 words or more.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I've never stated my view was ironclad so I'm not entirely sure why it's being treated as such. Again, stop pretending that I said my view was perfect or flawless.
We didn't, in fact we have stated it is the opposite of perfect or flawless. You keep trying to distance yourself from what you stated but in the end you stated it. People rarely ever start a statement they believe to be true with "This is an ironclad statement...". If a person believes something to be true they just state it, unless they are in academia, than they dissect it and state it in 6000 words or more.
Melissia wrote:Which isn't necessarily all that high to someone like me whom takes the very firm stance that opinions can not only be wrong, they're regularly so
You realize that if you were to apply your own standard, stripped of specificity, to many of your own beliefs you would be wrong almost constantly; given what you've just said, anyway.
I question my beliefs constantly, and change or reaffirm them depending on what I know at that particular time.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Rather, I said something which you thought was bad.
I don't think it is bad, I know it is. It really isn't a matter of an opinion. Being a relativist makes it difficult to admit that just having an opinion doesn't make it valid, but believe me, it doesn't. If your thought had just applied to you than it can't be right or wrong necessarily becuase you make that choice, but when you try to apply it to all humanity you put it up for broader scrutiny. In this case your half thought out idea has been judged and found lacking. Just saying it is an opinion doesn't suddenly put an idea beyond reproach or judgment.
I disagree. We don't know enough about how much of human behavior is nature or nurture to form objective decision about this topic. All I've see here is Ahtman doggedly rejecting Cannerus' opinion out of hand, seemingly because he can't conceive of the possibility that this woman isn't a horrible person.
EDIT: After re-reading I realize that I was way off base about the dispute here. Apologies.
i get your point about overbearing and/or malfuntional parents and people. yes if theyre bad for the emotional and physical health of everyone around them by all means kick em out or let them leave
what worries me though is that by recognizing this as an acceptable way of thinking then what accountability will parents have left really?
parents will screw up one way or another but consiously, willingly distancing yourself away from your kids just because "you dont want to be a full time parent" is just plain...painful.
rationalizing it that "I left and thus my children are happier and more independent" is silly
theyre independent because they dont have a choice really. that choice was taken away from them
and "happier" is a trickier thing to tackle. No one really knows how anything will affect a kid growing up.
dogma wrote:That's nice, but it has no bearing on how likely it is for you to be wrong given a, fairly applied, aggressive demarcation criterion.
Are you aware that there are people in this world that have a severe medical condition which causes them to be that way? My mother for instance is one of those people. She is a truck driver that has bad knees and a bad back from driving the truck but you probably do not care about that case either. Oh well I am not one of those people I am 5'9" 170lbs and I exercise every day. I would love to see you say something like to my mother in front of me. Probably never happen though you are probably just an internet tough guy. I doubt very seriously you would say that to someones face. Just my thought.What do you think. Oh I am sorry you probably do not have a brain. I on the other hand will be happy to buy you a plane ticket to come here and see if you have the nerve to say that to someone I know.
dogma wrote:That's nice, but it has no bearing on how likely it is for you to be wrong given a, fairly applied, aggressive demarcation criterion.
Are you aware that there are people in this world that have a severe medical condition which causes them to be that way? My mother for instance is one of those people. She is a truck driver that has bad knees and a bad back from driving the truck but you probably do not care about that case either. Oh well I am not one of those people I am 5'9" 170lbs and I exercise every day. I would love to see you say something like to my mother in front of me. Probably never happen though you are probably just an internet tough guy. I doubt very seriously you would say that to someones face. Just my thought.What do you think. Oh I am sorry you probably do not have a brain. I on the other hand will be happy to buy you a plane ticket to come here and see if you have the nerve to say that to someone I know.
Wait... what did you reply to the wrong post or do you not understand what those words mean
Bakerofish wrote:
what worries me though is that by recognizing this as an acceptable way of thinking then what accountability will parents have left really?
Do they need any? At least of the sort that extends beyond legal consequences?
Bakerofish wrote:
parents will screw up one way or another but consiously, willingly distancing yourself away from your kids just because "you dont want to be a full time parent" is just plain...painful.
rationalizing it that "I left and thus my children are happier and more independent" is silly
Its hard to say that it would be an outright painful experience. It may well be that way for you, but again, lots of others might have different reactions.
Bakerofish wrote:
theyre independent because they dont have a choice really. that choice was taken away from them
They never had a choice to begin with, even dependency would have been forced on them.
Bakerofish wrote:
and "happier" is a trickier thing to tackle. No one really knows how anything will affect a kid growing up.
Sure, especially given the absence of any meaningful comparison, but the distinction between "happy" and "happier" is basically meaningless anyway.
i wouldnt say dependency is forced. one of the milestones we have as gronwups is that decision to be come independent.
when i said painful i guess i didnt fully articulate what i meant. what im saying there is that the willful and deliberate denial of your presence and "parenthood" to a child during the age they need it the most is painful to me. some parents are parted from their child and have no control over the circumstances
this person has the means to be with her kids. she just chose not to.
i guess it may not matter to some
and yes parents need to be accountable for their kids especially during their formative years. A 5 year old and a 7 year old cannot be expected to fully understand the consequences of actions they make and the experiences they gain. A 5 year old can barely understand why icecream isnt a prefectly good replacement for a full meal. as much as people make a big deal of quality time, quantity time is as important because it provides a 'constant" or frame of reference for a child.
Ahtman wrote:Ok, exaggerating a little but I really don't know how to feel about this. I agree that not smothering your kids is a good idea but I also think that she wen to an extreme to change that. In essence: I wanted to have kids, but I didn't want it to be an inconvenience, so I walked out and let them hang out on occasion. Now I want to rationalize the decision and get others to agree (forgive) me. Very strange.
Nothing. I'm not advocating anything right now-- instead I am asking you to post specifics on what YOU are advocating so that we can better discuss it, instead of me merely taking you as trolling.
Albatross wrote:It reckon it would be pretty sweet to be a total moron who only sees the world in black and white.
...Oh. Hi, Frazzled. S'up?
gak. Tell it to the kid you just abandoned, that the rest of the world has to pick up the pieces. If you can't keep it in your pants and be man enough to raise your kid, planet Earth needs to tell you Get Off Its Balls!
Ahtman wrote:Being a parent isn't a 'traditional value'.
Yeah, it kinda is. Traditional values aren't Republican or Democrat values, they're values that (are or have been) integral to the support and growth of society.
Ahtman wrote:Being a parent isn't a 'traditional value'.
Yeah, it kinda is. Traditional values aren't Republican or Democrat values, they're values that (are or have been) integral to the support and growth of society.
Not abandoning your kids is a traditional value.
Your argument seems sclerotic at best as to why humans taking care of our young is some sort of vague concept that can change over time. What constitutes a parent can change and I am not trying to define that as it can be many different things. What we teach kids to think is important and that changes over time. I don't think anyone could argue that leaving an to fend for itself is a nebulous issue that is shads of grey. It isn't a value, it is a key to our survival as a species. If it wasn't we wouldn't have orphanages, foster parents, or adoption. Next you will argue that breathing is a traditional value.
In reality "traditional values" is such a generic term to be damn near useless. It is good for politics but not for nuanced debate, unless that debate is on how the term is used in politics.
Albatross wrote:It reckon it would be pretty sweet to be a total moron who only sees the world in black and white.
...Oh. Hi, Frazzled. S'up?
gak. Tell it to the kid you just abandoned, that the rest of the world has to pick up the pieces.
Not that it's any of your business, but I pay for the kid I 'abandoned' and have regular contact. Your move.
Then he really isn't abandoned. If you got a girl pregnant and decided to hell with it and left her and the children high and dry then you would be a deadbeat. By having regular contact you are showing that you care about your child.
This lady is a nut case that doesn't even deserve time spent discussing her. She thinks skype is contact.
To make it clear I am not condemning parents that don't live at their child's primary habitat, nor am I defining what parent means. I am taking issue with this women specifically and her reasons for leaving: just ad alieno. It is a complicated world and there will be many variations on things but that doesn't mean we can not make decisions or decide if something is right or wrong. I have not called for harm on this woman or anyone else for that matter, I just find her reasoning spurious and a repugnant person at this juncture.
Albatross wrote:My point is that situations like that are rarely black and white issues.
I totally agree. It isn't black and white. Your situation sounds very different than this woman. I don't have a solution for this, but every time I see the title of this thread I get pissed off. Seriously "Encourages Others to do so..." What if the father was encouraged to abandon the children too. What if every parent was encouraged to abandon their kids.
This person isn't abandoning this kids because she is helping them. She is abandoning them because she is a selfish person. I hope your situation is, you just wasn't compatible with the lady you got pregnant. You don't want the kids to suffer, so you keep the contact up and pay the mother money to help her raise them when you are not there.
Some people just shouldn't be together. My wife's parents were a couple just like that. However if they didn't have their kids, then I wouldn't have my wife would I?
yes cases where parents leave their kids behind is rarely black and white and rarely have easy decisions some leave in order to provide, some leave because their presence makes living harder
the real debate here is that the woman actively chose to leave her kids because she doesnt want to be a full time parent
no financial factors, no abuse no nothing
just plain rejection of the notion of being a full time parent
Honestly now that I think of it some more, I am glad this woman abandoned her children. They are better off. Can you imagine the hell these kids would have put up with if she would have remained with the family? Moping about complaining about how much she hates her children? Hopefully they have a decent step mom. She should be paying child support though. I didn't see any mention of that in the article unless you could this as child support: " "Now we stay in touch by phone, IM, Skype a few times a week," she says. "I hear about their lives and give support."
Ahtman wrote:Being a parent isn't a 'traditional value'.
Yeah, it kinda is. Traditional values aren't Republican or Democrat values, they're values that (are or have been) integral to the support and growth of society.
Not abandoning your kids is a traditional value.
Your argument seems sclerotic at best as to why humans taking care of our young is some sort of vague concept that can change over time. What constitutes a parent can change and I am not trying to define that as it can be many different things. What we teach kids to think is important and that changes over time. I don't think anyone could argue that leaving an to fend for itself is a nebulous issue that is shads of grey. It isn't a value, it is a key to our survival as a species. If it wasn't we wouldn't have orphanages, foster parents, or adoption. Next you will argue that breathing is a traditional value.
Being a parent to your own child is a traditional value. It's something that has changed over time.
Adoption used to be taboo, now it's common. But before adoption, there (usually) must be some sort of abandonment by one or both parents ("usually" to cover cases of parent death). We shut up orphans away from society and hoped they turned out all right.
This case is no different, apart from age, than the mother who abandons her kids at birth. She shirked her responsibility and figured someone else would take care of her kids for her. She didn't care if they grew up to be successful, or even if they lived to see their 10th birthday.
You can't label something "not a traditional value" to avoid agreeing with a Republican on something.
biccat wrote:Being a parent to your own child is a traditional value. It's something that has changed over time.
So you finally admit you are debating a point I was never arguing in the first place? If you, you know, actually read anything, you would see that I am not defining parent and I am certainly defining it as narrowly as only biological parents. Referring to adoption as taboo is an extreme oversimplification and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term taboo.
biccat wrote:You can't label something "not a traditional value" to avoid agreeing with a Republican on something.
You can't think of this outside of political semiotics can you? You are the one that keeps going that way. If I agree with something a Republican says I will say so, if I disagree I will also say so. This is true of Democrats. I am not running for office and do not therefore need to align myself with one or the other that strongly.
biccat wrote:Being a parent to your own child is a traditional value. It's something that has changed over time.
So you finally admit you are debating a point I was never arguing in the first place? If you, you know, actually read anything, you would see that I am not defining parent and I am certainly defining it as narrowly as only biological parents. Referring to adoption as taboo is an extreme oversimplification and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term taboo.
I merely disagreed with your statment that "being a parent isn't a 'traditional value,'" as used in the present context.
The woman abandoned her own kids, she refused to be a 'parent' (in more than the biological sense) to her children. This is a bad thing, but not because it's objectively bad, but because it's bad for society.
You're right tho that it wasn't 'taboo' according to the original understanding of the term, that is, "an unmentionable sacred act." But the term is more commonly used to mean an "unmentionable socially disfavored act." Adoptions used to happen due to abandonment, but nobody talked about it and it wasn't commonplace.
I'm sorry if you failed to understand this point. I shall be more specific when responding to your posts in the future.
Ahtman wrote:
biccat wrote:You can't label something "not a traditional value" to avoid agreeing with a Republican on something.
You can't think of this outside of political semiotics can you? You are the one that keeps going that way. If I agree with something a Republican says I will say so, if I disagree I will also say so. This is true of Democrats. I am not running for office and do not therefore need to align myself with one or the other that strongly.
I must have misunderstood you when you wrote:
Being a parent isn't a 'traditional value'. This isn't a Republican wedge issue.
Seems to me that you were the one drawing a political line.
biccat wrote:But the term is more commonly used to mean an "unmentionable socially disfavored act." Adoptions used to happen due to abandonment, but nobody talked about it and it wasn't commonplace.
Except it wasn't an "unmentionable socially disfavored act". The getting pregnant out of wedlock would have been taboo, but orphans were not. Maybe unpopular, sure, but taboo? No. I also don't see the point in bringing up traditional use other than to be asinine.
I also used the political example at that time to define what it is not, you are trying to define it as what it is.
And you are still wrong on most everything else, but I imagine you are used to that by now.
Ahtman wrote:I also used the political example at that time to define what it is not, you are trying to define it as what it is.
As I understood your point:
1) This is not a traditional value.
2) Traditional values are the purview of Republican politics
3) Ergo, this is not a political issue.
I disagree with #1, agree with #3, and therefore disagree with #2. There are 'traditional values' that both sides can agree upon.
Ahtman wrote:And you are still wrong on most everything else, but I imagine you are used to that by now.
I am certainly used to some posters disagreeing with me. This might be something you should try to "get used to."
I am also used to the fact that some posters here refuse to accept that there can be any rational opposition to their ideas. You may want to reconsider your position if you're in this group.
I am also used to the fact that certain posters here are stubborn who won't accept anything that doesn't agree with their religious, political, racial, or national bigotry. If you fall into this group, you should take a step back.
If this is what you meant, then yes, I am used to it by now.
Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.
Rosa Parks?
She didn't do it alone. She also falls under the historical theory of the cult of personality where a few people are acknowledged for something the many did. It is just easier to remember her name. Know the name of the school where a white guy taught MLK and her the fundamentals of Ghandi's theories on non-violent civil disobedience?
Albatross wrote:It reckon it would be pretty sweet to be a total moron who only sees the world in black and white.
...Oh. Hi, Frazzled. S'up?
gak. Tell it to the kid you just abandoned, that the rest of the world has to pick up the pieces.
Not that it's any of your business, but I pay for the kid I 'abandoned' and have regular contact. Your move.
Then you didn 't abandon him now did you. So Get Off My Balls! (protip As I learned Saturday night, a nearly blind weiner dog, when pissed off, will bear his teeth and just wave his head about Ray Charles style. Its awesome)
Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.
Rosa Parks?
She didn't do it alone. She also falls under the historical theory of the cult of personality where a few people are acknowledged for something the many did. It is just easier to remember her name. Know the name of the school where a white guy taught MLK and her the fundamentals of Ghandi's theories on non-violent civil disobedience?
that really isnt the point is it? whether or not she did it alone you cant deny that name got people going a certain direction
Bakerofish wrote:
i wouldnt say dependency is forced. one of the milestones we have as gronwups is that decision to be come independent.
When I say that dependency is forced, I mean for the period of time before a child can file for emancipation. After that, force doesn't really come into it at all, as a child could very well wish dependency until age 30, only to have dependency taken away by a parent.
In general, society doesn't grant children the ability to make any significant choices until a certain age.
biccat wrote:
I must have misunderstood you when you wrote:
Being a parent isn't a 'traditional value'. This isn't a Republican wedge issue.
Seems to me that you were the one drawing a political line.
Simply using the word "Republican" does not make a statement political. Republicans often talk about "traditional values" in an almost comically narrow sense in order to develop a sort of political ownership, and one might bring such a thing up in order to explain the fruitlessness of pursuing a similar route by speaking to "traditional values".
Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.
Rosa Parks?
She didn't do it alone. She also falls under the historical theory of the cult of personality where a few people are acknowledged for something the many did. It is just easier to remember her name. Know the name of the school where a white guy taught MLK and her the fundamentals of Ghandi's theories on non-violent civil disobedience?
that really isnt the point is it? whether or not she did it alone you cant deny that name got people going a certain direction
Of course it is the point when your argument is that she was one woman that changed the world when in fact she didn't. She may be one of the best known names today but she certainly wasn't alone or the first.
Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.
Rosa Parks?
She didn't do it alone. She also falls under the historical theory of the cult of personality where a few people are acknowledged for something the many did. It is just easier to remember her name. Know the name of the school where a white guy taught MLK and her the fundamentals of Ghandi's theories on non-violent civil disobedience?
that really isnt the point is it? whether or not she did it alone you cant deny that name got people going a certain direction
Of course it is the point when your argument is that she was one woman that changed the world when in fact she didn't. She may be one of the best known names today but she certainly wasn't alone or the first.
was the argument about Rosa parks being solely responsible for changing the world?
Bakerofish wrote:so did Rosa Parks NOT change the world?
Not alone, no, and even than she didn't change the world. Last I checked the USA wasn't the entirety of the planet. She may have been part of a cultural change but she wasn't the catalyst nor the end of it. It is still ongoing and involves millions of people everyday.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Ahtman wrote:So you finally admit you are debating a point I was never arguing in the first place?
Not that anyone else has been guilty of the same...
At some point all of us have misunderstood another's position, were in error, and got called on it. I've made that error before and fessed up to it. I don't recall any argument being put forward that any of us are error free.
Ahtman wrote:Ok, exaggerating a little but I really don't know how to feel about this. I agree that not smothering your kids is a good idea but I also think that she wen to an extreme to change that. In essence: I wanted to have kids, but I didn't want it to be an inconvenience, so I walked out and let them hang out on occasion. Now I want to rationalize the decision and get others to agree (forgive) me. Very strange.
when you say this:
I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.
and have you rephrase it like this:
I find it unlikely in the extreme that there will be a sea change in women's behaviour thanks to this person.
means that we agree that her influencing the world is not impossible. especially with how fast ideas get shared now.
Jenny McCarthy for example ruined decades of health programs all over the world because she thought vaccines caused autism. she found an audience and now a lot of remain un-immunized even though history and medical research debunk her claims.
Just get one person to believe you and the idea will spread. no matter how silly the idea is.
@ahtman
well we have different views of what "changing the world" is then
if by changing the world means she was focal point for people to take up discussions that werent discussed in the past. if these discussions would then domino into reforms that drastically alter how a nation sees its own people, domino into how the nation then deals with the world
then i think she did change the world
anyone remembered in history, whether justified or not, has changed the world one way or another. Not everyone can be a Benazir Bhuto or a Cory Aquino...but Jane Goodall and Helen Keller are no less important.
Bakerofish wrote:anyone remembered in history, whether justified or not, has changed the world one way or another. Not everyone can be a Benazir Bhuto or a Cory Aquino...but Jane Goodall and Helen Keller are no less important.
Everyone has changed the world in one form or another by there existence. In Historical studies (and I don't mean reading Stephen Ambrose) the real importance of these players is questionable. Lending a face to a movement is useful shorthand but it denies the realities of any given situation. There is concern that we place to much emphasis on individuals when most issues are not centered around specific people. No man is an island, and there is a long line of uninterrupted time with murky cause and effect chains with no clear demarcation line to say when a thing actually began and when it ended.
Jane Goodall didn't make the information she studied about primates or build the plane she flew to Africa, let alone pilot it. She didn't drive herself to the mountains, she didn't self publish her book or do interviews of herself on networks she owned being watched by herself on tv and talked about herself at the water cooler at work. She certainly didn't become a poacher and shoot herself in the end. Her life was a group effort.
successes (and failures) are attributed to the people who spearhead them.
if someone asked me who invented the lightbulb i would then say Edison
or should i also include the people who gathered the materials and outlined the concepts necessary to facilitate such an invention? Edison cant make the lightbulb without the caveman who first used fire as a tool after all
when you say this:
I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.
and have you rephrase it like this:
I find it unlikely in the extreme that there will be a sea change in women's behaviour thanks to this person.
means that we agree that her influencing the world is not impossible. especially with how fast ideas get shared now.
...
No, it doesn't. It just means you don't have a strong insight into human society and psychology.
If you think Mrs Lazybitche is going to turn women off mothering, why don't you think that will be balanced by the marvellous example of Mrs Crazytigger?
You overestimate the influence these people have. Both of them are nine-day wonders.
Women have been giving birth and raising families for 250,000 years. The human race only exists because of the strength of the parenting instinct.
successes (and failures) are attributed to the people who spearhead them.
if someone asked me who invented the lightbulb i would then say Edison
or should i also include the people who gathered the materials and outlined the concepts necessary to facilitate such an invention? Edison cant make the lightbulb without the caveman who first used fire as a tool after all
Except we aren't talking about inventions, which to be honest aren't always that cut and dry either, we are talking about social movements. The idea that just becuase we put a face to a movement means that they spearheaded the movement or were the crux of it is false and in depth history studies show this again and again.
so youre saying the the woman CANNOT influence others...knowing the fact that there are folks who think the same as her?
@ahtman
putting a name or face on an idea is one way ideas are conveyed and spread in the first place. The fact that they did or didnt originate the idea is irrelevant as people will get introduced to the idea through these people anyway.
think of a concept, an idea, a movement... most often people will first recall a face or a person. Can you honestly tell me that you never associated an idea with a specific person?
I think what Killcrazy is trying to say is that in the longterm people will just look back and think "crazy woman leaving her children. Bad mother etc etc". Short term of course some will follow her example, but once the hype is over it's back to business as usual.
Lukus83 wrote:I think what Killcrazy is trying to say is that in the longterm people will just look back and think "crazy woman leaving her children. Bad mother etc etc". Short term of course some will follow her example, but once the hype is over it's back to business as usual.
this is the most likely outcome yes. keyword is likely. definitely? unless youve got a crystal ball that confirms it id be hard pressed to say it in such final terms.
i was just pointing out the flaw in his statement that its impossible to say for sure.
Immigrant families with professional opportunities overseas have to deal with
this all the time, and when the families do finally get to settle in together there
remain unresolved issues that can make it difficult for them to live with one
another. Some of the people I grew up with moved to the United States as
teenagers or older, and what was striking to me was the age differences among
siblings: 2-3 years, exactly the amount of time it took their father to save up
money for a trip back home to the Philippines.
It's not a small decision, leaving your children behind, but there are situations
where it is for the better.
I'm not sure if this situation is such a one. I don't know if I can make that call.
There's a Los Lobos song that expresses how hard it must feel:
Speak softly, don't wake the baby
Come and hold me once more
Before I have to leave
Because there's a lot of work out there
Everything will be fine
And I'll send for you baby
Just a matter of time
Our life, the only thing we know
Come and tell me once more
Before you have to go
That's there's a better world out there
Though it don't feel right
Will it be like I hope
Just a matter of time
And I hope it's all it seems
Not another empty dream
There's a time for you and me
In a place living happily
And I hope it's all it seems
Not another empty dream
There's a time for you and me
In a place living happily
Walk quietly, don't make a sound
Believe in what you're doing
I know we can't be wrong
Don't worry about us here
It will be alright
And we'll be there with you
Just a matter of time
And we'll all be together
Just a matter of time
A matter of time
We'll be together
In a matter of time
You and me, a matter of time
It will be like I hoped
A matter of time
MeanGreenStompa wrote:She sounds like a selfish prick who refuses to shoulder her responsibilities as a parent.
Smoothing it over as 'in their best interests', on the one hand is a glib excuse of an abandoning parent with a good vocabulary, on the other hand, she's a selfish prick, so being distant from her is probably very beneficial to her biological children.
I agree in parts. Just because a person has a child doesnt mean they have to raise it. Its pertty fethed up if you ask me but thats the truth. Personally, even if my wife and I separated, I would still be there for my children (and indeed my wife) whenever they needed me. It sounds to me like she just realized it was a bad idea and left. I think shes now just convincing herself that it was an awesome choice to abandon her children and husband.
Albatross wrote:It reckon it would be pretty sweet to be a total moron who only sees the world in black and white.
...Oh. Hi, Frazzled. S'up?
gak. Tell it to the kid you just abandoned, that the rest of the world has to pick up the pieces.
Not that it's any of your business, but I pay for the kid I 'abandoned' and have regular contact. Your move.
Then you didn 't abandon him now did you. So Get Off My Balls!
I will gladly climb off your balls the day you stop treating complex issues in a manichean fashion. Saying that 'people who abandon their kids should be exterminated' is pretty unhelpful to any sort of rational debate, especially considering the fact that abandonment is an ambiguous concept. There are degrees of 'abandon'. Some people may consider my situation 'abandonment'. On the other hand, you could take the matter of my own father, who I barely knew. Now you'll probably say 'he sounds like a scumbag', and you'd basically be right - he was a violent drunk who spent most of my life in various prisons (or trying to get into them) - but what you wouldn't take into account is the fact that I was actually glad he wasn't around. I was more than happy to be 'abandoned'.
A bad parent can do more damage than an absent one. Worth bearing in mind before you make broadbrush statements on the issue of parental absenteeism.
I will gladly climb off your balls the day you stop treating complex issues in a manichean fashion.
***That’s cheating. You’re using those $5 words again.
Saying that 'people who abandon their kids should be exterminated' is pretty unhelpful to any sort of rational debate, especially considering the fact that abandonment is an ambiguous concept.
***Wait, why do you think I or anyone on this thread or this board are having a debate? It’s a statement f belief.
There are degrees of 'abandon'.
***Excuses to make shades without reason. I already stated my qualification of when abandonment is.
Some people may consider my situation 'abandonment'.
***I don’t know what your situation is or if it meets my definition.
On the other hand, you could take the matter of my own father, who I barely knew.
Now you'll probably say 'he sounds like a scumbag', and you'd basically be right - he was a violent drunk who spent most of my life in various prisons (or trying to get into them) - but what you wouldn't take into account is the fact that I was actually glad he wasn't around. I was more than happy to be 'abandoned'.
***That doesn’t fit my definition, but I’ll roll, there may be exceptions. If he abandoned you under this definition then its supporting my point.
A bad parent can do more damage than an absent one.
****True but dthat doesn’t make the absent one any more worthy of being allowed to breath.
Worth bearing in mind before you make broadbrush statements on the issue of parental absenteeism.
***None of that has changed my position. You just cited bad parents. OK they suck. It’s a separate issue but they suck. Put them against the wall too.
Bakerofish wrote:
Jenny McCarthy for example ruined decades of health programs all over the world because she thought vaccines caused autism. she found an audience and now a lot of remain un-immunized even though history and medical research debunk her claims.
She wasn't the first one to say this mind you. She was just the first celebrity to spread it. I don't think she has ruined anything either. Nobody knows for sure what the link is between vaccination and autism. Heck there have been people who video their child for hours each day up until their child is vaccinated and for a period of time afterwards, which clearly show something happened to their child immediately after the vaccine was administrated. Something is going on with the vaccinations, though I don't think they cause Autism. More than likely is is akin to an allergic reaction to the vaccine and these kids have genetic defect that causes the reaction (autism) to happen after being vaccinated.
But I wouldn't know the truth of any of it. I have just witnessed as many as ten familys whose child was perfectly normal until the day that got the vaccine. Instead of saying the vaccine causes it, someone shoudl be looking into a possible genetic flaw that has a reaction to the vaccine.
Assuming you are talking about the MMR vaccine, the following organisations know for sure there is no link between MMR vaccination and autism.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences
The UK National Health Service
The Cochrane Library
Kilkrazy wrote:Assuming you are talking about the MMR vaccine, the following organisations know for sure there is no link between MMR vaccination and autism.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences
The UK National Health Service
The Cochrane Library
They know because of statistics.
I am not arguing with you or the statistics. The medical fields of both autism and ME/CFS research are plagued by politics. This is to our detriment. It's hard to follow the evidence when reporting of findings is skewed by politics. Andrew Wakefield killed off a lot of children with his fraudulent research. I don't think the issue is ever going to be resolved. I believe that there are some kids who are affected in some way whether it is an allegory or something else. Every one I have ever seen has been completely different. It is really hard to find a true cause when you keep blanketing multiple disorders with the same terminology. I have four kids in my classroom all diagnosed with Autism and I can tell you this, their disorders are completely different. That has to affect the outcome of any research in the issue.
Kilkrazy wrote:Andrew Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register because of that piece of research.
Yeah, I had that edited in a few times. I took most of it out, because I really just do not know anymore regarding the issue. The politics are so distorted with the issue that it is really hard to get a grip on the truth. I am going with the organisations you listed for now until someone steps up and provides us with some new research. I doubt it will happen because of Andrew Wakefield though.
On the one hand we have 500 million children vaccinated with MMR since the early 1970s, leading to a saving over over 17,000 cases of mental retardation and over 5,000 child deaths in the US alone. Not to mention the benefits of other vaccines such as polio, tetanus, chicken pox, tuberculosis and HPV.
On the other hand we have people like Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy, and the Daily Mail.
There isn't any doubt. There isn't any contest. The evidence from numerous, well-conducted studies and meta-research is overwhelmingly convincing that there is no link between vaccination and autism.
There isn't any political debate. There are only parents who by lack of scientific understanding and trust in doctors, refuse to vaccinate their children, until the herd immunity is reduced to the level that their children start dying of measles, mumps, and other diseases. This has already begun to happen in London.
Here too. I wish I could say that the US is less trusting of quack medicine than the brits are, but even here fake crap like Homeopathy is starting to take hold too.
The woman is a selfish person. She's also a idiot who seemingly thought having children would be "fun" and dumped them as soon as she saw they were going to be a responsibility.
This is a growing problem of a selfish society that tells people that they should always place themselves first.
Who thinks of having children without realizing that you've just set yourself up for 18 years of responsibility?
Kids are better off without her and learning her selfish lifestyle.
On the one hand we have 500 million children vaccinated with MMR since the early 1970s, leading to a saving over over 17,000 cases of mental retardation and over 5,000 child deaths in the US alone. Not to mention the benefits of other vaccines such as polio, tetanus, chicken pox, tuberculosis and HPV.
On the other hand we have people like Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy, and the Daily Mail.
There isn't any doubt. There isn't any contest. The evidence from numerous, well-conducted studies and meta-research is overwhelmingly convincing that there is no link between vaccination and autism.
There isn't any political debate. There are only parents who by lack of scientific understanding and trust in doctors, refuse to vaccinate their children, until the herd immunity is reduced to the level that their children start dying of measles, mumps, and other diseases. This has already begun to happen in London.
Agreed. I know that GC was infected by a jerk off who wasn't vaccinated right when she neede a booster and was sick for two weeks. SWMBO won't tell me who because I'd go over there and there would be an inevitable "incident."
MadEdric wrote:The woman is a selfish person. She's also a idiot who seemingly thought having children would be "fun" and dumped them as soon as she saw they were going to be a responsibility.
This is a growing problem of a selfish society that tells people that they should always place themselves first.
Who thinks of having children without realizing that you've just set yourself up for 18 years of responsibility?
Kids are better off without her and learning her selfish lifestyle.
I completely agree with this. I know (mainly because I was raised in an incredibly stable environment) that people can and are allowed to make mistakes. And if you do make a mistake, its your responsibility to make it right. So yea, not everyone is cut out for parenting, as long as they "man up" and take responsibility on the matter all is well. Just dumping your family like that is terrible. If I were the husband, Id take responsibility, and tell that bitch she cant see our kids until shes got her head strait. That type of stuff will just screw up kids. Go out, have fun, enjoy life, but once its time to be an adult about things you have to be an adult. Not some damn hippy fruit cake
Kilkrazy wrote:Not to mention the benefits of other vaccines such as polio, tetanus, chicken pox, tuberculosis and HPV.
I wouldn't lump HPV and chicken pox in with the other vaccines. Not because of autism issues (which is dumb), but because they're relatively recent vaccines that haven't been fully time-tested. For example, I don't plan on giving my child the chicken pox vaccine because I'd rather she have chicken pox as a kid than have her risk getting chicken pox as an adult if the vaccine isn't as effective with time.
Kilkrazy wrote:There isn't any political debate. There are only parents who by lack of scientific understanding and trust in doctors, refuse to vaccinate their children, until the herd immunity is reduced to the level that their children start dying of measles, mumps, and other diseases. This has already begun to happen in London.
Most of the people who are susceptable to these diseases are free riders who aren't getting the vaccines themselves. It's not a good situation when kids get serious diseases, but it's the fault of the individual child's parents that they get sick with these diseases.
One of my daughter's nursery school friends died of Chicken Pox at the age of three. The wife and I were off to a private doctor within a couple of days to get the vaccine.
You are right that there isn't a 500 million + evidence base concerning these newer vaccines.
There is general immune system science behind them, though, so there is no reason to think they will suddenly do something weird.
You know what? I still like her better than the tiger mother.
Lord Scythican wrote:I am not arguing with you or the statistics. The medical fields of both autism and ME/CFS research are plagued by politics. This is to our detriment. It's hard to follow the evidence when reporting of findings is skewed by politics.
There has been immense research into this field now, and not one study of any decent standing has found a connection between vaccinations and autism. Not one.
The only politicis in this issue is from people who would rather believe something regardless of the findings of countless studies, developed over years and with millions spent on research.
The complaints don't even make sense any more, because the original theories believed it was due to mercury used in the vaccines. They don't even use mercury anymore (as supplies have diminished and substitutes are now used) but the believers continue to drone on.
choices that develop our identity for one, choices that develop life skills for another
tiger mother enforces their own will on kids under the guise of protection and thus take away our choices to experience certain things
sometimes choosing to fail can be a very important character building moment but overbearing mothers will not allow that
abandon mother on the other hand take away the choice that the kids may have regarding their relationships with their parents thus eliminating possible emotional milestones
its hard to see the choices we make when they seem like givens. an example would be our relationships with our parents. the choices we make, when we actively choose to go to our parents (comfort, stability, advice) or actively move away from them (independence, rebellion), are usually tied with the milestones in our life
and sometimes, a parent being present means having someone there to save you or save you from yourself
when youre 20, 30 or 40 you have sufficient social and emotional interactions and life experiences to help you with how you live your life. its not often a choice we make will drastically affect how we percieve things or situations as we already have a foundation to rely on
Bakerofish wrote:choices that develop our identity for one, choices that develop life skills for another
Yeah but, how has that changed from any other age?
The rest of what you said is true, more or less, but I just don't see how it really helps deliver any understanding about this case. I mean, I could also start talking about... I don't know... self esteem, or hygiene or something and how the decisions of the two parents negatively impacted on the children.
It'd be true, technically, if I was sufficiently vague and imaginative, but it really wouldn't actually increase our understanding of the way these parents have chosen to approach the raising of their children. It'd just be placing some artificial set of concepts over the top of the discussion.
Whereas talking about parents putting their own ambitions ahead of their children does increase our understanding, because it's actually getting at the heart of what is going on. Then we can talk about how one parent had personal ambitions and chose to leave her children because of it, while the other had ambitions she wanted to see realised through her children, and believed them so strongly that she was willing to sacrifice or ignore the health and happiness of her children to reach them.
im not really trying to shed some understanding over the mothers motivations as again theyre the only ones who can really justify that and the most important people they can justify that to at the end of the day is themselves. If they think theyre doing right then the rest of the world just doesnt understand them. They arent breaking laws as far as i can tell.
we can understand them but it still wont take away why we dislike what they do.
i made the comment to point out why both mothers inspire a lot of strong emotions in people
people make leeway to account for reality. a mom leaving a kid to work in a different country isnt bad if the goal is to provide for said kid etc.
both mothers effectively take away the choice we as civilized people expect the kids to have and do so willingly. its oppression in a sense.
generally, when people see other people, especially kids being oppressed...well we tend to react
as for this question:
Yeah but, how has that changed from any other age?
when youre 30 or 40 you know who you are and itll take a lot to make you question that.
when your self identity can change just by how you wear your hair one day means you havent fully developed your sense of self yet so any choice you have can still fundamentally change who you are.
Bakerofish wrote:we can understand them but it still wont take away why we dislike what they do.
If we can understand why someone does something, it may change what we think of their choice. We might come to like it more, we might come to like it less. I know that having come to understand mothers that drive their children in the past, I've come to dislike their parenting choices a whole lot more.
This in turn informs our own ability to make choices about our parenting, or any other related matter. Understanding the motivations people have for the things they do is very important.
generally, when people see other people, especially kids being oppressed...well we tend to react
Yes, but it still really isn't about choices, because all parenting, good or bad, removes choices from the children. You have to, because the child isn't capable of making a lot of choice for themselves. Removing the child's choice to have McDonalds for dinner every night isn't oppression, but good parenting.
If you insist on looking at it in terms of restricting choices, then it gets back to what choices these parents restricted compared to what choices are restricted by less contraversial parents. And that in turn becomes a question of why each parent made their choices. At which point you're right back to what I was talking about, the motivations behind the parenting decision.
when youre 30 or 40 you know who you are and itll take a lot to make you question that.
Oh, the age of the child! Sorry, I read that as 'the modern age' or something. Complete reading fail on my part.
Yes, finding your identity is very important at that age.
sebster wrote:
If we can understand why someone does something, it may change what we think of their choice. We might come to like it more, we might come to like it less. I know that having come to understand mothers that drive their children in the past, I've come to dislike their parenting choices a whole lot more.
This in turn informs our own ability to make choices about our parenting, or any other related matter. Understanding the motivations people have for the things they do is very important.
Liking something doesnt necessary mean you understand it and vise versa.
i understand why. and you understand why. i think most people can relate to these people and can understand how important their needs are like being yourself and living your dream. everyone has needs like those so we can relate and understand at some level.
i think its the acceptance that we are having problems with. we know why they do the things they do but we still cant accept it as right or do so grudgingly.
Yes, but it still really isn't about choices, because all parenting, good or bad, removes choices from the children. You have to, because the child isn't capable of making a lot of choice for themselves. Removing the child's choice to have McDonalds for dinner every night isn't oppression, but good parenting.
If you insist on looking at it in terms of restricting choices, then it gets back to what choices these parents restricted compared to what choices are restricted by less contraversial parents. And that in turn becomes a question of why each parent made their choices. At which point you're right back to what I was talking about, the motivations behind the parenting decision.
maybe choice is not the best word here. english, second language, nuance lost. Opportunities to make those choices? That the chance to make the choices themselves are lost or taken away?
the reason i keep coming back to this is because if youre talking about concrete and tangible choices like what to feed a kid and how to clothe them etc. then i dont think people should have a problem with the mother because she didnt leave the kids out in the street and im sure the kids are pretty well-off and provided for.
i think its the intangibles and emotions that affect people here. It's like your brain freaking out going "arent you supposed to love your child? then why...."
Oh, the age of the child! Sorry, I read that as 'the modern age' or something. Complete reading fail on my part.
Yes, finding your identity is very important at that age.
Bakerofish wrote:Liking something doesnt necessary mean you understand it and vise versa.
Well, yeah, you'll note I already said that when I posted "We might come to like it more, we might come to like it less. I know that having come to understand mothers that drive their children in the past, I've come to dislike their parenting choices a whole lot more."
The point is that in coming to understand why they did what they did we can build a more informed opinion of whether we agree or not with their choice.
maybe choice is not the best word here. english, second language, nuance lost.
Ah, fair enough. I had wondered (I once asked on this site if English was someone's second language, it wasn't and they were quite rightly offended).
Opportunities to make those choices? That the chance to make the choices themselves are lost or taken away?
the reason i keep coming back to this is because if youre talking about concrete and tangible choices like what to feed a kid and how to clothe them etc. then i dont think people should have a problem with the mother because she didnt leave the kids out in the street and im sure the kids are pretty well-off and provided for.
i think its the intangibles and emotions that affect people here. It's like your brain freaking out going "arent you supposed to love your child? then why...."
It isn't about intangibles or not. The kids in one case were left with the Dad who presumably took good care of them while the mother paid child support, in the other case the mother certainly gave her children a good home and a full range of meals.
It's about most dialogue about parenting in the last generation or two being based around the idea that the most important thing a parent can do is love and support their child. Now we have a women who says the Asian way is to drive their child to succeed, and most people think that the parents goals should not be as important as the happiness of your children. Then we have a woman who says that if you're really not that into parenting just bail, it's better for you and the kids, and again we respond that the parents goals should not be as important as the happiness of your children.
It's just... choices aren't a useful way of examining that. Everything is choices.
yeah i guess it revolves around that doesnt it? Love
i was examining why i was affected by her choice and i found myself going back over and over to one question i wanted to ask:
"why dont you love your kids?"
and i KNOW thats not a fair question to ask because I know there wont be an answer thats going to satisfy me
i understand
but i cant accept.
and if everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes as love then i guess we really wont come to an agreement of whether shes right or wrong will we?
were trying to put a rationale around the presence or absence of a fundamentaly irrational and immeasurable concept.
its not about the justifications of her actions that we end up examining and looking for but how we fundamentally percieve the love of a parent to a child should be
sebster wrote:You know what? I still like her better than the tiger mother.
Lord Scythican wrote:I am not arguing with you or the statistics. The medical fields of both autism and ME/CFS research are plagued by politics. This is to our detriment. It's hard to follow the evidence when reporting of findings is skewed by politics.
There has been immense research into this field now, and not one study of any decent standing has found a connection between vaccinations and autism. Not one.
The only politicis in this issue is from people who would rather believe something regardless of the findings of countless studies, developed over years and with millions spent on research.
The complaints don't even make sense any more, because the original theories believed it was due to mercury used in the vaccines. They don't even use mercury anymore (as supplies have diminished and substitutes are now used) but the believers continue to drone on.
You must admit, this thread has meandered like the Snake River hasn't it? Excellent.
Frazzled wrote:You must admit, this thread has meandered like the Snake River hasn't it? Excellent.
Pretty much. Kind of inevitable when everyone agrees the lady in the opening story is a bitch. We can argue about how much of a bitch, but ultimately that's just not that much fun, we gotta find something else to argue about.
So... the English teeth are pretty crap aren't they?
You figure it out.
gak. Tell it to the kid you just abandoned, that the rest of the world has to pick up the pieces. If you can't keep it in your pants and be man enough to raise your kid, planet Earth needs to tell you Get Off Its Balls! 
