|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 21, 2010 7:42:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bananacat on Apr 21, 2010 8:02:12 GMT -5
Wow, I had so many thoughts as I was reading that and you covered every single one before I had a chance to comment.
I was basically thinking that it takes more than giving birth to be a mother, and especially a good mother, and that the older daughters are the ones who truly deserve the reward.
I'm fairly certain that my mom spent more time with me than Michelle spends with her kids, and she had a full-time career! I love my brothers so much, but that love could never replace what I have with my mom.
BTW, what is the "H-word" that you mentioned?
|
|
|
Post by badfaerie on Apr 21, 2010 8:16:53 GMT -5
While I definitely have issues with the Duggar family and concerns about the example Michelle has set for women everywhere, I don't understand what is wrong with having the children help with the housework and looking after each other.
Granted, it seems in QF families this is taken to an extreme. I just wonder if it's the combination of fundamentalist restrictions added to the family responsibilities that combine to make a repressive culture.
My grandfather was one of 12 children. My great-grandfather was a rancher in the SouthWest. All of the children were expected to help around the house, help take care of each other and to work the ranch, each to their own abilities for their age. My father-in-law was one of 11 children born into a large SouthEastern farming family. The expectations were the same for him and his siblings.
One thing I notice about my grandfather and his siblings, and my father-in-law and his siblings is that they have close adult relationships with each other. As adults, each family has doctors and PhD's and those that stayed to work the farm/ranch. They are normal and functioning well rounded people.
The only difference I see is that while these large families were raised christian, they were far from fundamentalist QF families. (The stories of the firm hand of my great-grandmother Lorena in handling her brood as well as her husband are legendary)
I am one of 3 children, but my sister is 13 years younger, so I mainly grew up with my brother. Even just the 2 of us we were required to help each other and to do housework and take care of our animals to our own ability. As I got older, if I wanted to keep the horses, I had to care for them and then eventually provide for them in my own way which meant helping cut hay for a share of the yield, help out at the vets office in exchange for care and caring for my baby sister in exchange for entry fees for events. The point is, even at a young age, I carried serious responsibilities.
Trade out the horses with additional younger siblings and I don't think it would have been so awful. I know many children from large families that look forward to having their own large family because of the great experience they had growing up, which included helping run the home and take care of siblings.
So I guess what I'm wondering is why is having the children help out so damaging? Or is it the demands combined with the other oppressive "silliness"(for the lack of a better description that doesn't include profanity) that cause problems?
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 21, 2010 8:37:52 GMT -5
So I guess what I'm wondering is why is having the children help out so damaging? Or is it the demands combined with the other oppressive "silliness"(for the lack of a better description that doesn't include profanity) that cause problems? The problem is not children helping out, but that in the Duggar family as with most large QF families, the eldest daughters don't "help out" - they are the primary caregivers. If anything, Michelle occasionally helps them. Quiverfull daughters are de facto teen moms (the only difference is they're presumably virgins). Most of the reasons we discourage teen pregnancy apply to them: too much responsibility (note that the antidote to "too much" is not "none") stunts their abilities to develop their own interests, make their own friends, progress in their education, participate in sports and volunteerism (see also forming interests and choosing a career), leave for college, and above all, think about what kind of lives they want to lead. Quiverfull daughters have no room to develop their own personalities. What isn't wrung out of them by fundamentalist doctrine is crushed by the weight of inappropriate responsibilities. Michelle is the one who decided to have nineteen kids. Not her daughters. Therefore she should take responsibility for their emotional and developmental wellbeing. Not her daughters. If she doesn't do this, she doesn't deserve to be called a mother at all. She's nothing but a broodmare. Bananacat - I'm pretty sure the H-word is 'hypocrite.' At least, that's what I was thinking the whole time. Also, the fearmongering and manipulation in Doug Phillips' "culture of death" meme is palpable. If he tried giving that speech to me in person I'd burst out laughing and hand him a bottle of Valium. I'm pretty sure I've thought about death considerably less outside of fundamentalism than in it.
|
|
|
Post by bananacat on Apr 21, 2010 9:26:21 GMT -5
Every time this topic comes up, without fail, someone always assumes that we think that children should have absolutely no chores or responsibility. Who here actually said that the Duggar children should do nothing? It's a balance to give kids the right amount of work, but the Duggars have easily crossed the "too much" line. Teenagers and children should not have the same level of responsibility as an adult parent. I don't understand why this is considered a radical idea. For the oldest daughters who are adults now, they shouldn't have to be responsible for completely raising someone else's children.
I also have a real problem with the gendered distribution of chores, where the burden is hefted mostly on the girls. Some of the older sons work hard at jobs, but at least they get paid to do that and as far as I know, they do not have to hand over all that money to support their younger siblings. Boys work to support themselves, girls work to support their younger siblings.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Apr 21, 2010 9:28:25 GMT -5
Yeah, the jump from babies to EUTHANASIA OF THE ELDERLY (by, what, offering health care to younger people also?) would be funny if it weren't so influential.
|
|
Hillary
Full Member
"Quivering Daughters ~ Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy" Now Available!
Posts: 129
|
Post by Hillary on Apr 21, 2010 10:12:52 GMT -5
This brought me to tears and I am still crying as I try to type. Because you are so right ~ and while my heart certainly goes out to the Duggar girls, I can't help but think about all the families who live under the radar and who don't get to enjoy the "blessings" that come national television, with living in a large, comfortable, debt free home, the notoriety. Not of course that these are always to be sought, but these things *do* make life easier in some ways (although I can imagine the pressure to keep up appearances for your WITNESS on camera is DEVASTATING). But for every precious Duggar daughter, there are hundreds, if not thousands, who do all of this without help. Without their luxury lifestyle ~ and it is a Quiverfull version of a luxury lifestyle.
Thanks for writing this.
|
|
Hillary
Full Member
"Quivering Daughters ~ Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy" Now Available!
Posts: 129
|
Post by Hillary on Apr 21, 2010 10:15:17 GMT -5
So I guess what I'm wondering is why is having the children help out so damaging? Or is it the demands combined with the other oppressive "silliness"(for the lack of a better description that doesn't include profanity) that cause problems? The problem is not children helping out, but that in the Duggar family as with most large QF families, the eldest daughters don't "help out" - they are the primary caregivers. If anything, Michelle occasionally helps them. Quiverfull daughters are de facto teen moms (the only difference is they're presumably virgins). Most of the reasons we discourage teen pregnancy apply to them: too much responsibility (note that the antidote to "too much" is not "none") stunts their abilities to develop their own interests, make their own friends, progress in their education, participate in sports and volunteerism (see also forming interests and choosing a career), leave for college, and above all, think about what kind of lives they want to lead. Quiverfull daughters have no room to develop their own personalities. What isn't wrung out of them by fundamentalist doctrine is crushed by the weight of inappropriate responsibilities. Michelle is the one who decided to have nineteen kids. Not her daughters. Therefore she should take responsibility for their emotional and developmental wellbeing. Not her daughters. If she doesn't do this, she doesn't deserve to be called a mother at all. She's nothing but a broodmare. Bananacat - I'm pretty sure the H-word is 'hypocrite.' At least, that's what I was thinking the whole time. Very poignant, Sierra.
|
|
|
Post by choiceisgood on Apr 21, 2010 10:36:38 GMT -5
The two points that alarm me the most about Michelle and her family. First, they are the bright and shiny varnish that covers the nasty realities that ATI/Bill Gothard and Vision Forum represent (see, it's not so bad giving up your civil liberties!). Second, their lifestyle virtually disables their children by limiting their education (I could go on for too long on their cafeteria mentality when it comes to science; the science that keeps Josie alive is good. The science that provides women reproductive choice is bad.). JimBob and Michelle were allowed to make choices in order to set the path of their lives, it wasn't forced on them. The futures of their children are set, no need for them to think about choice and this is guaranteed by limiting their education. I don't see any nurses, doctors, lawyers or engineers coming out of that group because their place in the world has already been carved out for them.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Apr 21, 2010 10:54:48 GMT -5
Great Post! I totally missed this announcement!
As has been discussed many times at TWOP and elsewhere, the idea of Michelle mothering anyone younger than Jinger is laughable. The kids were dumped on the big siblings ASAP. I've written before that I totally believe Michelle "went along" with the Full Quiver thing as long as she "only" had to deliver them all.
Another very "telling" moment was when Josh showed his car lot and pointed out "Jana's" old mini-van. Granted teens desperate for a car will take anything, but a mini-van is made to hold little kids--and of course, when would Jana not have kids with her?
The girls have spoken of "our" little kids in ways only a mother would. The boys, while obviously having a good relationship with their little siblings, do not do anywhere near the level of nurturing that the girls do. While it was sweet that John was showing Joe and "Siah about sheet metal work, it's nothing to the constant "training" the big girls do for the little kids on manners, personal habits, etc.
Who can forget, in the long-ago first "Special" "14 Kids..." the haggard faces of the older girls in their old fashioned or just out-of-style dresses, saying they "like to help--it's fun" and heading out the door to the family mini-bus in an old fashioned dress coat, with shoulder purse and diaper bag? Or that a girl of , what? 12? was doing ALL that freakin' laundry [although Mama did get up in the night to move clothes to the drier for her] or that a slightly older girl did the cooking!!
GREAT POST!!!
|
|
|
Post by zoeygirl on Apr 21, 2010 11:04:19 GMT -5
I don't see any nurses, doctors, lawyers or engineers coming out of that group because their place in the world has already been carved out for them. That's true. Where do QF people think doctors and nurses come from? From people who go to college, which from what I understand they think is a waste of time and will indoctrinate their young people with worldly views. Yet they are more than willing to take advantage of "science" when they need it. I was thinking the other day . . . I wonder if one (or which one) of these kids will grow up to write an expose about their family? Perhaps one of the girls, when she finds that the husband that was promised her isn't coming, or the husband she has is abusive and she can't submit enough to change him? Fundamentalists make so many promises: "If you live OUR way, then your life will be abundantly happy. And if it's not, then it's your fault." So they always win. Will one of these kids realize that some day?
|
|
|
Post by kiery on Apr 21, 2010 11:09:06 GMT -5
I think if anyone gets an award, it should be the girls....as well as at least a 2 month vacation, let mom be mom for a while.
With Hillary though - totally, they aren't having any financial issues, and soooo many more live with...very little or don't aspire to anything more than construction jobs. Which is good and all, but hard to support a large family on $18 an hour. I think that's way more common than the Duggar's scenario. But who would want to watch an average-joe middle-class(or poverty level, if you're doing the math for 9 people instead or 4) large family when you could have a rich, seemingly happy large family?
|
|
Hillary
Full Member
"Quivering Daughters ~ Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy" Now Available!
Posts: 129
|
Post by Hillary on Apr 21, 2010 11:28:48 GMT -5
I think if anyone gets an award, it should be the girls....as well as at least a 2 month vacation, let mom be mom for a while. With Hillary though - totally, they aren't having any financial issues, and soooo many more live with...very little or don't aspire to anything more than construction jobs. Which is good and all, but hard to support a large family on $18 an hour. I think that's way more common than the Duggar's scenario. But who would want to watch an average-joe middle-class(or poverty level, if you're doing the math for 9 people instead or 4) large family when you could have a rich, seemingly happy large family? There was a year in my childhood when family income was less than $10k. Granted there weren't as many children then and I know my parents were stressed. I remember strangers sending food through the mail with a note that God had given them our address in a dream.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Apr 21, 2010 12:05:07 GMT -5
Hey ~ my article is "Editor's Pick" on Open Salon (http://open.salon.com/cover) and is currently being featured in the top position of the home page. Cool. Thanks to Arietty for her help in the chat room with this article ~ she dug up the quotes for me and also made a couple good points including the fact that if Michelle were employing paid au pairs in the care and raising of her children, she would not be receiving a Mother of the Year award. But built-in nannies? Apparently in VF's estimation, this qualifies her as a heroic example of Christian motherhood. And yes, Sierra ~ you are right. The "H-word" is hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by badfaerie on Apr 21, 2010 12:05:09 GMT -5
Every time this topic comes up, without fail, someone always assumes that we think that children should have absolutely no chores or responsibility. Who here actually said that the Duggar children should do nothing? It's a balance to give kids the right amount of work, but the Duggars have easily crossed the "too much" line. Teenagers and children should not have the same level of responsibility as an adult parent. I don't understand why this is considered a radical idea. For the oldest daughters who are adults now, they shouldn't have to be responsible for completely raising someone else's children. I also have a real problem with the gendered distribution of chores, where the burden is hefted mostly on the girls. Some of the older sons work hard at jobs, but at least they get paid to do that and as far as I know, they do not have to hand over all that money to support their younger siblings. Boys work to support themselves, girls work to support their younger siblings. I did not mean to imply that you think that children should do nothing. I guess what struck me is Vycki 's statement in the post about not feeling well and being a bit overwhelmed now so she tried to find something in her old QF habits to help get things back to manageable, only to find that nothing of her old ways worked without all the oppressive garbage. Maybe I read it wrong or am just sensitive about it, but I took that passage as a sign of letting the pendulum swing too far the other way. So really, where's the line between reasonable large family expectations and oppressive early responsibilities? If the older daughters were encouraged to find their own paths and prepare for the lives they choose, would it still be abusive to have them be responsible for their younger siblings while they are at home? This is the norm in many secular large families. If large families secular and fundamentalist are putting unreasonable responsibilities on older children that is one conversation, however if it isn't the actually requirements with regards to siblings and household, but the way they are brainwashed and oppressed in other ways the conversation is completely different. I becomes that fundamentalism steals the education, identity and choice from children, in large families and small. Being part of a large family just intensifies the underlying problem, instead of being a primary cause.
|
|
|
Post by km on Apr 21, 2010 12:08:51 GMT -5
This was a really powerful post, Vyckie.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Apr 21, 2010 12:14:09 GMT -5
I think one of the places to draw the line for reasonability is that, at the point where your family responsibilities are just too much to handle without overloading your older kids, it's responsible to take a break from having babies for a while. You can't foresee everything - bad things happen to everyone, and that can push anybody temporarily over the edge - but you can react by not adding any more responsibilities when you're overwhelmed. Which is something people can't go back in time and do, when they are trying to leave the oppressive parts behind, and that makes the balance harder to figure out. But it's something that folks like the Duggars actively try to teach people not to do - the whole "don't give up, God will provide!" is a useful way to deal with what you already have, but it's bad advice to someone who is already overstretched and thinking "should I take on another kid/a second job/another ministry"
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Apr 21, 2010 12:24:45 GMT -5
i couldnt agree more with your post, vycki.
here i am holding my nephew, totally pissed because my sisters not here to take him off my hands, i never agreed to babysit; i dont mind once in a while but its like damn, just take care of your own kid. i couldnt imagine being those poor girls doing all the work to raise their younger siblings and run the house ... and their mom gets a mother of the year award? what bs! i bet those poor girls are so pissed, just too bad theyll never get the chance to say so.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Apr 21, 2010 12:28:58 GMT -5
Yes, I agree with this last post.
I remember we used to jokingly refer to families who were postponing births as "slackers" - this even if they had 8 or more kids! It was somewhat in jest, but there was truth to it too - taking a break meant that you couldn't really trust God the way we were all supposed to be.
In fact, this was the straw that broke my marriage's back. When I told my husband that I was simply too physically and emotionally overwhelmed to have another child, and then he called me a "baby" - that was the beginning of the end. It was just inhumane, and I could finally recognize it as such.
My take on having the kids help: I do give mine responsibilities, but I am really careful to make sure it's not impinging on their development, including their social life. I am quite flexible about letting them off for things if there's a good reason. I also pay them for chores when I need more help than what seems reasonable to expect of them. This works real well for teens who always need money for stuff - of course, I am the only who knows that I'd probably have to shell out the bucks anyway because I want them to be able to do this stuff. This way, I get more help around the house.
Congrats Vyckie!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 21, 2010 12:40:53 GMT -5
"As I got older, if I wanted to keep the horses, I had to care for them and then eventually provide for them in my own way which meant helping cut hay for a share of the yield, help out at the vets office in exchange for care and caring for my baby sister in exchange for entry fees for events. The point is, even at a young age, I carried serious responsibilities.
Trade out the horses with additional younger siblings and I don't think it would have been so awful."
But there is a HUGE difference in those two requests! If the child doesn't want to continue the responsibilities of the horses, he or she can give the horses away. They are also an interest the children are involved in and have a say in getting and keeping. Younger children? They are something the parents get with no input from their older children, and then once they are here shove off their parental responsibilities on their teens-- no end, no possibility of saying, you know what? Actually this IS to much for me, this actually ISN'T one of my interests any more, I want to adopt out my horses.
That's not allowed with siblings, instead... ANOTHER one comes along and you're responsible for even MORE!
It works fine as long as the interests line up, but in the case that the older children start to have interests that are different, individual, their own, they are stuck. There is no freedom. Personally, I do think even a lot of non QF families with lots of children fall into this trap. Different parents have different capacities for taking care of and dealing with young children-- but if you go over what you can take care of yourself and be responsible for yourself, I think it's problematic no matter the belief system, you are assuming and presuming you will be able to rely on others to do the work you created, and human nature and family loyalty is such that your older children probably will limit themselves and their futures in order to get it done.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Apr 21, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Even just the 2 of us we were required to help each other and to do housework and take care of our animals to our own ability. As I got older, if I wanted to keep the horses, I had to care for them and then eventually provide for them in my own way which meant helping cut hay for a share of the yield, help out at the vets office in exchange for care and caring for my baby sister in exchange for entry fees for events. The point is, even at a young age, I carried serious responsibilities. Trade out the horses with additional younger siblings and I don't think it would have been so awful. Wow, I somehow missed this section until jemand brought it up. I see your point, badfaerie, but I don't think the analogy holds here at all. The animals were yours. Or they were shared with your siblings. Either way, you were the primary caretakers because the animals belonged to you, and you were rewarded with the privileges of ownership. The responsibilities might not have looked that different on the surface: bathing, feeding, cleaning up muck. But there's a world of difference between caring for your own pet (which is great for teaching kids responsibility and empathy) and taking over adult responsibilities for younger siblings. It's a bit like the husband/wife paradigm in fundamentalism: all the work and responsibility, none of the rewards or decision-making power. The girls can't tell their parents to stop having babies because they're overworked and can't handle another one. The parents make the decisions, the girls suffer for it.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Apr 21, 2010 13:14:46 GMT -5
Great point about being able to sell/give no longer wanted horses out to someone else. No, you can't do that with siblings!
And also, having horses was the poster's choice to begin with! The Duggar girls have no choice about whether or not they will be caring for yet another sibling. NO CHOICE!
A better analogy is turn of the century girls being sent to the mills to help feed the ever-growing family of pre-birth control days. It didn't matter what they'd like to do; the family needed them to help provide. They would probably say they were glad to help, and give no thought to any alternative life because it was impossible anyway.
That's more like a daughter in a QF family. Your love for your family drives you to do whatever you can to help out. Mill work was hard, but to a girl who loved her family, she could endure it. Love for her family gave her strength.
Does that mean that the child labor movement was not needed? Of course not. Just because love makes the hard work less burdensome does not mean it is GOOD for teen girls to have to work ten hour days to help their family.
Turn of the century child labor seems like an appropriate analogy in all these ways:
The social/political environment the girls lived in left them no choices.
Love for their families mitigated the hardship.
The work is long and hard and seven days a week, leaving no time for education and/or a social life outside of home and work, which for QFers is one and the same.
I will say that the QF workplace, being a modern American home, is much safer than turn of the century mill work. But I think it is a fitting analogy in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by badfaerie on Apr 21, 2010 14:27:47 GMT -5
I'm still not sure that the problem is with the siblings caring for each other. I mentioned my much younger sister in an earlier post. By the time she was born, I was a teenager and my brother was living with our bio-father (my sister has a different bio-father). My mother strived to "pay" me for my time caring for my sister, mainly by providing things she would have anyway. She didn't want me to "feel like a built in babysitter", but to be honest, we all knew that's exactly what I was. I was the first person my sister called "da da" and as a toddler, it's my bed she'd climb into when she had nightmares. I had the illusion of consent, but really had no choice. If I didn't step up our family would have suffered, and I would have been restricted and punished.
One baby for a 13 year old is different in scale from 6 babies, but how much different is it in substance?
I'm thinking the problem isn't that quiverfull daughters are in the role of mothering younger siblings, I think the crime is that is ALL they are expected, required and allowed to do. It's not kids raising kids that's the problem, but the whole fundamental brainwashing oppression that goes with it in these families..
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 21, 2010 14:47:22 GMT -5
I'm still not sure that the problem is with the siblings caring for each other. I mentioned my much younger sister in an earlier post. By the time she was born, I was a teenager and my brother was living with our bio-father (my sister has a different bio-father). My mother strived to "pay" me for my time caring for my sister, mainly by providing things she would have anyway. She didn't want me to "feel like a built in babysitter", but to be honest, we all knew that's exactly what I was. I was the first person my sister called "da da" and as a toddler, it's my bed she'd climb into when she had nightmares. I had the illusion of consent, but really had no choice. If I didn't step up our family would have suffered, and I would have been restricted and punished. One baby for a 13 year old is different in scale from 6 babies, but how much different is it in substance? I'm thinking the problem isn't that quiverfull daughters are in the role of mothering younger siblings, I think the crime is that is ALL they are expected, required and allowed to do. It's not kids raising kids that's the problem, but the whole fundamental brainwashing oppression that goes with it in these families.. I'm sorry badfaerie, but I must disagree. Kids being forced to raise kids *is* the problem. It doesn't matter the scale or the size of the family, it is wrong to bring children into the world just to pass them off to your older children... To make it so that you are so absent in your child's life it feels it's natural primary nurturer and protector and caregiver is a young child as well... Young teens are not ready for that responsibility and it is wrong to organize a family such they *have* to or a child will be left with no love and guidance at all. Whether one or six or ten children. And then there is a difference between "help" and "be responsible for" which has been previously discussed. To "help" is good, to be "responsible" for adult things, like being the main support structure and comforter and nurturer and protector of a child, is not "helping." It is an adult abdicating adult responsibilities and presuming the innate loyalty and goodness of a child will spark them to make far more sacrifices than any child should. There *are* families of 'kids raising kids,' and it's a problem too, the small ones are rather common in aids-hit Africa, because *most* parents who are still around will have enough time and energy to mostly parent one or two younger siblings to a minimally satisfactory level, so it's *usually* not as common a problem in small intact families. HOWEVER, when something like alcoholism or some other factor is taking parents more completely out of the parenting business, you better bet that 'kids raising kids' is just as big a problem and just as damaging and soul crushing with one younger kid than many. Children should not be raising children.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Apr 21, 2010 14:56:02 GMT -5
I just wanted to point out that it's a false causality to say that since your family (and your parents' families) had elder sibs taking care of their younger sibs that is WHY they are well-adjusted and loving towards each other. Perhaps you can look at it on the flip side for a fun mental exercise - DESPITE their having to care for their siblings, they are still very close and loving? I also wanted to say that it took me a very long time before I was able to admit that my mother was WRONG to make me be a caretaker for my younger brothers. It is still hard to think that, let alone say it. I still think and feel that she was tired, she needed the breaks, I was there, I was the oldest, I can and should step in to care for them, it's only helping out, it's really the least I could do. They're my brothers, I have to care for them. It's my job. I'm responsible for their developing into good people. BULLSHIT. No CHILD should have to feel that they HAVE to do anything to make sure their siblings stay alive and fed. She chose to have more kids, and then she flaked out and dumped them on a 12 year old girl. No ADULT should have the illusion that a child (anyone under age 18 to 20 is a child) can consistently and reasonably provide full-time parental care of ANY other children, let alone several. These are your words here - "I had the illusion of consent, but really had no choice. If I didn't step up our family would have suffered, and I would have been restricted and punished." If you heard a young teen saying that, would you think it was ok? Would you tell that child that it's normal and acceptable for her to feel that her only place in the family is as a live-in surrogate mother? That she does not deserve to have her mother taking care of her? That she does not deserve a care-free childhood where she knows her family will provide for her and her siblings? That it's ok for her to be PUNISHED for not caring for her toddler sister/child? Think about it... it's ok for parents to be wrong and make mistakes. Even great big huge mistakes! It doesn't have to be malicious or intentional to still be a mistake. It doesn't mean they wanted to hurt you, but it can still hurt. Just because that's the way families did it in the past, doesn't make it any more right, regardless of how well individual families managed to make it work out. (sorry for the emphatic statements - this one really hits home for me, and you sound just like I did for about 10 years after I escaped.)
|
|