Let me try to flesh out what I'm thinking instead of posing a question that could be disjointed with the conversation and hoping someone will validate an opinion I have not even put forth. p.s. I know this post was a couple months old, but hey, I was not on the board at that time; I hope you'll forgive me.
Mike has a good point, which is that 'blame' is a kind of precursor to 'accountability'. Blaming someone for something only requires making a connection between cause and effect. The reason that blame has a negative connotation and accountability has a more positive connotation here is that we know the complicated nature of cause and effect in important biological/psychological sciences around human development. If, however, someone holds her parents accountable in the here and now for her feelings toward them by talking with them and telling them what she is feeling, then there is great potential for change in the future, usually called closure, at the expense of discomfort in the present. In other words, if you hold another person accountable by taking action, then there is simply no need for pointing blame afterward because you have dealt with the emotion. Only those who have not taken responsibility for how they feel about their childhood can be said to be casting blame in a reckless manner. Does this make sense or ring true for anyone else?
Rex's question about the starting line of self-responsibility prior to adulthood is, I think, a common response when talking about parental relationships. We can accept that infants have not developed the skills to question their parents at such a young age, nor would they if they could since they depend on their parents for physical base needs. It is the parents' responsibility to get their child to the level of emotional independence as soon as soon as possible, that is the paradox wherein parents want to keep their children close forever and thereby drive them away forever. Here's where I might get a little more theoretical: Let's say that a parent goes in to his relationship with his child on the assumption that the child upon being born already has achieved a limitless potential for depth, love, creativity, understanding, but simply lacks the skills to communicate and rationalize thoughts. In that case, the job of the parent becomes "how do I teach this child as efficiently/sustainably as possible what she will need to unleash her inherent emotional maturity"? The answer encompasses all the things Stef talks about like being curious and negotiating and explaining how we figure out what is true and false. Perhaps this is one of those things where as long as the theory is helpful in inducing better parents, the exact details of it can be smoothed out over time....
Lastly, maybe this goes without saying, but I don't think it's productive for us as philosophers to give into the temptation of one-liners like "the author had bad parents" even if that has been our experience over years of study. I'm playing devil's advocate, but we really don't know if this guy had mean and terrible parents... all we can say is that the likelihood for it is high and then provide information that supports a broader inference. For someone who has not listened to Stef ad infinitum, jumping to conclusions like this will seem dismissive and rude. As libertarians we don't want to give people justification to fire back at us vis-a-vis their own ridiculous stories. (e.g. "This anarchist was never loved by another person and that's why she has no sympathy for other people, bleh bleh bleh")