If a parent doesn't know of sexual abuse are they responsible for that?

[Will Torbald]

I had just provided you with some. You continue to speak as if the parent-child relationship is comparable to just any two people as if I hadn't made the case for why it's not, while not pointing to any flaw in the case I made.

 

When people decide to have a child, they are voluntarily creating a positive obligation to that child to protect and nurture it until such a time as it is capable of doing so for itself. Neglect is a violation of this contract.

 

Flaw in the case: That creates two different moral categories for relationships between people. One is between families, and the rest. I've seen you make the case elsewhere that this is something you oppose, multiple categories of morality, and to me this is one. That obligation you speak of is only aesthetical. A newborn child can be taken care of by other people, adoption, foster care, wolves, and so on. It is cruel for a parent to neglect a child, but it is not the initiation of force. No one is obligated to positively do anything, morally. Only to not perform aggression on others.

 

 

So if a mother neglected to feed her newborn baby resulting in its death, you would consider the inaction aesthetically negative as opposed to immoral?

 

Yes. But to assume that nobody else would feed a baby if the mother doesn't feed it in a real world scenario is to create fringe worlds where a baby is alone without no one to take care of it out of pity. A mother putting a baby in a hole where no one can find it and have it die of hunger is already committing assault towards it. A mother who is just going to let a baby die after pregancy is either deranged, or forced to have a pregnancy without allowing her to abort. So bubble cases like the one you give don't pass the scrutiny of the reasons why someone would do that in the first place.

[dsayers]

That creates two different moral categories for relationships between people. One is between families

 

I didn't say families. I specified parent-child. You consistently ignore this. Have you at least looked into why you refuse to address what's being talked about without redressing it first? From my perspective, it seems to be an enormous opportunity for self-knowledge for you.

 

What makes humans moral actors is their capacity for reason. Children do not possess the capacity for reason, so they are not moral actors. Because they will become moral actors is why they tend to represent the exception to the rule. Kind of like psychopaths and victims of abuse or head trauma also might not fully possess the capacity for reason and may not be moral actors despite appearing human. We can discuss this another time if you'd like. Here, what matters is the the point of contention you also continue to not address:

 

No one is obligated to positively do anything, morally.

 

UNCHOSEN positive obligations are unethical. Having a child is a voluntarily created positive obligation. Using the flawed rationale you're presenting, a person selling a car not relinquishing the car after being paid for it the agreed upon price is only committing an aesthetic violation since not relinquishing the car is inaction and therefore not eligible for moral consideration (amoral). Voluntarily created positive obligations are binding and therefore the initiation of the use of force in the event of not satisfying it. In the example, the person withholding the car is forcibly depriving the rightful owner access to their own car. In this topic, the parent is, without the child's unobtainable consent, depriving the child of the nurturing and protection they pledged.

 

I'm not sure why you bothered bringing up adoption. If a person creates a positive obligation to the child and transfers that obligation to somebody who is willing to take it over, this isn't neglect. Anymore than if I sold my car and then after the sale didn't change its oil, it cannot be honestly stated that I am neglecting somebody else's car.

[Will Torbald]

UNCHOSEN positive obligations are unethical. Having a child is a voluntarily created positive obligation. In this topic, the parent is, without the child's unobtainable consent, depriving the child of the nurturing and protection they pledged.

 

By this narrative all children being born are hostages even when they are being fed and taken care of because they didn't consent to being alive in the first place. If having hostages is immoral, then having children is immoral since there is no difference in the created moral obligation of making a hostage or a child.

[dsayers]

You said "No one is obligated to positively do anything." I pointed out that there's a polar difference between an unchosen PO and a voluntarily created PO. You respond by talking about not POs anymore. Did you forget that you pinned your resistance on PO being immoral or did you expect me to forget? To bring up the next reason why you reject my case with no acknowledgement of the last is moving the goalposts. It's evidence that you're not approaching this with curiosity. You're telling us that you believe parents are not responsible because that's what you want to believe (bigotry). Or in a matter this developmental, that you NEED for parents to not be responsible. I'm truly sorry for whatever you were put through that leaves you so desperately fighting against reality. For what it's worth, I was abused and shielded from rational thought also.

 

I already mentioned children aren't there by choice. Pointing it out as if it refutes my position when it echoes my position doesn't make sense to me. I believe earlier in this same thread I used the abduction example. I'm not responsible for feeding you. If I abduct you though, I've created a positive obligation to provide for your health and survival. Were I to neglect this obligation, I would be guilty of murder despite it being the result of inaction. It's BECAUSE children are hostages that parents owe them a higher standard. Unlike an abductee, parents are pledging to protect, to instruct, to be training wheels for life itself for nearly two decades.

 

This is precisely why we need to stress how important this is. If we raise the pressure against those who think neglect is acceptable, we raise the quality of parenting in general. This is also the reason why I'm willing to carry on this discussion with somebody who isn't receptive to logic, reason, and evidence: for others reading this who are unsure but ARE interested in the truth.

 

there is no difference in the created moral obligation of making a hostage or a child.

 

A child isn't a moral actor. Their consent literally could not be secured. Plus it's a fact of biology. Even if it were immoral, like what would that even mean? However, if you genuinely believe this, then you should agree with what I'm saying. Since that would be a pretty huge debt to create another human being and doing something like say NOT ALLOWING YOUR 6 YEAR OLD TO GET MOLESTED FOR 5 YEARS would be a pretty good way to make it up to them for holding them hostage during those years.

[Will Torbald]

You said "No one is obligated to positively do anything." I pointed out that there's a polar difference between an unchosen PO and a voluntarily created PO. You respond by talking about not POs anymore. Did you forget that you pinned your resistance on PO being immoral or did you expect me to forget? To bring up the next reason why you reject my case with no acknowledgement of the last is moving the goalposts. It's evidence that you're not approaching this with curiosity. You're telling us that you believe parents are not responsible because that's what you want to believe (bigotry). Or in a matter this developmental, that you NEED for parents to not be responsible. I'm truly sorry for whatever you were put through that leaves you so desperately fighting against reality. For what it's worth, I was abused and shielded from rational thought also.

 

I already mentioned children aren't there by choice. Pointing it out as if it refutes my position when it echoes my position doesn't make sense to me. I believe earlier in this same thread I used the abduction example. I'm not responsible for feeding you. If I abduct you though, I've created a positive obligation to provide for your health and survival. Were I to neglect this obligation, I would be guilty of murder despite it being the result of inaction. It's BECAUSE children are hostages that parents owe them a higher standard. Unlike an abductee, parents are pledging to protect, to instruct, to be training wheels for life itself for nearly two decades.

 

This is precisely why we need to stress how important this is. If we raise the pressure against those who think neglect is acceptable, we raise the quality of parenting in general. This is also the reason why I'm willing to carry on this discussion with somebody who isn't receptive to logic, reason, and evidence: for others reading this who are unsure but ARE interested in the truth.

 

 

A child isn't a moral actor. Their consent literally could not be secured. Plus it's a fact of biology. Even if it were immoral, like what would that even mean? However, if you genuinely believe this, then you should agree with what I'm saying. Since that would be a pretty huge debt to create another human being and doing something like say NOT ALLOWING YOUR 6 YEAR OLD TO GET MOLESTED FOR 5 YEARS would be a pretty good way to make it up to them for holding them hostage during those years.

 

Please cease the assumptions of my character. They are completely unfounded and irrelevant. I am approaching this with a surgical knife of curiosity because I care. I could have walked away and not lose points like a waterfall for asking questions, but I genuinely believe in the objections I am making.

 

You cannot create a positive moral obligation by abducting people, that's the point of my last objection. You are being evil by abducting a person, you don't owe them anything. That is the point of being wrong, that you don't have to do right by others. It'd be like saying that Darth Vader was a pretty bad person for not giving food to Princess Leia while she was being abducted instead of pointing out that abducting her in the first place makes him evil. You can't go moralizing to a kidnapper because that's what they want, to use people selfishly, and now you are telling them that they have to be nice. It's so illogical. You can't create an obligation to be good by doing evil.

 

Therefore, you can't compare abductions with children because one is evil, and the other isn't. And my comparison of the two reveals why it's a false analogy.

 

Who cares if the child isn't a moral actor? Being a moral actor only matters to what the actor does, not what is being done to actor itself. A child can't be blamed for his actions, but you can blame actions done to a child. What if I were to say that it doesn't matter that I verbally insult a child and make it cry because it's not a moral actor? Why?

 

Children are not hostages. They can run away from home. They can tell the police, teachers, neighbors, friends, anyone else that they are being abused. A hostage cannot do it by being literally chained down. Children are only scared into being separated, but there's no physical boundary.

 

What pledge? Where is the pledge? Where is the contract? No one is signing with blood and letter to do anything when they have a child. It is complete philantropy to raise children, not an obligation. That is where I can't see the proof of any positive moral obligation, where you are just stating it, not giving any proof beyond the statement, giving a false analagy and a bad example with taking hostages, and then accusing me of being irrational and trying to protect abusers. That is completely beside the point and an attempt to attack me instead of the arguments.

 

No one allowed anyone to be molested. If I don't know my house is being robbed that doesn't mean I allow it to be robbed.

 

And you end again with children being hostages without acknowledging the moral paradox it creates. Own the consequences of your morality. In your morality children = hostages. If hostages = immoral then children = immoral. Refute it. Saying that children aren't moral actors do not excuse actions being done to them because that would excuse any immorality done to them, and then the whole argument is moot.

[AccuTron]

Neglect is not an inflicted behavior, nor is it a violent action. It is cruel to not know, but since it isn't a positive action, I cannot say it is immoral. It is rather aesthetically negative, if not the most aesthetically negative thing to do to have ignorance of the problems of your child - but since the original post explicitely asked for "a moral, ethical answer" that's what I make of it. The boy who molested her is completely immoral and an unethical abuser. The mother who didn't know is completely aesthetically negative and a passive abuser. If I am wrong about any of this, I would like to hear reasonable proof of my mistake as I believe this is very serious and useful to have outmost clarity on what is and isn't ethical.

I have trouble with the claim that neglect is not inflicted.  Maybe it's a semantics issue, but if someone doesn't properly feed/cloth/shelter their child, harm is inflicted.  Yet you do say the mother who didn't know is an abuser.

 

 

 

"Children are not hostages. They can run away from home. They can tell the police, teachers, neighbors, friends, anyone else that they are being abused. A hostage cannot do it by being literally chained down. Children are only scared into being separated, but there's no physical boundary."

 

Not for me it wasn't.  Those are adult statements, a child cannot comprehend that.  Fear is a prison as effective as walls.  At least with a wall, it's visibly a wall, visibly a barrier to go around.  Fear presents no such tidy thoughts.  Especially when the adults in the child's life all seem to condone abuse; even if it's from silence, that's what it seems like to a child.  Rough or uncaring teachers or administrators just add to the perception.  Running away from home an option???  Into what?  No shelter, food, known contacts?  Into a world which has already shown it's mean spirited and uncaring?  Children are very much hostages.  It just isn't obvious when good care is provided.  

[Kurtis]

Children are not hostages. They can run away from home. They can tell the police, teachers, neighbors, friends, anyone else that they are being abused. A hostage cannot do it by being literally chained down. Children are only scared into being separated, but there's no physical boundary.

 

Yes, abused children do run away from home. However, police catch them and bring them back to their abusers. Is this how adult hostages are treated if they are able to escape?

 

The way you describe how a child can simply tell any adult about their abuse and need for rescue is not realistic. While technically possible, you are thinking about this merely in physical terms and omitting the differences between an adult hostage and a child.

 

An adult being abused/held hostage by some other adult would likely know that is wrong and would attempt escape at first chance. However, a young child being abused BY THEIR PARENTS does not see this as clearly. The child needs their parents care for survival, this is in our biology. It doesn't matter if there are modern external factors that might prevent the child from actually dieing. The child doesn't know this, they only know their feelings that they are totally dependant on their parents.

 

When the child is presented with the fact that the caretaker they are dependant upon is dangerous (abusive/neglectful) they often internalize this to avoid this fear of death. This results in the destruction of the child's sense of self worth. This lack of self worth can make the child feel that they deserve the abuse, or at the very least, make it near impossible to reach out to other adults for help.

 

The morality of this situation regarding parents obligations towards their children is what dsayers has been trying to get you to see.

 

In your last response you said:

 

"What pledge? Where is the pledge? Where is the contract? No one is signing with blood and letter to do anything when they have a child. It is complete philantropy to raise children, not an obligation. That is where I can't see the proof of any positive moral obligation"

 

Is this a serious question? "Where is the contract?"

 

You say it's complete philanthropy to raise a child, so by your logic to not raise the child is a complete moral neutral situation? Say my partner and I decide to create a child. We have the birth at home and after the child comes out we decide we're not feeling charitable, so we just leave the newborn on the floor. Where eventually it starves to death. But no problem right? Because we're not obligated to do anything. There's no contract so good luck trying to demonstrate we're at fault for this death.

 

This is an extreme example of neglect. And yet, this is the neglect that by my understanding of your arguments, you say is simply a matter of aesthetics?

[Will Torbald]

I have trouble with the claim that neglect is not inflicted.  Maybe it's a semantics issue, but if someone doesn't properly feed/cloth/shelter their child, harm is inflicted.  Yet you do say the mother who didn't know is an abuser.

 

If I feed a child poison, cloth them with poison ivy, and shelter them in a dumpster, harm is being inflicted. We were not discussing actively inflicted abuse though. I said the mother who didn't know is a passive form of abuse, not an actively inflicted abuse. I made the distinction of passivity to be aesthetically negative, cruel if you want to call it, but the active abuser to be immoral.

 

 

Yes, abused children do run away from home. However, police catch them and bring them back to their abusers. Is this how adult hostages are treated if they are able to escape?

 

It's not a matter of running away, it's a matter of letting someone else know in order to get help. An argument based on the way society treats children is not based on principles. They may live in a very protective society and letting know of the abuse would be enough to get help. Or they could live in a world were that is the norm, and people would just scuff it off, but if they live in that society why hide it? Why keep it secret for years? So no, they don't live in a society where that is normal, so telling someone else would have resulted in something being done.

 

 

The way you describe how a child can simply tell any adult about their abuse and need for rescue is not realistic. While technically possible, you are thinking about this merely in physical terms and omitting the differences between an adult hostage and a child.

 

An adult being abused/held hostage by some other adult would likely know that is wrong and would attempt escape at first chance. However, a young child being abused BY THEIR PARENTS does not see this as clearly. The child needs their parents care for survival, this is in our biology. It doesn't matter if there are modern external factors that might prevent the child from actually dieing. The child doesn't know this, they know their feelings that they are totally dependant on their parents.

 

The abuse wasn't being done by the parents, but by another child. In another time the father was physically and verbally abusive, and I never disagreed with that being immoral.

 

 

Is this a serious question? "Where is the contract?"

 

It's a serious question. How many implicit social contracts are there in the world right now? More than two hundred or something? I am being sold a social contract on the premises of positive moral obligations. I am only morally obligated not to initiate force or violate property rights. The argument of positive actions being obligated is what leads to religion and socialism. "It is wrong not to help" or "it is wrong not to pay taxes" why because sin or social contract. If I can't be convinced of positive obligations in this case, I can't be convinced of obligations on any level. Because if there existed such a case where positive moral obligations were valid, then you'd have double standards. I am being told that if I kidnap people I am morally obligated to feed them. What if I say that I am making a huge fence and and that I am morally obligated to feed the people in that fence? Why we would call that monarchy, isn't that right? I wonder what happened with all the kings.

 

That's why I am asking for blood and ink. Where is the contract? I was given an example of buying a car and how when the seller keeps the car it is immoral - yeah, because it's now my car and we made a contract. We sign those things. We give proof of our commitment.

 

I said how the only way a woman would have a child just to let it die on purpose by not feeding it is if the woman was forced to have the baby against her will and not abort - because fringe cases being used against me are irrational and fall outside the realm of the reasons why people do what they do. Actions or inactions without reason in a hypothetical scenario can just be dismissed without reason, too.

 

 

Say my partner and I decide to create child. We have the birth at home and after the child comes out we decide we're not feeling charitable, so we just leave the newborn on the floor. Where eventually it starves to death. But no problem right? Because we're not obligated to do anything. There's no contact so good luck trying to demonstrate we're at fault for this death.

 

This is an extreme example of neglect. And yet, this is the neglect that by my understanding of your arguments, you say is simply a matter of aesthetics?

 

Again, actions or inactions without reason in a hypothetical scenario can just be dismissed without reason, too. Why people do what they do matters. Both of you decided that having a child was a good idea given your circumstances. Either your minds were physically altered (head trauma, coercion, mental trauma) and now you think it is a bad idea to have a child or your circumstances are now negative towards having a child like war, natural disasters, or a terrorist attack. Scenarios so removed from reality have no weight to be used for morality.

[dsayers]

Please cease the assumptions of my character. They are completely unfounded and irrelevant...

 

You cannot create a positive moral obligation by abducting people

 

I made no assumptions about your character. Your behavior is contradicting your words and I was pointing out that I was aware of this. A person's closed-mindedness in a conversation is NOT irrelevant because it's like talking to a brick wall, which is something most people do not do. I continue to do so because this is public and the most important topic.

 

Take this sentence here. You didn't say "Creating a positive obligation by abducting? That doesn't sound right to me. How did you arrive at this conclusion?" Instead, you just said it doesn't happen. An assertion with no consideration and no case being made. So let me ask you this: Have you ever tried to explain why defensive force is valid? Suppose I stole your bike. In doing so, I've voluntarily created a debt to you in the amount of the value of your bike, plus the value whatever you have to invest in the settling of that debt. Taking the bike back or trying to prevent the taking of the bike is consensual because the thief consented to it with his very behavior.

 

Who cares if the child isn't a moral actor? Being a moral actor only matters to what the actor does, not what is being done to actor itself.

 

Obviously not. It is immoral to kill a human without their consent. It is not immoral to kill an animal without its consent because it cannot consent because it is not a moral actor because it doesn't possess the capacity for reason.

 

Children are not hostages. They can run away from home. They can tell the police, teachers, neighbors, friends, anyone else that they are being abused. A hostage cannot do it by being literally chained down. Children are only scared into being separated, but there's no physical boundary.

 

So what you're saying is that children are not hostages because they can engage in behaviors hostages can engage in. This is not an argument. Also, I think you're ignoring the biological imperative. Children are dependent on their parents for SURVIVAL. "If I leave or speak out, I will perish" is every bit a restraint as a ligature.

 

That is where I can't see the proof of any positive moral obligation, where you are just stating it, not giving any proof beyond the statement

 

I have overcome the burden of proof on three fronts, explaining how power disparity leads to an increased level of excellence required. Those three fronts were the power disparities of dependence, size, and involuntary presence. You can argue against those cases as you have, but you do not get to say I didn't make them.

 

No one allowed anyone to be molested. If I don't know my house is being robbed that doesn't mean I allow it to be robbed.

 

Comparing fragile, developing, dependent, not there by choice children to an inanimate object is ridiculous to the point of not requiring refutation.

 

And you end again with children being hostages without acknowledging the moral paradox it creates. Own the consequences of your morality. In your morality children = hostages. If hostages = immoral then children = immoral. Refute it. Saying that children aren't moral actors do not excuse actions being done to them because that would excuse any immorality done to them, and then the whole argument is moot.

 

First of all, morality is objective. It doesn't belong to me. My understanding and my explanation belong to me, but me saying 2+2=4 doesn't mean it's my math. If you rejected that 2+2=4, then calling it my math would be a way for you to more easily excuse not considering it.

 

I've been forthcoming with the fact that children present the exception to the rule. On the one hand, they're not moral actors. On the other hand, they will become moral actors. It's a complicated topic that I won't go into here because basics like argumentation and chronology do not appear to be competent. Suffice it to say that what's done to a child leads to very real consequences for ALL OF US. Whether it's Hitler growing up to precipitate the murder of millions, or just somebody growing up with dysfunction, consuming excess resources, and being a risk to others.

[Will Torbald]

Obviously not. It is immoral to kill a human without their consent. It is not immoral to kill an animal without its consent because it cannot consent because it is not a moral actor because it doesn't possess the capacity for reason.

 

If children do not possess the capacity for reason and that makes them equal to animals without consent then it is pointless to argue about abuse done to children because everything done to them is not immoral.

 

[dsayers]

If children do not possess the capacity for reason and that makes them equal to animals without consent then it is pointless to argue about abuse done to children because everything done to them is not immoral.

 

I guess earlier when you said you were approaching this with a surgical knife, you were referencing your willingness to cut off any distinction that you feel threatens your position. Animals won't become moral actors later in life. I mentioned this several times. Ignoring distinctions like this is what you've done most in this thread.

[Will Torbald]

I guess earlier when you said you were approaching this with a surgical knife, you were referencing your willingness to cut off any distinction that you feel threatens your position. Animals won't become moral actors later in life. I mentioned this several times. Ignoring distinctions like this is what you've done most in this thread.

 

I dismissed all other objections because this one renders all others unnecessary. You're making distinctions of time, bringing the future to the present for your convenience. "Children will become adults, so they get the rights of adults". Oh. Can I say then "Embryos wil become children will become adults" so any abortion is murder? Can I say sperm will become embryos will become children will become adults so masturbation is genocide? Can I say that? Because I can keep going. Can I say that children will become adults will become old people so they can get a discount or skip the line at the bank? They will be old one day, why not give them those rights now? Can I say that cows will one day evolve to be sentient so that I might as well treat them like they're sentient now?

 

If you don't make a hard distinction of when someone becomes a moral actor it is just an opinion. Laws use age. If we go by age the kid who abused her was also excused from his own actions because he was just a kid. No moral actor, no reason, no abuse. If the mother had found out, and initiated retaliaton, would you defend him by saying he was just a kid? No ma'am, you see, he was not a moral actor. Please forgive him and move on. Ah, but then you'd say, maybe, that it's the fault of that kid's parents and that they should pay and do time in a reverse "original sin" where parents go to jail for what their kids with no moral agency do to other kids without moral agency. Or perhaps you have an agency test, where they get a moral actor score, and you can just pass that and become responsible for your actions. Do you have that?

[dsayers]

There's a difference between challenging a distinction and ignoring it like it never happened. On at least three separate occasions, you tried to avoid "parent-child relationship" by repackaging it as if we were talking about any two people. When I pointed out at least twice that children will become moral actors, you compare them to animals. The challenge is appreciated. Maybe you can add to the efficiency of the conversation by being forthcoming with it next time instead of pretending it never happened. Even if I was an outside observer, I would find it frustrating that multiple posts are put down to accomplish what way fewer could. Please and thank you.

 

If you actually challenged what was stated instead of ignoring it, you'd see your challenge was already addressed. Specifically I noted that children are raise and release. Their care will go on to effect other people, which is why they get the protections of a moral actor even though they aren't yet moral actors. A dog is not a moral actor. However, if a dog's owner were to abuse the dog and then release it to the world, it's care becomes everybody's business. Dogs can be contained though whereas a child cannot in perpetuity.

 

Your rant left hyperbole and entered the realm of absurdity a few times. Kind of like when you suggested birthing is immoral when it's a biological process. Suggesting ejaculation is genocide is absurd. Even Genghis Khan wasted over 99% of the sperm he ever produced and our cells die all the time involuntarily. Cows MIGHT become sentient one day has no bearing on the certainty that almost all humans DO in their lifetime. Are you trying to have a conversation or just wear down the opposition to your position so you can claim artificial victory?

 

If you don't make a hard distinction of when someone becomes a moral actor it is just an opinion. 

 

"If the volume knob just moves freely, it won't actually change the volume." The first time I mentioned children represented the exception, I was nothing short of forthcoming with the fact that it's a complicated conversation. Meaning you have to grasp the basics before you try to tackle it. Humans own themselves because they possess the capacity for reason. When will a human become a moral actor? When they adequately possess the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Yes, it would be very easy if we could assign a hard number for that, but that's not the way it works.

 

I do know this: If you allow your child to be molested and neglect/abandon them to the point where they don't feel you are part of their support system, you will stunt and in extreme cases prohibit this maturation.

 

Laws use age.

 

Gravity is constant. Surely you meant to say legislation. However, since commands backed by threats of violence are not internally consistent, they do not accurately describe the real world and therefore have no place in an exploration of what is true.

 

This is quite exhausting, so I just wanted to extend my request once more that you be more forthcoming with any challenges you might have instead of just pretending I didn't say something that you would challenge.

[Will Torbald]

it's a complicated conversation.

 

I'm too simple to understand the complexity of this argument, so I'll drop it. Thanks for your time.

[CuriousGeorge]

Hi All

There are a lot of elements in the situation that I have come across. The original question should likely lead to

many more questions - as it has for me.  What broke down in a family when child abuse goes unnoticed and why?

 

I am on the road to understanding the entire situation a bit better.  Have purchased two books - Three Minute Therapy by Dr Michael Edelstein and the Six Pillars of self esteem.   They are kind of opposing views on self esteem from what I have read so far.

 

I have spent about 15 -20  hours talking with my 84 year old mother about these events of my childhood.

It has been hard on her to do this to her as it is a hard, emotional experience to go thru at my age let alone hers.

As well, I have talked at length with one of my brothers about his experiences, which were bad as well.

I would rather dig out conclusions with her, no matter how difficult it is than stay in the dark. My mom has always

had a policy of trying to keep learning.

 

Once my questions had settled in with my mom, she was very, vert upset.  Could not sleep for days.  She started questioning my siblings and asking them about their childhood experiences and how it affected them.  My brothers all pointed out that she was not able to protect us from my Dad 24-7 and that his neglect and abuse was hard on them and likely caused low self esteem and self worth within them too. I learned that my Dad actually poked one of my brothers in the leg with a pitchfork (to the bone) for not working fast enough. Then he said "Don't tell Mom".   I learned that all my brothers had issues that followed them to adulthood, like myself.  I suspected this from their marriages and current situations.

 

It may also brings to light why they all did not end up with good partners. (one of them has remarried and has a nice wife that treats him good), the others struggle with wives that are neglectful and abusive.  My Dad and Mom's relationship of having to fight all the time caused this to be a normal in our household (bad example for kids).  A lot of the fights were about how he treated us kids as she was constantly protecting us physically.  Since he was really never interested in having us, she decided that she would be the one to raise us and care for us and she tried to take the full responsibility for that.  In fairness to her, she was a loving, present, adult who met our needs in many ways. In reality, she had pipe dreams and denial that she could do it all. You can't have a monster in the house and have the kids turn out normal.  Parents should stress to kids about picking a good mate, one that would be a good parent. Hindsight is 20/20 in this whole mess, for everyone concerned.

 

She said that the one thing she wanted in life was kids and that is what her life has been about. She acknowledged the damage she did by choosing a man with personality problems. She was 19 when she married him and thought that she could help him become socially and mentally OK. My mothers own father promoted her marriage to my Dad as being good as he was from a "good family" meaning a hard working bunch who had money.   She said she was playing social worker and that there were many red flags that she blew thru as she thought she could manage.

 

65 years ago, divorce, was not common practice. My Dad did not drink, worked hard, did not fool around and she did not feel moral in divorcing him later in life. She also has a Christian belief that marriage is for keeps.  My Dad became more abusive with the second son than the first. Remember that late in life he was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.  Socially, he would be a recluse if he had not married. He had no friends, is paranoid, can't make decisions and could not be a father for us.  He also was never able to admit once in his life that he had done anything wrong to her or to us.

 

65 years ago, when she was a young women, in that day and age, she was told she would marry and have kids, that education and having a career were not in the cards for her. Thru her childhood, she had no physical abuse and her parents were loving she was not expected to have anything more than kids and a husband by her parents and was coached to that reality.  It was never stressed to her to meet a man who was going to be a good dad, or husband or to have any personal goals for herself - other than one - be a wife.

 

The kids now have pointed out to her the huge gaping gap in our lives where a Dad was suppose to be and the realization dawned on her that she had not protected us from him in really at all. He hurt us physically and mentally by being neglectful, negative to us and abusive. She has apologized and realized that she should not have had kids with him and should have left him early on. In her selfish way she always had focused on how her core "needs and demands" were missed out on.  She also put her core need of being a Mother first, before our core need of having a good father.  Believe me when I say that her life has been miserable being married to him and that the suffering has been great on her too.  Ours too have been difficult as a male role model and a father is very important to kids.

I see how my husband is with our kids and it drives home even more what I grew up not having.

 

My Mom talked herself into that she actually could be all we needed.  I think this is the same mistake single moms make and the society today that supports women who decide to go it alone.  Nope, it doesn't work well for the kids.

 

She acknowledges she let us down as well as herself and how she regrets her decisions.  She has said she would have done things totally different if she could redo things and that she has terrible regrets.  She said that she doesn't regret having kids (just with my dad)  and that she could not have loved us more but that she is also very sorry and realizes the damage done.  She has asked if there is anything she can do and has asked to perhaps see a councillor with me.

 

Everyone in my family has just always kind of accepted how dysfunctional my Dad is and never really added up the cost to us kids. That is the sad part. The cost to her has always been her focus as her core needs in a life partner were not met.  Our core needs to have a good Dad as children was not focused on.  I do not think the needs of lots of children ever are really taken into consideration like they should be by a majority of parents I know, even today.

It has made me very aware of my own actions or lack of in this regard to my kids.

 

I have always been a more fearful person.  I feel if one child is fearful and another forceful and brave it makes a difference how they react to situations even sexual abuse.  I realize also that if my father had infact been the kind of father that hugged me, talked to me, didn't abuse me, played with me, I might have had some more self esteem and may have been less likely to accept the attentions of this boy.  I may have developed to be less fearful as well.  When one parent is loving and the other is not, it still raises the same question in a child - why does this parent not really love me?- I must not be that important.  My dad also had a big part in not being there for me.  If one looks at his childhood family dynamics and trauma - it is a mess as well.  Abuse often begets abuse. Dysfunction too.

 

I knew also at a young age that my mom was my only source of comfort.  It is important for a child to not have the only source of comfort get angry at them. It seems often better for some kids to be quiet than to cause trouble. I learned to be quiet also from being around my Dad since any noise would set him off in an abusive rage.

 

I think because children can't reason or see a situation for what it is, I could not have figure this stuff out as a child. I realize that my Mom would infact have protect me if she had known about the sexual abuse.   Recall, my mom did not spank me, but she did spank my brother who was 2 years older than me and I saw that and internalized it.

 

If she did spank, she did only when she had warned once, spelled out the problem and asked us to quit a behaviour.  So at least with her there was some sort of reason to the abuse. Physical abuse of a child should not happen at all. Since I had no support from my Dad emotionally I could not afford to make my only source of protection angry at me.  I am a fearful person to this day. Some people are brave, some not so much.

I believe that there are proven genetic tendencies in this area, also there are warrior types of people.

 

I think that children that get abused must often have parents that are neglectful.  If my Dad had any capacity to value me, perhaps I would have not ended up a victim of the sexual abuse.  My mom has cried a lot about my sexual abuse and expressed how terrible she feels for not knowing. She has said that I need to hug that 6 year old me and try to heal and she has said that if there is anything she could do now she would do it.  

 

I feel that many of you would say -"no excuses for your mother". Well, I have brought about a painful reality to her and some enlightenment to her in regards to her life decisions and the resulting chaos.  She feels she has failed us and feels bad. She says she has to also try to forgive the idiot that she was for thinking she could manage my Dad and have kids with him.

 

If nothing else may I stress that "positive parenting" and being really aware of getting a good quality mate for both yourself and your kids is so fundamentally important to mankind as a whole.  I agree that going forward that so many lives could be improved by the quality of parents and the homes in which children are being raised in.

 

The keys to a better society are woven into the quality of life for the most innocent and vulnerable of society, kids.

A good takeaway for me to pass on to my kids.