Live data from Hacker News

A shift in American family values is fueling estrangement

theatlantic.com

531–540 of 727 posts

Re: A shift in American family values is fueling estrangement

#531
This reminds me of this wonderful blog series that examines the psychology of estranged parents' forums: http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/index.html

There's lots of discussion of the generational gaps that cause a lot of this friction (many of which I see discussed in this thread):

- Is emotional abuse "real abuse"? Does it "count" for estrangement?

- Do parents owe an apology for mistakes they made?

- Do children own a relationship to their parents?

- Do children owe respect to their parents, regardless of anything the parents have done?

- Is the parent/child relationship one-sided?

Re: A shift in American family values is fueling estrangement

#532
post #524
post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain?

I'm guessing OP is centrist or right-wing, and the uncle watches MSNBC and thus don't eat up the conspiracy theories that increasingly make up the right-of-center political sphere? Or maybe the other way round, uncle lapped up the Fox News "MSNBC bad!" thing...?

It’s also totally possible to be to the left of MSNBC ;)

Re: A shift in American family values is fueling estrangement

#533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When the millenial zeitgeist has drifted in a direction where this is a common opinion, I take it to indicate that our socialization has taught some of us that humans have little inherent moral worth as individuals, the values of a family are subservient to the values of globalism You lost me a little there. How does not wanting kids makes you think that our socialization has taught some of us that humans have littl…

> How does not wanting kids makes you think that our socialization has taught some of us that humans have little inherent moral worth as individuals? Doesn't not wanting kids for X reason mean that you consider the moral worth of a new person to be less than X. I think a lot of people don't consider a new person worth anything at all. Or at least would prefer 9 people at happiness level 10 over 10 people at happiness…

> Doesn't not wanting kids for X reason mean that you consider the moral worth of a new person to be less than X.

What? No.

Most people who do have children are not doing in order to fulfill some dispassionate abstract moral commitment to the inherent moral worth of human life.

And there are all sorts of examples of people who clearly value human life but choose not to have children. Or are all nuns terrible people?

Whether someone chooses to have children or not has very little to do with your underlying moral commitments or -- more importantly -- behavior. Sociopaths and abusers have children. Mother Teresa didn't have children.

Re: A shift in American family values is fueling estrangement

#534
post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most emotional damage that I've seen comes in the good times phase. That's when genx's parents were born. In the good times everyone is free to do as they please and have to find their own meaning, this creates weak men. Weak men create hard times. We're entering the really hard times now. When things really go to shit, you'll find your purpose and have to rely on others. That creates strength and good times, eventua…

Genx parents were born in 1925-45. Those were not good times.

I guess I think of myself as genx when I'm actually geny.

Re: A shift in American family values is fueling estrangement

#535
One dynamic I think gets overlooked is that parents chose to have the children, even if just in the heat of a moment. Children have little to no say about much of their lives for the first 18 years. So even relatively benign parents may struggle to understand their children's perspective when the children choose to reduce or cut off contact.

Perhaps I'm an outlier but I've gone months without contact and no regrets. And I hope I'll continue to expect nothing back from my children. After all, their existence was our choice as parents. And anything the kids chose to share or give back is an entirely voluntarily gift.

Re: A shift in American family values is fueling estrangement

#536
post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing OP is centrist or right-wing, and the uncle watches MSNBC and thus don't eat up the conspiracy theories that increasingly make up the right-of-center political sphere? Or maybe the other way round, uncle lapped up the Fox News "MSNBC bad!" thing...?

It’s also totally possible to be to the left of MSNBC ;)

good point! :D

Re: A shift in American family values is fueling estrangement

#537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> humans have little inherent moral worth as individuals Isn't it flipped? If humans had little moral worth, then there would be no need to worry about the suffering they would experience. It's because they have moral worth that people hesitate to bring new humans into the world.

Maybe it is: Humans have moral worth; to remove suffering of humans, make sure they don’t exist to experience suffering.

This is the question inmy mind: an unborn/un conceived child has not experienced any suffering. Is it morally just to expose someone to suffering, even if the alternative is non-existence (or whatever state they are in prior to life)? I did not consent to exist, to think/feel/hurt, but two idiots made that choice for me 37 years ago and now I have to deal with it.

Re: A shift in American family values is fueling estrangement

#538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but for many of us in the West, without the tradition common to East and South Asians of reciprocal obligation. This used to be nigh unto a human universal: your parents raise you up from a helpless infant to adulthood, and this obliges you to love and care for them for the rest of their lives. I'm as deracinated Westerner as it comes, and yet I'm fairly traditional in this regard. I can think of three acceptabl…

What about people raised by single parents? What do they owe to the absentee parent?

Gratitude for removing him/herself from your life and saving you all the drama that would inevitably end up happening.

I'm saying this as a child of single parent.

Re: A shift in American family values is fueling estrangement

#539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, I felt [...] grateful to my parents for being there in the first place I'm going to say something controversial. Not everyone is grateful for their life. I've talked to multiple people who preferred to never be born. And event the best parents I know couldn't offer much more honest reason for having children than "we wanted to" which is basically ultimate selfishness. > [...] and being decent at being parents a…

> > So, I felt [...] grateful to my parents for being there in the first place > I'm going to say something controversial. Not everyone is grateful for their life. I've talked to multiple people who preferred to never be born. And event the best parents I know couldn't offer much more honest reason for having children than "we wanted to" which is basically ultimate selfishness. > > [...] and being decent at being par…

Hey, in case you aren't aware, it sounds like you might be depressed. I highly recommend finding a therapist, or if you can't, consider what would need to change in your life for you to feel more active and engaged. Are you eating/sleeping/exercising too little or too much? Is your job/commute/locale draining you? Do you feel like you just need to find a direction/purpose? There's no other soul out there that would take your spot, and even if one could they'd face the same challenges as you.

Re: A shift in American family values is fueling estrangement

#540
post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of a friend who has gone through some bad life experiences. She once told me that "everything happens for a reason" is the kind of garbage only said by people who have never had bad things happen to them. Yes, dealing with adversity can teach us things and make us stronger. But there are limits, and adversity can also do permanent mental and emotional damage. The latter outcome is way more common than…

Just as a couple of counter points to that phrase (to people who say and and those who hear it), because I know a lot of people hate hearing it. People saying it are trying to impart hope on the people that they are saying it to. If you believe that everything happens for a reason, this will be a comforting reminder even though you're going through something awful. It's intended to remind people of the countless stor…

I don't think I would say "everything happens for a reason" to someone who is suffering, but all the same for me and other people of faith it's a simple reality. But for people who disagree or struggle with the premise, it will offer no solace. They would probably feel like it dismisses and trivializes their suffering, and worse, they might attach other, unintended meanings.

History attests to the terrible condition of the world, and the Bible is very clear about that from the earliest parts of Genesis. There is so much pain, as a constant through the vastness of history and before. Saying everything happens for a reason doesn't necessarily deny that. When applied properly, it acknowledges the cruelty and struggle to find meaning, but that the reality is as it stands. Someone who does not believe may very well reject the notion of meaning, and see only the path of improving the situation as the answer. In the end, both types have among them people of goodwill, and we must be charitable to each other.

A sibling comment to yours mentions Candide, which takes "we live in the best of all possible worlds" very cynically. Voltaire disagreed with Leibniz's premises. But of course "best of all possible worlds" has lots of room for argument as to "best" means, and it certainly does not mean the best of all of _your_ possible worlds. As the joke goes, both the optimist and pessimist believe ours is the best possible.

Post reply on HN