i want to remind everyone that "Smothering" is one of the 8 abusive parenting styles according to the book CONTROLLING PARENTS:
hmmm interesting.....
id be interested to hear the other styles, just for reference at some point ......
Second, it would seem that LOVE is not enough in this case, but i really question whether the love was genuine and of the "unconditional" kind in the first place. What good is love if it is shallow, fake, and used to justify controlling, dominating, abusing, etc...
So, I think love IS enough. It just has to be the real thing though. When we start believing that love is not enough, are we not starting to quantify it, and to form myths around the idea that love cannot stand on its own, or that its not important, that it is not enough, etc...??? Let's not create false ideas about love and let's define it clearly.
well ok, i dont know if my brain or this list is up to a major dissertation on it right now, although its very interesting to think aobut, but bottom line is that defining terms is crucial in any discussion......
so really it seems to me how you define 'love'.
for analogy how about love = milk. real whole love (unconditional love) would be made of lots of componenets: a biological feeling of caring, wish to nurture, protect, feed, clothe, but also the more esoteric or higher aspects such as respect, generosity, freedom, openness, all the really good parts that make it unconditional. (the cream)
i know that my parents are convinced they 'loved' me, beucase they had this vague feeling of biological caring, and they gave me food and clothes. but to me, they gave me 'skim milk' (at most) in the love world becuase there was no respect, no generosity, etc. it was definitely not unconditional love. but, they are positive they 'loved' me. i would say, they did not. who can say? depends how you define love.
people still call skim milk "milk". a lot of people still call this stunted half-love without the higher unconditional aspects "love".
whether its right or wrong they do it. so I would amend my statement above to say that " a vague biological feeling of caring is not enough". one also needs respect, freedom, generosity of spirit, and the 'cream' aspects that really make whole, unconditional love what it is.
is that more clear?
Also, there is alot of material on the history of childhood which readers here may find interesting. Child abuse has always existed and was almost considered the norm throughout the history of mankind. According to the various stages, we have only recently, in the last 100 years, evolved into a helping mode where we can see children as equal level, individual souls. More and more, we have adopted the new idea of helping children to grow up to stand on their own, and more away from the idea of using children to contain adult frustrations in the form of slavery and social security to serve their aging abusive parents.
Let's not forget this is a very recent development, to keep our expectations in perspective. Most parenting styles around the world are still at some level of being abusive.
well, you are really right about this and i agree with you =mostly=.... ive thought about this lots actually but i =think= (just my feeling) that this mainly holds true in 'developed' societies..... even as early as the egyptians etc...... which still covers thousands of years of our history though....... i feel although i would have to really research this BUT my feeling is that if you go back -before- organised civilisation, i mean really before when people were hunter-gatherers, that there would again be seen an increase in respect for both children and the elderly that was lost as soon as societies became larger, and children -were- seen as labor and elderly people were seen as useless for labor...... at that point their value did badly deteriorate... also I think becuase the mortality of children was high......
in indigenous societies though, i suspect that this was not the case and that children were often respected much more than in even slightly 'developed' societies... so i totally agree with you except for that one little bit. i do agree childrens rights is largely a new concept to 'developed' societies.
ok enough dissertation. interesting points.
d'smom.
