Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » MikeH » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
MikeH's Journal
Posted by MikeH in The DU Lounge
Wed Jul 01st 2009, 10:08 PM
Response to OP: Why did you have (or not have) children?
One of the circumstances is that for various reasons, including some problems that I had when I was young, but also due to some choices I have made as an adult, I have so far not had any serious relationship with a woman. This is admittedly one of the biggest disappointments of my life. (I am a 58 year old heterosexual male.)

However I am not at all disappointed that I do not have children.

First of all I had a very difficult and unhappy childhood and adolescence, and it was a struggle for me as a young adult for me to really become happy and to be at peace with life and to enjoy being alive. Just having very painful memories of my own unhappy childhood and youth, I have not wanted to have my own children.

One of the big and major problems I had, well into my adulthood, was my relationship with my father. He was an excellent provider for his family, and did many very nice things for me and for his family, and many very good things, and often helped me out with things like schoolwork. However he was a very strong-minded, dominating person, and was often very judgmental. He was often very poor at understanding, from my point of view, some difficult or sensitive issue which was causing me to be upset, frustrated, or otherwise unhappy. And he often decided in Godlike fashion that I needed to be yelled at or bawled out like I had committed a crime when I made an honest mistake, honestly forgot something, or something was not according to his standards. And he would always say that what he was saying or doing was “for my own good”.

It seemed like according to my dad the important thing in life was to live up to his, or somebody else’s, rules, expectations, and standards. It seemed like to him life was a matter of duty (even though at times he might tell me to enjoy myself). He would sometimes remind me that it is a “cruel world”.

His attitude and his manner did very little to inspire me with confidence in myself as a person in my own right, and as one who could handle things and make it in the world. He would not let me make my own mistakes.

It was a major source of frustration for me that even as a young man I often ended up being intimidated by my dad (or charmed when he was really nice) and went along with things he said or did that I really did not feel were OK.

My dad died when I was in my mid-30’s. It was about a year after his death that I became fully aware of how angry I still was at my dad, and that he had actually at times been abusive, or at least borderline so. I.e. it was not just something wrong with me that I had problems with him, and was often angry with him and resented things he said and did, which anger and resentment spilled out toward other people and to other areas of my life (such as my jobs, and socially).

My feelings about my own dad have been a major contributing factor to a very strong distaste toward the idea of being a dad myself.

And given what we now know about global warming, and the threat to our planet’s sustainability, as well as what the GWB misadministration and the wealthy elites have done to ruin our country and our country’s economy (and the fact that the foundations for GWB to do what he did were laid long before he came into power), I am now very happy that I do not have any children, or grandchildren, who are going to have to deal with all this. And anyway, at age 58, I am now past the age at which most people would want to have children. And I don’t like the idea of being in my 70’s when my children would be teenagers.

I am very happy with the responses to this thread of people having children who love children and have wanted to have them, and feel that their children are the best thing on the planet. It is wonderful for somebody to have children who loves children, and wants to have them, and -- very importantly -- is able to handle the responsibilities of raising them, taking care of them, and giving them the love and attention that they need.

And I am also happy with the responses to this thread of people not having children who realize that they have not really wanted them and/or are not able to handle the responsibilities of raising them.

I think that it is very wrong for anybody to be made to feel that they “should” have children for any other reason that one really loves children and wants to have them. It is particularly wrong for anybody to be made to feel that they have any kind of duty to have children, such as a duty to God or any kind of religious duty, or a duty to one’s parents (to provide them with grandchildren) or to other relatives.

I despise the religious right, and one of the most reprehensible things that some people on the religious right are saying is that people have a duty to have children, and that they are being selfish to not have children, and especially that Christians have a duty to supposedly allow God to provide them with as many children as God would wish or see fit to provide them.

I myself have never had any pressure from family to get married or to have children. However sometimes I have been a little bit offended, or at least irritated, if somebody in casual conversation asks how many children I have, or asks if I have children in a tone which sounds like I “should” have children. One time at a soup and salad buffet restaurant, the day after Halloween one year, a woman behind the counter asked me if I went trick-or treating with my children. I reminded her that there are people who do not have children. I did find her question offensive, with its implication that I “should” have children (she said I looked like a daddy). Hey, there might be any number of very personal reasons why somebody might not have children, whether by choice or by circumstance.

Discuss (0 comments)
Profile Information
MikeH
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
1011 posts
Member since 2002
San Diego, California, USA
Male
The "Final Solution", Adaptation to Society's Norms, Morality and Duty, and Childhood Feelings
People with any sensitivity cannot be turned into mass murderers overnight. But the men and women who carried out "the final solution" did not let their feelings stand in their way for the simple reason that they had been raised from infancy not to have any feelings of their own but to experience their parents' wishes as their own. These were people who, as children, had been proud of being tough and not crying, of carrying out all their duties "gladly," of not being afraid--that is, at bottom, of not having an inner life at all.

...

This perfect adaptation to society's norms--in other words, to what is called "healthy normality"--carries with it the danger that such a person can be used for practically any purpopse. It is not a loss of autonomy that occurs here, hbecause this autonomy never existed, but a switching of values, which in themselves are of no importance anyway for the person in question as long as his whole value system is dominated by the principle of obedience. He has never gone beyond the stage of idealizing his parents with their demands for unquestioning obedience; this idealization can iasily be transferred to a Führer or to an ideaology. Since authoritarian parents are always right, there is no need for their children to rack their brains in each case to determine whether what is demanded of them is right or not. And how is this to be judged? Where are the standards supposed to come from if someone has always been told what was right and what was wrong and if he never had an opportunity to become familiar with his own feelings and if, beyond that, attempts at criticism were unacceptable to the parents and thus were too threatening for the child? If an adult has not developed a mind of his own, then he will find himself at the mercy of the authorities for better or worse, just as an infant finds itself at the mercy of its parents. Saying no to those more powerful will always seem too threatening to him.

...

Morality and performance of duty are artificial measures that become necessary when something essential is lacking. The more successfully a person was denied access to his or her feelings in childhood, the larger the arsenal of intellectual weapons and the supply of moral prostheses has to be, because morality and a sense of duty are not sources of strength or fruitful soil for genuine affection. Blood does not flow in artificial limbs; they are for sale and can serve many masters. What was considered good yesterday can--depending on the decree of government of party--be considered evil and corrupt today, and vice versa. But those who have spontaneous feelings can only be themselves. They have no other choice if they want to remain true to themselves. Rejection, ostracism, loss of love, and name calling will not fail to affect them; they will suffer as a result and will dread them, but once they have found their authentic self they will not want to lose it. And when they sense that something is being demanded of them to which their whole being says no, they cannot do it. They simply cannot.

Alice Miller
For Your Own Good: The Central Mechanism of "Poisonous Pedagogy"
Learning from Hitler and his childhood
What point is there for us today in learning about Hitler and his history? For me, the main point is this: our knowledge will serve as a warning against our blindness and encourage us to give it up once and for all and to struggle against collective repression. This is what I do consistently in all my books in order to help people understand the psychodynamics of the mistreatment of children and its immeasurable danger for society, as demonstrated by Hitler's case. My explanations are by no means intended to suggest pity for a man as merciless as Hitler.

it was in large part owing to Hitler and his history that I became aware of the dangers of our traditional morality. We are exhorted to honor our parents and never question them no matter what they have done. Yet when I realize that millions of human beings had to die so that Adolf Hitler could keep his repression of childhood trauma intact, that millions were subjected to humiliation in concentration camps so that he never had to recognize how he had once been humiliated, then I believe that one can't point out these connections often enough in order to shed light on this unconscious production of evil. How should young people be expected to recognize and reject inhumanity and crime if these continue to be disguised instead of being pointed out as plainly as possible? Only when young people are permitted to know exactly what happened and how it could happen, only if they don't allow anything to stifle their curiosity and are not afraid of the truth, can they free themselves from the burden placed upon them by their forebears' blindness.

Alice Miller
Adolf Hitler: How Could a Monster Succeed in Blinding a Nation?

See also
For Your Own Good: Preface to the American Edition

For Your Own Good: Adolf Hitler's Childhood: From Hidden to Manifest Horror
Other tyrants and their childhood
In the lives of all the tyrants I examined, I found without exception paranoid trains of thought bound up with their biographies in early childhood and the repression of the experiences they had been through. Mao had been regularly whipped by his father and later sent 30 million people to their deaths, but he hardly ever admitted the full extent of the rage he must have felt toward his own father, a very severe teacher who had tried through beatings to "make a man" out of his son. Stalin caused millions to suffer and die because even at the height of his power his actions were determined by unconscious infantile fear of powerlessness. Apparently his father, a poor cobbler from Georgia, attempted to drown his frustration with liquor and whipped his son almost every day. His mother displayed psychotic traits, was completely incapable of defending her son and was usually away from home either praying in church or running the priest's household. Stalin idealized his parents right up to the end of his life and was constantly haunted by the fear of dangers that had long since ceased to exist but were still present in his deranged mind. The same might be true of many other tyrants. The groups of people they singled out for persecution and the rationalization mechanisms they employed were different in each case, but the fundamental reason behind it was probably identical. They often drew on ideologies to disguise the truth and their own paranoia. And the masses chimed in enthusiastically because they were unaware of the real motives, including those operative in their own biographies. The infantile revenge fantasies of individuals would be of no account if society did not regularly show such naive alacrity in helping to make them come true.

Alice Miller
The Political Consequences of Child Abuse
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
StarStarStarStarStar
I do not support this bill
90 recs : By AllentownJake
HOUSE PASSES HEALTH CARE BILL!!
89 recs : By tomm2thumbs
StarStarStarStar
StarStarStar
The Usual Suspects
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.