Hacker News Reader

> The family was for a long time the safety net for people

In these times also a lot of abuse was not recognized as abuse.

> Out of the two I trust my family more than I trust a bureaucrat that has no loyalty to me.

We trust companies to feed us and house us, and government to regulate them; if social programs were properly funded and efficiently administered there's no reason why they couldn't be as reliable.

There are political forces that seem to want to privatize everything for profit, these same forces have an interest in destabilizing working government programs and/or making them unreliable, difficult-to-use, or untrustworthy, making people think that non-private entities can't perform as well.

I’ve seen it on both sides. My mother was cut out by her sister with paranoid schizophrenia. I cut out my father and step mother (see my other comment for details) due to alcohol abuse.

I will say that never once was it “the governments problem” to deal with them. That wasn’t part of the calculus, and in fact the laws in Ohio were the biggest barrier to us getting them help. Despite being unable to walk and feed himself because he drank so heavily, the state wouldn’t grant me guardianship and said it was his choice to drink himself to death.

If the implication is that families need to be responsible for one another, we need to make it easier for children to attain guardianship over health decisions when their parents stop adequately taking care of themselves. Otherwise you’re throwing a burden on children without any legal authority, so you just end up in a constant high stress situation where you’re trying to convince someone to do something that their brain is incorrectly telling them to be skeptical of and ignore.

The fact that you can't get easily legal guardianship over an ailing parent is indicative of the problem with government intervention. Granted, you have a lot more kids who have no problem committing elder abuse. This is what happens when you chip away at the fabric of the family. Government tries to come in and fill the void and you end up with this.

What if your parents didn't sacrifice for you? What if you raised yourself? The pay it forward attitude is just so blind to the harsh realities that a large number of children face. It is very possible for a parent to hate and resent their child to such a degree that they take every opportunity to hurt, gaslight and humiliate. And that's IF they are not ignoring you because they are distracted by addiction. I love being apart of my children's lives now. I don't expect anything in return for taking care of them. I have to earn their loyalty everyday by being a great person just like I have to do for everyone else I meet. Its such a sense of entitlement that the children owe you. If you don't want to change diapers, don't have a goddamn kid!!!!!!

I agree with the idea its the mental health of the person cutting things off, me in this case. But, indeed, the lion's share of my mental health issues could be attributed to the toxic nature of my relationship with mother. I was very close to being able to maintain stable relationships outside of the familial one. It was a clue that I was probably ok. Once I cut her out and wasn't under assault, my other relationships improved dramatically. (Intimacy etc) I was able to finally separate from her, find my own natural level of dysfunction and begin to live my own life.

> I guess them raising us as children, changing our diapers, making sacrifices for us etc. doesn't count for any kind of paying it forward because..... me, me, me, me, me.

But having children is a choice. A choice that they made. A choice that comes with huge responsibilities.

I'm all for having and expressing gratitude within reason though.

But I no longer see life as some gift I should be eternally grateful for. And even if it is a gift, its not one I asked for and should be required to pay for.

> guess them raising us as children, changing our diapers, making sacrifices for us etc. doesn't count for any kind of paying it forward because.....

Yes. It doesn't because it's a selfish decission of a parent to bring a child to this world. Assuming it's a decission at all. It's your choice as a parent to keep the child for your own selfish reasons. Even if you hate your child and want to get rid of it but you don't and you sacrifice your life and comfort to raise it you still are doing it for selfish reasons. Because you want to think that you are a good person or because you expect something back.

Life is not a gift you gave your children. You don't own your children. They are their own, separate human beings, strangers to you, that have their own lives. If you want to be part of their lives you have to deserve it. You had a good start by exploiting the period when their minds were forming (assuming their experience of childhood was good) but it doesn't give you free pass to do what you feel like and expect their eternal frienship. Most parents don't eff this up and remain friends with their children till they die. If you don't then probably something is seriously wrong with you or (less often) with your kids or with all of you (but that's still probably your fault).

Are children ingrateful? They might still be grateful and never want to hear another word you say. You can't dictate how gratitude towards you is felt or manifested. Otherwise you are parent equivalent of a 'nice guy'.

In case you are wondering I'm in a very friendly relationship with my mother and when it comes to money her need is my need. I'm also very positive towards my father whom I never met and grateful for him doing the right thing. I don't have children but I like them and am very friendly towards them.

I guess them raising us as children, changing our diapers, making sacrifices for us etc. doesn't count for any kind of paying it forward because.....

Looks like you left some big-ticket items off that list, at least as far as it concerns me. Or did you just want the good parts paid forward?

Besides, it reminds me of a Chris Rock routine: "Oh, I take care of my kids!"

"That's what you're supposed to do, ya dumbass."

My colleagues are in the psychiatry and psychological therapy fields, and it's well recognised that some parents are toxic and cause serious on-going emotional harm to their children.

I cut out my parents with the support (not direction of) my therapist. She was very clear in our conversations that the way in which my father and step mother were treating me was not acceptable behavior, and providing them with guard rails around what will allow us to maintain a relationship was appropriate.

So yes, 100% your comment. It’s a pretty easy argument to make.

Are there toxic and harmful people in this world? Yes. Are there toxic and harmful people who have children? Yes. Are there toxic and harmful people who direct that behavior towards their children? Yes.

The unsaid thing with all of this is that the counseling field has become part of the problem with this. It used to be that counselors had more of a religious affiliation which made the more pro-family. These days they are a big part of the problem.

In a child/parent relationship those very issues could be due to the parent. However, there are just some people who are toxic and the estrangement is fully warranted.

I'm a bit confused by your government rant - why would that bear into wanting to get away from a toxic parent? Or are you saying because the government could possibly do that they shouldn't, as family should be the more important safety net, even if that family is toxic?

> Out of the two I trust my family more than I trust a bureaucrat that has no loyalty to me.

I think you oversimplify the question.

That bureaucrat could be implementing policies that help you (and others) without counterproductive emotional baggage that affects many relationships.

An example might be home care: many daughters are guilt-tripped by society and family to look after their aging parents (this also happens but to a much lesser degree to sons). If the state provided paid care that took many of the burdens off those carers (changing nappies, some cleaning, perhaps meals) then not only could the children have more fulfilling lives without those burdens but they could have a much better relationship with the aging parent when there is no resentment injected into the process (by the child for having to do the "scut work" and by the parent who resents aging having forced them to depend on others).

There's no perfect balance here and perhaps you trust your family, but there is an implicit burden embodied in that.

The people who benefit from this are not the family, but the corporations who have less distracted men and women so that they can continue to make them more money. The better solution is to allow for extra time off to help care for them. Some of those jobs may not be fun, but during end of life there are a lot of conversations etc. that happen during that time....family stories etc. and generally less regret than spending the majority of your time working for a soul-less company while care givers spend time with your relatives during their last days and hours.

Interesting. Have you ever had to care for a dying parent or sibling? Have you ever changed an adult's diapers? Have you ever accidentally injured a frail person, or yourself, trying to help them in or out of bed, and then thought "I wish I had some experience nursing help"?

On the other side of that coin, do you suppose most infirm people would rather burden their own children with changing their soiled diapers and cleaning up the their bowel movements that miss the toilet, versus hiring a professional caretaker to do it? If you're tempted to say yes, I have a surprise for you :)

Delegating those chores that can be done quicker and more competently by a professional will very often leave loved ones with more quality time for conversation and companionship, with less anxiety, exhaustion, embarrassment, and resentment associated with intensive palliative caretaking.

I think you are mixing up two orthogonal topics. I'll address the one relevant to the thread.

If you believe you will achieve a better relationship and memories with an aging parent via nappy changing that's wonderful. But the data show the opposite: much resentment and exhaustion and actually a diminution in the quality of the relationship. In addition few people have the training to deal with a parent who is mentally as well as physically impaired. Better that the time spent was where the participants get the most joy.

Note: I have been studying this market as I'm working on a startup looking at the sector.

You're making a whole lot of assumptions here. Let's break some things down.

1- "I guess them raising us as children, changing our diapers, making sacrifices for us etc. doesn't count for any kind of paying it forward because..... me, me, me, me, me."

No, it counts for nothing. That's your job as a parent. You're not required to have children in most countries I know of. If you sign up for having a child, you sign up to raise them to a point where they're self-sufficient (within reason). If you can't or won't be able to do that, you can have them removed from your custody. Doing the bare minimum (feeding, clothing, educating, and not abusing) a child is your job when you decide to become a parent. Are families complex? Are there lots of communication issued? Of course. But that's not what this article is about.

2- "The other issue is that as our parents and relatives get older their mental condition declines." My mother was verbally and physically abusive since I was a toddler. My father is a (semi)functioning alcoholic with a heart of gold and a lifetime of his own abuses. This is who they are. This is a misdirection. Some people become shit as they get older. Others were always terrible. If my parents behavior worsened as they got older, they never had any gratitude to start with because of their behavior when they were younger.

3- "Very few people are beyond redemption". What. The. Fuck? Who cares? Why is it my job to fix them? What if they don't WANT redemption. What if you tell them, time and time again, "your behavior is hurtful and ruining my desire to have a relationship with you. You need to get help. You need to work on your problems" and they refuse? Of course this is often about mental health issues. That's the basis of mental health! That your state of mind is causing you problems in your relationships and ability to function in the world. I believe many (some?) people are able to overcome their issues. I also believe many people don't care or recognize what they're doing. There's plenty of personality disorders that include "I'm not the problem, the world is the problem" as part of their diagnostic behavior.

TL;dr- My experience runs entirely contrary to yours. What a strange beautiful world we live in. Opinions aren't facts.

> No, it counts for nothing. That's your job as a parent.

Yes. Thank you for writing this, all of it.

> The family was for a long time the safety net for people

Almost, but not quite right, in an important way. The family was for a long time the safety net for people who had a safety net. There may not have alternate safety nets, sure, but it doesn’t follow that family was always a safety net. Many people just ended up with no safety net. The same occurs today—we may have alternate safety nets, which is good, but it doesn’t make families any more or less reliable than before.

What? Are you serious?

Do you think anyone ever asked you if you wanna be alive?

Paying it forward? Wtf?