Poll of the Day > It's been 3 years since I talked to my parents

(+) Yeah! (+)

Not gonna lie this topic makes me feel a lot better about my situation. I both worked for my dad for 7 years and sadly still live with both him and my mom. As much as I hate to say it I've slowly grown to hate him over the years and every day I await the day he dies or for just an opportunity where I never have to associate with him again.

I've been unemployed for a while and sadly have had to rely on them during said time, but luckily I just recently got a new job that's paying me pretty good, so maybe in the next few months I'll start looking into new housing. I dunno. But yeah. My brother literally stopped talking to him for 2 years and just recently started talking to him again after our uncle (his brother) died. My mom can't stand him either. Only stays with him literally because she knows that he'll take half her money. One big reason why I don't plan on marrying anytime soon....

He's not the worst father in the world, but he's not a good person at all really. Me and my brother recently talked and we both agreed that we are not going to speak for him when his funeral comes.

Hope you can figure out a way to keep your peace, man!

I love you, Jen
So proud of you and all that you have done and continue to do for yourself
I will always recognize your strength and resilience

RCtheWSBC posted...

I love you, Jen
So proud of you and all that you have done and continue to do for yourself
I will always recognize your strength and resilience

I love you too!!

Thats good you can cut toxic people out of your life, and people shouldn't feel guilty about cutting out toxic family members. And people shouldn't try and guilt people to go back to talking toxic people just because they are family. They are either stuck with toxic family they cant cut and are envious, have never been in such a situation they have a very narrow view on how emotional trauma is, or are an abuser themselves and admitting that what you did is good, would be admitting they are terrible people.

ZayKayWill posted...

Not gonna lie this topic makes me feel a lot better about my situation. I both worked for my dad for 7 years and sadly still live with both him and my mom. As much as I hate to say it I've slowly grown to hate him over the years and every day I await the day he dies or for just an opportunity where I never have to associate with him again.

I've been unemployed for a while and sadly have had to rely on them during said time, but luckily I just recently got a new job that's paying me pretty good, so maybe in the next few months I'll start looking into new housing. I dunno. But yeah. My brother literally stopped talking to him for 2 years and just recently started talking to him again after our uncle (his brother) died. My mom can't stand him either. Only stays with him literally because she knows that he'll take half her money. One big reason why I don't plan on marrying anytime soon....

He's not the worst father in the world, but he's not a good person at all really. Me and my brother recently talked and we both agreed that we are not going to speak for him when his funeral comes.

One thing I will say about that is that you may find yourself changing your mind when you move out. I had quite a few issues with my mom when I was living with her, and while those aren't gone, per se, the fact that I only have to consider them as a detached third party instead of living with them every day is a lot better for both my mental health and my ability to try to understand where she's coming from (mostly the consequences of her mother abusing her) and work within that framework so we can both be happier. Sometimes, people are really unpleasant to live with (and in your case, if you also worked for him, that's even more exposure and you wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the primary means by which people get a break from problematic cohabitants), but can be fine or even enjoyable in small doses.

Of course, it's also possible that some distance will change absolutely nothing and you'll just be glad to be away. Your mileage may vary. Just try to keep in mind the role that being frustrated by immediate exposure is playing in how you feel overall.

its probably for the best for someone who cant forgive their parents to not be a parent themselves

How can you forgive someone who isn't sorry?

Jen0125 posted...

How can you forgive someone who isn't sorry?

that is not how forgiveness works

Lmao

Jen0125 posted...

Hope you can figure out a way to keep your peace, man!

adjl posted...

One thing I will say about that is that you may find yourself changing your mind when you move out. I had quite a few issues with my mom when I was living with her, and while those aren't gone, per se, the fact that I only have to consider them as a detached third party instead of living with them every day is a lot better for both my mental health and my ability to try to understand where she's coming from (mostly the consequences of her mother abusing her) and work within that framework so we can both be happier. Sometimes, people are really unpleasant to live with (and in your case, if you also worked for him, that's even more exposure and you wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the primary means by which people get a break from problematic cohabitants), but can be fine or even enjoyable in small doses.

Of course, it's also possible that some distance will change absolutely nothing and you'll just be glad to be away. Your mileage may vary. Just try to keep in mind the role that being frustrated by immediate exposure is playing in how you feel overall.

Thank you guys. I really do appreciate this.

potdnewb posted...

that is not how forgiveness works

Step 1: Person punches you in the face
Step 2: You forgive that person
Step 3: Person says "thanks" and punches you in the face again
Step 4: "I'm so enlightened because I keep forgiving those who wrong m-" *punched again*

Forgiveness means not holding people's past transgressions against them. It does not mean ignoring current and probable future transgressions to the point of opening yourself up to harm. What you're talking about is not a matter of forgiving parents for being abusive, it's a matter of tolerating further abuse for the sake of claiming some kind of self-aggrandizing "win," with no regard for the pretty substantial harm that kind of mentality can do to a person. Tolerating abusive parents also has zero bearing on your ability to be a parent yourself (and if anything might actually make you more likely to abuse your kids because you've spent so long accepting and normalizing abusive behaviour).

Nobody has a right to abuse you. Period. By extension, nobody has a right to expect that you'll sit there and take that abuse instead of trying to stop it. By further extension, nobody deserves any sympathy when the victims they have abused choose to get away from them, nor should anyone act like your decision to get away from them is wrong. If you can leave your abuser, you are right to do so. Period. The only potential wrong in doing so is if you cause a third party further harm (such as leaving children behind with an abusive partner knowing that they'll take the brunt of that abuse), but even then that can still be the best choice in the long term if it puts you in a better position to mitigate or prevent that harm further down the road (like being able to put together a more cohesive divorce case that will secure custody of the kids, or find adequate housing so you aren't liberating them into homelessness).

It's funny people have more sympathy for my mother because I don't talk to her than they do for me. Do they think I don't want a mom? People really think it isn't harmful and hurtful also to the person that has to end that parental/child relationship? Why does the abuser get the sympathy because they are the parent?

I know, but there are real people that have personalities outside of defending abusive parents for lulz that do actually think some of these things, along with plenty of victims of abusive parents who are hesitant to speak up against such rhetoric because they've spent much of their lives being beaten into believing it. Trollybutt McDoongledong doesn't matter, but I figure if I can help put any of those other misguided people on the right path to breaking the cycle of abuse, it's worth typing a couple paragraphs.

Is it normal to not hate your parents but also don't really care about them? My parents kinda sucked as parents but I don't resent them for it. I just can't find a good reason to care about their existence either.

imlikegutsfr posted...

Is it normal to not hate your parents but also don't really care about them? My parents kinda sucked as parents but I don't resent them for it. I just can't find a good reason to care about their existence either.

Nope. You can feel however you want.

adjl posted...

This is why a lot of newer sex ed curricula start in kindergarten (at which point it's pretty much just "bad touch," though even that has been found to dramatically increase the likelihood of catching sexual abusers) and gradually introduce new concepts over subsequent years. That way, you make sure everyone has age-appropriate information before it's needed, plus you've normalized it to avoid the "not listening because it's awkward" issue.

See, that actually seems like a pretty good solution. Treat Sex Ed like Math or English, where you teach to the current level and build on past lessons over time.

The main problem there would seem to be that a full-length class each year would feel excessive (and would take time away from other potential classes, so prioritizing becomes an issue). But if you just do it as a short class (say, as an alternative class that only lasts for a few weeks or a full quarter/half-semester) it runs the risk of feeling less important, and kids may not internalize or retain what you teach. The best scenario might be to have a general "health and lifestyle" sort of class that deals with sex ed but also includes other elements that are sorely neglected by most modern education (like critical thinking, finances, and so on). So you space the sex ed lessons out between other lessons, and help socialize students better in other aspects of their life as well.

Though like you pointed out, you'd have to avoid the ideological pitfalls where parents feel like you're indoctrinating as opposed to just presenting straight facts and science. Because that's where the usual pushback comes (and in some cases, it's not even entirely unwarranted).



Zangulus posted...

I dont even remember what was shown or discussed in sex Ed in 5th grade. I remember health class we had like a 20 minute presentation by the school nurse on how to prevent STIs including her putting a condom on a sex you in the class. I took a nap.

In 5th grade we mostly had the "separate the girls and boys into different rooms" class, where they talked about going through puberty (from clinical stuff like "here's how your testicles work" to mundane stuff like "and you're going to start needing deodorant"). And all the guys wondered what secrets they were telling the girls because they clearly weren't telling us anything worth splitting everyone up for, so they were obviously telling the girls sinister things.

The actual sex ed stuff like condoms and STD and the mechanics of stuff didn't come until like 9th or 10th grade for us, by which point it was completely useless because most of us were either already sexually active or knew someone who was and had already picked up most of the basics, so we just ignored most of what they were trying to tell us.

Jen0125 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/1/3/AAAgaZAAEq4V.jpg

This is disgusting btw

A friend of mine moved to Arizona recently and she HATES it lol Already wants to say "fuck it" and move back to San Diego after less than a year of owning a home there.

Jen0125 posted...

Can you tell me what I should be regretting? I ask this of everyone who says this to me and they never respond.

That's because most of those people aren't thinking for themselves and are just rote repeating things they've been told all their life by older people with a vested interest in inculcating the idea of mindless loyalty to elderly family members, or who have themselves been brainwashed into thinking that way.



doshindude posted...

Perspective changes when family members die.

Think long and hard about that. Maybe you're too young to know.

To be fair I can almost guarantee I'm older than you, and I'd say you're coming across like one of the most immature people posting in this topic. Soooo...

I can also say from experience that perspective doesn't always change when family members die. I have dead aunts and uncles who I absolutely loathed for most of my childhood, and now that they're dead I still feel absolutely nothing positive about them. They were shitty people who did shitty things, and cutting them out of my life was one of the best things I ever did. And now that they're dead and gone the only thing that's really changed is that I don't have to think about them except during discussions like this where the topic comes up.

I also know other people who have literally said their parents dying are one of the best things that ever happened to them, and they haven't shown one iota of regret (other than possibly regretting never pissing on their graves afterward).

People tend to regret when good family members die, if those relationships have decayed to the point where it feels like opportunities were lost or things could have ended on a better note. But if the family member in question is a terrible person and it feels like there is literally no interest in redemption or compromise on their part, then regret really doesn't come into it. If anything, the survivor is more likely to feel apathy or even relief more than regret. The family member isn't someone worth missing or remembering, they're a burden and an ordeal which has suddenly been removed and which is best left behind.

Constantly telling people they should be obligated to abusive or neglectful parents forever is actually a far more psychologically damaging phenomenon than any possible regret those people might feel later.



potdnewb posted...

its probably for the best for someone who cant forgive their parents to not be a parent themselves

On the other hand, those sorts of people are often better parents, because they remember very clearly all the terrible and abusive things their parents did that made them hate them in the first place, and then go out of their way to avoid doing those same things to their own children. It's a level of self-awareness that tends to break the cycle of abuse wherein kids who are abused grow up to be parent who abuse, because they've internalized and accepted the abuse as "just the way things are".

And honestly, if nothing else I'd say people who haven't forgiven their parents would be far better at raising kids than people who have nothing better to do than troll on PotD. That seems like the utterly pathetic sort of person who would raise truly shitty kids. Ironically, my parents would probably agree. They'd hate people like that.

The classes I had was mixed boys and girls, minus the Catholic girl (or the occasional other Christian) who needed to be excused from being taught such things. Never the boys, for some reason...

It's seems clear to me that Jen tried her best to salvage her relationship with her parents, which is a very kind thing to do. If they couldn't meet her in the middle that's their problem.

MabinogiFan posted...

It's seems clear to me that Jen tried her best to salvage her relationship with her parents, which is a very kind thing to do. If they couldn't meet her in the middle that's their problem.

Thank you. I did try very hard for a long time.

I hope you don't end up needing their money for anything, Jen.

Man @AltOmega2 bailed pretty fuckin quick.

OmegaM posted...

I hope you don't end up needing their money for anything, Jen.

Why would I ask for money anymore from people who always give it strings? I can take care of myself.

Hmm I was summoned to this thread but then the post was deleted?

Jen0125 posted...

Like all you have to do is be fertile and get a poot. It takes no thought or skill. Then you can be a parent. What about that requires unquestioning respect?

Yeah, really.

AltOmega2 posted...

Hmm I was summoned to this thread but then the post was deleted?

Yeah, I was just saying how you bailed really quick when we started asking questions.

but then i realized how stupid your opinions were and deleted the post.

Cacciato posted...

Yeah, I was just saying how you bailed really quick when we started asking questions.

but then i realized how stupid your opinions were and deleted the post.

I "bailed"?
I literally came back when summoned both times.
I stand firmly behind my beliefs but someone who doesn't share literally the most basic moral value system wouldn't understand that, I suppose.

AltOmega2 posted...

I "bailed"?
I literally came back when summoned both times.
I stand firmly behind my beliefs but someone who doesn't share literally the most basic moral value system wouldn't understand that, I suppose.

Yeah I don't share the basic moral value system that abused children should kowtow to their parents forever

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The main problem there would seem to be that a full-length class each year would feel excessive (and would take time away from other potential classes, so prioritizing becomes an issue). But if you just do it as a short class (say, as an alternative class that only lasts for a few weeks or a full quarter/half-semester) it runs the risk of feeling less important, and kids may not internalize or retain what you teach. The best scenario might be to have a general "health and lifestyle" sort of class that deals with sex ed but also includes other elements that are sorely neglected by most modern education (like critical thinking, finances, and so on). So you space the sex ed lessons out between other lessons, and help socialize students better in other aspects of their life as well.

It's a tricky balance, but fortunately, it's a balance that's already been struck in many curricula that some school boards are trying to implement, which have been tested extensively and found to yield better sexual health outcomes without compromising any other learning.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Though like you pointed out, you'd have to avoid the ideological pitfalls where parents feel like you're indoctrinating as opposed to just presenting straight facts and science. Because that's where the usual pushback comes (and in some cases, it's not even entirely unwarranted).

The notion that school is all "straight facts and science" is fundamentally ridiculous in the first place. Those complaining about school teaching too much subjective stuff aren't actually complaining about opinions being taught so much as they're complaining about opinions with which they don't agree being taught.

More than that, in most cases, the problem they have with sex ed isn't that the stuff being taught is too subjective, it's that it isn't subjective enough. "These are the odds of getting pregnant with X/Y/Z birth control options," "these STD's exist," "sexual orientation and gender identity can vary from person to person" and other things like that are all 100% factual. The people freaking out are freaking out because something other than "sex is bad" and "gay people are evil" is being taught. They don't want kids to be taught the factual realities of sex and whatnot because that doesn't adequately convince kids that sex is evil and they'll go to hell if they do it before getting married. There are subjective elements, like "consent is important" and "you should respect people who are different," but those are opinions that are well-grounded in factual realities (namely, "rape traumatizes people" and "accepting trans people makes them less likely to kill themselves"), so conflicting opinions with no such basis are objectively inferior and should be laughed at until the person holding them cries.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

People tend to regret when good family members die, if those relationships have decayed to the point where it feels like opportunities were lost or things could have ended on a better note. But if the family member in question is a terrible person and it feels like there is literally no interest in redemption or compromise on their part, then regret really doesn't come into it. If anything, the survivor is more likely to feel apathy or even relief more than regret. The family member isn't someone worth missing or remembering, they're a burden and an ordeal which has suddenly been removed and which is best left behind.

Constantly telling people they should be obligated to abusive or neglectful parents forever is actually a far more psychologically damaging phenomenon than any possible regret those people might feel later.

Indeed. I can actually say that, now that I'm older, I'm less sad about my dad's parents dying than I was at the time. They were both pretty abusive to him in some very unpleasant ways (not as bad as my mom's mother was to her), and learning more about that as an adult (it wasn't really something that was discussed at the time and is more coming out as my mother works through the abuse she suffered from her mother and compares it with what she knew of my dad's treatment) is helping me understand the complex relationship my dad had with their deaths (including the last ~5 years of my grandmother's life where she was in full-time care following several strokes and he'd get a migraine any time he considered going to visit her). I wouldn't necessarily say I'm glad they're dead, but I do think it was actually good for my dad to get away from that, a benefit that outweighs the downside of me just being sad that grandad was gone.

And then with my mom's mother, I was pretty upset when she had a major cancer scare when I was like 17-18, but I was genuinely glad when she died a few years back (when I was 30). Part of that was that she was an absolutely miserable person who was too depressed to do anything to change that and instead just wallowed in her suffering for the last decade of her life (and probably quite a bit longer than that, though it got much more pronounced later), but the other part was that she was absolutely horrible and abusive to my mom and her death was an opportunity for my mom to move past the sense of obligation and guilt that compelled her to try and seek her approval. Getting older did change my perspective, entirely as a matter of being able to look past the fun times I had with my grandmother as a kid and recognize the unrepentant harm she was causing.

Sometimes, yes, getting older can change your perspective as you get some distance from whatever was bothering you and you realize that it was never worth compromising your relationship over. That's not the case for abuse. Abuse only gets better when the abusers make a genuine effort to repent. Victims have zero responsibility in that reconciliation process, and any efforts to make them feel guilty for failing to reconcile with a dead abuser (whether external or internal) should be shut down.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Indeed. If you want to claim superiority, at least focus on the claim you can actually make: That you had better parents than they did. That way, you get to be right, and they'll probably agree with you.