( No Title )
I can’t believe I have to say this, but here we are. The Discourse around The Independence Post has reached critical mass, so apparently I have to clarify because nobody bothers with nuance or critical thinking. The words “…should probably… most of the time” were chosen because I’m aware that there are reasonable exceptions. There are a variety of circumstances that make it unsafe for a child to behave this way. These are the reasonable exceptions that I was thinking about when I said “should probably… most of the time” instead of “must always… all the time.”
The entirety of the last paragraph was also included for the sake of clarity. The paragraph in which I say that parents should want their children to have friends, to have their own life, and to not have 100% of their life tied up to the parents. That’s all there to describe what makes denying a child age-appropriate independence unhealthy. It’s unhealthy when the parents believe that their own absolute control is more important than the child’s well-being. It’s unhealthy when the parents micromanage because they believe it’s their right to dictate what choices their child can and can’t make. It’s unhealthy when parents want their child to remain dependent indefinitely. When parents want their child to be able to have their own life, but know the risks of allowing their child some types of independence, it’s not unhealthy. It’s being a good parent. It’s understanding the horrific nature of society and doing what’s necessary to keep your child safe. That’s vastly different from a parent who controls just because they can. And I’d really hoped that, since this is a blog about child abuse written by a survivor of child abuse, a glance at this blog’s title would have shown “Oh, this is about malicious control exercised by abusive parents, not about cautious control exercised by reasonably worried parents.”
Discussion ¬