[pachyderm]

This is not to criticize (which would do no good) but it seems I need to put this in writing:

I think my mother was something like a domestic Qaddafi, or Stalin, or Assad or someone: a person who was not quite right, could be out of control (in her own fear), willing to make others suffer -- and there was no check on that person's actions. No one to notice what she was doing, or at least no one who was unafraid enough to intervene. That, at least, was the way I think I saw it as a small child.

This is the way suffering propagates from one generation to the next. Hate only makes the damage continue. There has to be a better way.

[madisgram]

"There has to be a better way.-pachy.
i've often referenced my mother-now deceased-as "mommie dearest" tho that is a bit of a stretch. but i didn't receive the nurturing that i saw other girls receive from their moms. in fact it was almost like i wasn't there. she even refused to name me when i was born and later had the gall to tell me that! imho she missed out on receiving the love of a wonderful, sweet, loving little girl. fortunately for me i had a loving wonderful father. he made up for what she didn't give me-LOVE.
as for your quote above, pachy, i had to deal with this in therapy.
i learned my mom gave me all she was capable of. i learned to accept that tho it was painful to look at it. so i think acceptance is the key.
i strived to be a good mom to my son cause i knew how much a child needs to develop their own self worth and be embraced with love. i wanted "to break the chain". he's the joy of my life and loves me unconditionally as i do him. so good things can come out of misfortune.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by madisgram

i wanted "to break the chain".

There has to be a way of doing this in human affairs in general, in addition to your doing it for your children. Or do we have to do it one by one?

[pachyderm]

I just read this, about Julia Ward Howe and the first U.S. Mothers' Day; her message was quite different than what we think of as the day now -- and it did not work, either, since we seem not to have learned anything:

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/relati...lamation-1870/

[Perna]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

Or do we have to do it one by one?

I think we do have to do it one by one. Each person can only relate to one other person at a time; what I write to you might/might not be helpful to you but it is personalized because I have you in mind. One can't have two different people in mind at the same time, if only because they're each "different"/individuals.

So, while making speeches to large numbers of people might be enjoyable for the listeners (think, watching Oprah or The Doctors or Dr. Phil) we rarely hear how a speech or TV show changed a person's life and I think that's because it's not "pointed" enough, isn't one-on-one.

I think books can change people because the person and the book have a one-on-one relationship (although the change possibility isn't as great as two people in a relationship, such as marriage or therapy).

However, as positive as positive change can be, a relationship that doesn't work, therapy, marriage, parent/child, etc. can cause just as negative a situation as a positive one can cause positive so I don't think we'll ever be all sweetness and enlightenment as it always takes two and communication isn't always 100% in our own control; we might be sweetness and light but the other might not be or might not perceive that or might not teach that to their young child, etc. and away we go creating new non-sweetness and light people possibilities.

I think it boils down to we only have control over ourselves and what we ourselves do.

[pachyderm]

Where is my raspberry?