Musings

Excog, I think that in most situations you would be right that individual parents "are the ones responsible for what happened to YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE. I am responsible in first person for my own children."

However, the ethos and the physical reality in The Family negated that usual state of affairs. Communal living changes it. By living in a Family Home, subscribing to "One Wife," Law of Love and the myriad letters and policies aimed at breaking up the so'called "selfish family units," those who joined The Family *opted out* of the (lower-case) system where "YOUR PARENTS" [...] "are the ones responsible for what happened to YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE. I am responsible in first person for my own children."

I think indeed that a reality following your formulation is preferable, avoiding certain incentives and lacks of incentives that One-Wife communal living poses.

However, the daily reality of life in The Family's "Homes" was, when I was there, that unrelated persons are given authority over children, to spank, "correct," etc., and parents were not supposed to treat their children preferentially and did not carry any heightened responsibility to provide for the futures and the present of their own offspring (indeed, whose offspring in the case of many "family" units?).

The Family fights to continue a way of life that is noticeably different. They acknowledge that the communal "lifestyle" sets them apart. To this day, their statements reiterate "our children" this, "our children that."

I think it was very good for some kids that the parents bucked authority in order to give greater nurturing or protection to their own offspring, whether within the group and/or by finally just getting the heck out. But morally, having opted into a communal system, they undertook duties to the other children around them that attached so long as they participated in the community. If harm was done, it is not reasonable to expect forgiveness while the affected child bears the consequences.

It goes without saying that one may today absolve oneself of responsibility for children in their home will not necessarily lessen the hurt those children feel and the rage they will vent; and is it such a surprise if the feelings exist for others who constituted that unity-obsessed world? An annoying fact of raising children in that atmosphere who had no recourse to outside influences is that they might just take to heart the words that made the bars of that cage. You risk that they just might hold you to the responsibility implied by the words that decided thair fates.

I agree that charity begins at home. The issue is, when persons join The Family, that becomes their home while they are there, and basic humanity was owed to the children of others who came under the umbrella of the commune.

I will never forget the times that basic humanity was extended to me, and I thank those persons. I thank those who have touched my life now. While it is not possible to unring a bell, I feel some of those here have administered an antidote, which, linked as it is to the poison, could not come from elsewhere.

I honor parents who protected their children to the extent of that protection. I am glad for your children, even if not one of my parents do the same and seem they never will.

Please bear in mind that some of us did entirely without one parent or more, that some parents who were physically there laid us on the altar, and that for some of us it has not changed and seems it never will.

I think maybe part of what is going on is that because of the nature of the internet, much of the discussion here remains in the abstract. Because of TF monitoring, many things go unsaid that if said would elicit deep appreciation from "factions" and ease tensions.

Okay, that's probably enough "give up the ham" harmony-mongering from me.

I have been glad for some interactions with some persons I found here. However, I am sure they will understand if I say that it is way too early to discount the second generation. We have chosen this world and we are working within its parameters. My goals do not resemble partings of the red sea.

Does anyone remember the discussion when Andrea Yates was found guilty? How long ago was that? Well, her conviction was just overturned.

That is how reality works. Unlike in the group, people on the outside have lives to live. Those who got that conviction overturned probably worked on it while earning a living, getting some sleep, eating, maybe even catching some movies. The density of the wrong requires proportionate resources to counteract.

I think the people running this board and certain contributions are having an effect.

I have no desire to change anyone's mind, but for anyone wondering if Jules' work has had an effect, the latest GNs and notice the changes in TF's public discourse lead me to think The Family's leadership would do anything, give anything for MovingOn never to have happened.