Back to quote signs - easier than italics. "Sorry, but that's nowhere near enough to form anything like a meaningful relationship IMO. Parrots can do both those things." I guess this goes back to the other discussion about what makes a person who they are - just giving birth, taking care of Alex, and loving her, makes her her mother in my book. I accept that you don't agree. note: Anyway, you can't be telling me that Alex doesn't get to fix her mother; isn't there some kind of nondisclosure agreement for betas? :P Or, if she does fix her, she's a different person than when she was a cat (although she retains that transformative ability.)
"Yeah, my cat died a while back. :(" Sorry to hear that. Just to be clear, I was referring to the human relationship part, I was kidding. :)
"True enough. I tend to instinctively side on the "nurture" part when in doubt." I also have my instinctive reactions. See next:
"Claudia is most certainly not the best mother figure. :p There are plenty of bad mothers out there. I think Claudia's about average TBH." Average good or average all others? It's the difference between being average as a student in preschool, and being an average student in PhD Philosophy at Harvard. When you say someone is an average mother, imo it's not enough that she doesn't abuse the kid and provides a physically safe environment so that they survive childhood with most limbs intact and minimal trauma. Such a kid will still have lots of problems. An average good mother, imho, is involved with her kids' lives, and doesn't just ignore unpleasant issues. She may not handle them perfectly well, but she doesn't neglect them either. I hope this is not frustrating you, as I recognize that my instinct in this area is pretty strong, so there's really no purpose arguing it. For example, the conversation over dinner in this chapter really got on my nerves (as much as I admired Inverarity's execution.) I consider Claudia a poor mother, perhaps she did her best but it wasn't good enough. It may not have been her fault - being a bad mother doesn't mean she's a bad person - but she's not a good mother, even an average good mother.
"That is entirely possible. But if that was the case, I don't think it's because Alex isn't hers biologically. Rather, it would more be a case of having Alex be forced on her without giving her much of a choice."
Makes sense to me.
"I just don't want to put myself into the position of having to say parents are necessarily less loving toward adoptive children than they would be to biological children." Given a choice between biological children and adoptive, or just one?
"It depends on what you mean by 'family.' There are plenty of families that are technically families, in that the people there are related by blood, but so lack in warmth we might want to say they're not "actually" families." Correct.
"Heh. You could say that the printing press was invented by "Gutenberg," just by the Gutenberg who existed before he got amnesia." Got it, thanks. :)
One of my previous betas, miles2go, really, really disliked Claudia and thought she (and Archie) were terrible parents.
(I should add that he didn't know Claudia's secret at the time, but I don't think it would change his opinion much.)
I am not sure what you are saying about adopted vs. biological children, but I think anyone with adopted children in their family (or who is one) might take exception to the idea that biological children are automatically more loved.
I can see that. Just to clarify - I think Claudia did the best she could, and that Alex should forgive her, regardless of whatever Claudia has hidden from her.
Alex shouldn't (again, imho) forgive her father, who didn't do anything for her until recently. For some reason, she accepts him more easily than she does Claudia. Perhaps she is more deeply attached to Claudia, so secrets upset her more from that source.
While I do think that a biological bond plus an emotional bond can be stronger than a purely emotional bond, I also think it is stronger than a purely biological bond. These bonds influence each other, as we know from epigenetics that environment can influence one's biology as well.
I agree that an emotional bond is far more important than a biological bond. I think that not having that biological bond can be a weakness in a parent-child relationship, especially when you are talking about teenage years when the best of parents struggle with their kids.
It seems to me that that's what's happening with Alexandra - she loves her parents, but now she has two mothers AND fathers, all of whom she is going to express her independence from and connection to. I guess time will tell which bonds are stronger! For her mother, I think Claudia will win - nurture. For the father, I think Abraham Thorn will win - nature. So we're at an impasse.
It will be interesting to see what you decide to portray.
You know I don't understand this whole Biological bond/emotional bond idea in this case. After all Claudia is biologically related to Alex. Maybe the relationship dynamics would change, but if we were to go purely by biological relationship, then they are both related.
Not really, they are half-sisters. So yes there's some genetic connection, but depending on how similar they are, it could be very different or very like being a mother figure.
I guess this goes back to the other discussion about what makes a person who they are - just giving birth, taking care of Alex, and loving her, makes her her mother in my book. I accept that you don't agree.
She took care of Alex for what, like a day? Yeah, sorry, that's not enough in my book.
note: Anyway, you can't be telling me that Alex doesn't get to fix her mother; isn't there some kind of nondisclosure agreement for betas? :P Or, if she does fix her, she's a different person than when she was a cat (although she retains that transformative ability.)
Hey, all I've read is the fourth book; it's not like I know. ;) But considering Inverarity's habits when it comes to plot, I think it's highly likely Hecate's never coming back.
Sorry to hear that. Just to be clear, I was referring to the human relationship part, I was kidding. :)
Oh. Oops. Eh heh...heh.
Average good or average all others? It's the difference between being average as a student in preschool, and being an average student in PhD Philosophy at Harvard.
Then average all others.
When you say someone is an average mother, imo it's not enough that she doesn't abuse the kid and provides a physically safe environment so that they survive childhood with most limbs intact and minimal trauma. Such a kid will still have lots of problems. An average good mother, imho, is involved with her kids' lives, and doesn't just ignore unpleasant issues. She may not handle them perfectly well, but she doesn't neglect them either.
I agree with you. I don't mean average on any kind of objective scale; I mean average compared with all the others. As I said, there are a lot of bad mothers out there, far worse than Claudia.
I hope this is not frustrating you, as I recognize that my instinct in this area is pretty strong, so there's really no purpose arguing it. For example, the conversation over dinner in this chapter really got on my nerves (as much as I admired Inverarity's execution.) I consider Claudia a poor mother, perhaps she did her best but it wasn't good enough. It may not have been her fault - being a bad mother doesn't mean she's a bad person - but she's not a good mother, even an average good mother.
I tend to give Claudia a lot more leeway than most people, I think. It's important to remember that we only see her and Archie through Alex's point of view, and being a parent of a kid like Alexandra is not easy at the best of times. Claudia certainly does not handle everything perfectly, but given all the circumstances I think she overall does an OK job.
Given a choice between biological children and adoptive, or just one?
I don't understand the question.
Looking at a few paragraphs from your later post:
While I do think that a biological bond plus an emotional bond can be stronger than a purely emotional bond, I also think it is stronger than a purely biological bond. These bonds influence each other, as we know from epigenetics that environment can influence one's biology as well.
I agree that an emotional bond is far more important than a biological bond. I think that not having that biological bond can be a weakness in a parent-child relationship, especially when you are talking about teenage years when the best of parents struggle with their kids.
Well I don't think this is something we'll ever come to an agreement on, but I have to say I just plain disagree with this. I think it's entirely possible for an adoptive child to be just as loved as the most-loved biological child--yes, even in their teenage years. And I definitely think it's wrong to think of the lack of a biological bond as a "problem."
Not to say there aren't some unique issues with adoptive children, including deciding when and how to tell them they're adopted. But again, I just don't want to say to an adopted child "Sorry, but your relationship with your parent is inherently lacking in some fashion." Not that you'd ever say that of course...but I feel that's the logical consequence of your position.
She took care of Alex for what, like a day? Yeah, sorry, that's not enough in my book. Fine. :)
Hey, all I've read is the fourth book; it's not like I know. ;) But considering Inverarity's habits when it comes to plot, I think it's highly likely Hecate's never coming back. Got it. Well it would totally ruin the other stuff going on, in a way that can't be resolved in 4 chapters.
Then average all others. ... I agree with you. I don't mean average on any kind of objective scale; I mean average compared with all the others. As I said, there are a lot of bad mothers out there, far worse than Claudia. ...
I tend to give Claudia a lot more leeway than most people, I think. It's important to remember that we only see her and Archie through Alex's point of view, and being a parent of a kid like Alexandra is not easy at the best of times. Claudia certainly does not handle everything perfectly, but given all the circumstances I think she overall does an OK job.
I hear that, and good point about this being Alex's immature viewpoint. What determines a person's reaction to Claudia? I think it's largely a matter of personal experience. These things are set early in life, and its hard for someone raised in a less connected family to understand why someone raised in a more emotionally expressive family doesn't get their sense of family.
Given a choice between biological children and adoptive, or just one?
I don't understand the question. looking back, I don't understand it either. :) What I meant to say: If someone has one biological and one adopted child, I am not sure that they will have an equal relationship. Maybe they will. My instinct is that they won't. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure it depends on the individual.
(the above is my way of awkwardly ducking out of a debate)
Looking at a few paragraphs from your later post:
Well I don't think this is something we'll ever come to an agreement on, but I have to say I just plain disagree with this. I think it's entirely possible for an adoptive child to be just as loved as the most-loved biological child--yes, even in their teenage years. And I definitely think it's wrong to think of the lack of a biological bond as a "problem."
Not to say there aren't some unique issues with adoptive children, including deciding when and how to tell them they're adopted. But again, I just don't want to say to an adopted child "Sorry, but your relationship with your parent is inherently lacking in some fashion." Not that you'd ever say that of course...but I feel that's the logical consequence of your position. I don't think it's lacking - any more than any of my friendships could be considered to be lacking because I'm not their biological sister! I have no adopted siblings so this ia all hypothetical for me. For all I know, you're right and a child adopted at birth would pick up these same habits and peculiarities. If I would adopt a child, I hope to love them just the same and certainly ensure that the child would never feel different than my other children. But pretending the child isn't adopted shows that there is insecurity in the parent's part about their mothership, if they can't face the truth. And admitting the child is adopted is opening the door to a LOT of internal conflict as the kid gets older, and that conflict is only going to settle once the kid accepts both parents in some way - which is usually done by adopted kids finding out what happened to their bio parents. I think it wouldn't be as easy as being your parents' bio kid, either way.
What determines a person's reaction to Claudia? I think it's largely a matter of personal experience. These things are set early in life, and its hard for someone raised in a less connected family to understand why someone raised in a more emotionally expressive family doesn't get their sense of family.
I wouldn't say I was raised in a "less connected family." I had one very good parent and one very bad parent--so I think I saw something close to the full range of parenthood, as it were. Claudia isn't a good mother, but trust me, she's nowhere near being a bad mother. (And I wasn't physically/sexually abused, so I'm not talking about that--that kind of thing is just on a whole different scale. :/)
What I meant to say: If someone has one biological and one adopted child, I am not sure that they will have an equal relationship. Maybe they will. My instinct is that they won't. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure it depends on the individual.
(the above is my way of awkwardly ducking out of a debate)
Lol. Given we do have a cultural bias toward biological parenthood, it's likely that in the majority of cases the relationship won't be equal. But that's not an inherent thing; it's the product of the culture. Edit: IMO, at least.
But pretending the child isn't adopted shows that there is insecurity in the parent's part about their mothership, if they can't face the truth.
I agree. If I ever adopt a child I intend to let the child know they're adopted as soon as possible (assuming they don't already know).
And admitting the child is adopted is opening the door to a LOT of internal conflict as the kid gets older, and that conflict is only going to settle once the kid accepts both parents in some way - which is usually done by adopted kids finding out what happened to their bio parents.
Perhaps, but I don't think that internal conflict is inevitable. Certainly plenty of adopted children want to know their biological parent, but I'm not sure if that's an instinctual thing or because, again, we have a cultural assumption in favor of biological parenthood.
I think it wouldn't be as easy as being your parents' bio kid, either way.
I dunno about that. It's never easy being someone's kid, bio or not. ;)
Why does my opinion bother you so much?
Hmmm...that's an interesting question. I am not myself adopted, nor do I know anyone who is--so this debate is hypothetical for me as well.
After a relatively short bout of self-analysis, I'd say it's because of my beliefs regarding love, and perhaps emotions in general. Lots of people seem to think of love as some sort of overwhelming force that you have no choice but to get swept up into. But I think that you can choose to love or not to love, and indeed, a chosen love is much more likely to last and be real than a non-chosen one. And it's hard to find a better example of chosen love than adopting a child.
Plus, it does get annoying that foster children in fiction almost always seem to have angst about it, lol.
Do understand, I've never thought about this in this way or put it into these words before, so I may very well be missing the point completely.
My comment is too long, so I'm putting in ellipses: I wouldn't say I was raised in a "less connected family." I had one very good parent and one very bad parent--so I think ...) Let's not just trust each others' assessments- I think we really do agree on this, just your scale of good is slightly lower than mine.
Lol. Given we do have a cultural bias toward biological parenthood, it's likely that in the majority of cases the relationship won't be equal. But that's not an inherent thing; it's the product of the culture. Edit: IMO, at least. There is definitely a cultural bias towards biological parenthood - and I would argue it comes from a biological bias towards ones' children. In the past, when food was scarce, children who were adopted or had step parents were at a severe disadvantage. Today it's not as evident. IMO, of course.
I agree. If I ever adopt a child I intend to let the child know they're adopted as soon as possible (assuming they don't already know). Right - by the age of 3 they should hear the word. But there's also no point drilling it into them. As with everything, there's a balance.
Perhaps, but I don't think that internal conflict is inevitable..... Whether wanting to know one's relatives is biological or cultural: there's an interesting study on twins where one dies in utero, the other tends to have attachment issues. (I once told my family about this over dinner, in detail - one sibling semi-jokingly commented that they always felt they were missing something. My mother was shocked, she said that child had had a twin who disappeared early in the pregnancy, she never thought about it.)
Think about it: One wants to know their parents to know who they could have become and what to expect from life. It is very sad when someone cannot find their biological parents or have a relationship, but we aren't sad because, oh, they could have adopted me and I would have had a better life, rather, they wish their parents were better. I don't think this is purely cultural, but like you said, it's an opinion.
I dunno about that. It's never easy being someone's kid, bio or not. ;) Maybe, it's certainly easier than being someone's parent!
Hmmm...that's an interesting question. I am not myself adopted, nor do I know anyone who is--so this debate is hypothetical for me as well. . I hear your point about chosen love, and why it would bother you that something thinks love is something you can't control. I definitely agree that love is a choice, in fact I'd go further and say that love comes from actions, not the other way around. (Actions again - I have to see something demonstrated or it means nothing to me.) OTOH, a biological mother has no choice, but she does have to keep the baby and work hard, even moving during the later months is often difficult. Whether she likes it or not, she learns to give and think of another being before herself, and this is the first kind of love a baby experiences. I believe this is a unique bond. Of course, I agree that an adopted child can have a wonderful bond, far better than they would have with their mother. But the potential is greater with a biological mother. That's all I'm saying.
Just noting - an adopted child can be related to you and you already know you have what it takes to support them, at least financially. I think a marriage is the best example of chosen love. One has to choose a person, then choose to love them.
Oh, and I do know something about the foster system - it is nothing like being adopted. I feel terrible for any child in that system, at least in the USA. Any angst they have is usually justified. But I don't read such stories and wouldn't know.
I'm not the greatest writer and can hardly complain over mis-statements by others (I only hate grammar and spelling mistakes, and make mistakes myself whenever I attempt to correct them, so I don't.)
There is definitely a cultural bias towards biological parenthood - and I would argue it comes from a biological bias towards ones' children. In the past, when food was scarce, children who were adopted or had step parents were at a severe disadvantage. Today it's not as evident. IMO, of course.
Well, if you want to go all ev-psych you could tell a story about how we evolved to better pass on our genes so that's the only reason why we love our children blah blah. But I don't put much stock in ev-psych as a rule--at least not when it's so simplified.
Culture and biology are so inextricably linked it almost doesn't make sense to talk about what the origin was. More important is whether or not we can change it, and I think we can. Biology isn't destiny.
Right - by the age of 3 they should hear the word. But there's also no point drilling it into them. As with everything, there's a balance.
Indeed. No need to go like "Pass the salt, adopted child of mine," lol.
[T]here's an interesting study on twins where one dies in utero, the other tends to have attachment issues.
Hmmm. I hadn't heard of that before--that is interesting. But I think that's less biology and more, um, really early life experience?
Think about it: One wants to know their parents to know who they could have become and what to expect from life. It is very sad when someone cannot find their biological parents or have a relationship, but we aren't sad because, oh, they could have adopted me and I would have had a better life, rather, they wish their parents were better. I don't think this is purely cultural, but like you said, it's an opinion.
I do feel sad as well thinking about someone being unable to find their biological parents, but again I don't know whether that's instinctual or not. Anyway, I have no problem with someone wanting to know their biological parents; but I also have no problem with someone not wanting to know their biological parents either. It's up to them.
(There's an interesting TV show called "Switched at Birth" that deals with these issues, among others...)
Maybe, it's certainly easier than being someone's parent!
Haha. Quite possibly. I'll have to try it out myself first and see.
I definitely agree that love is a choice, in fact I'd go further and say that love comes from actions, not the other way around.
Whether she likes it or not, she learns to give and think of another being before herself, and this is the first kind of love a baby experiences. I believe this is a unique bond.
I think plenty of people learn to think of another being before themselves without having to get pregnant.
Of course, I agree that an adopted child can have a wonderful bond, far better than they would have with their mother. But the potential is greater with a biological mother. That's all I'm saying.
Yeah, I know. You may be right. This is the kind of thing that's impossible to test, so we'll probably never know for sure.
I think a marriage is the best example of chosen love. One has to choose a person, then choose to love them.
Fair enough.
Oh, and I do know something about the foster system - it is nothing like being adopted. I feel terrible for any child in that system, at least in the USA.
Well, if you want to go all ev-psych you could tell a story about how we evolved to better pass on our genes so that's the only reason why we love our children blah blah. But I don't put much stock in ev-psych as a rule--at least not when it's so simplified.
Culture and biology are so inextricably linked it almost doesn't make sense to talk about what the origin was. More important is whether or not we can change it, and I think we can. Biology isn't destiny. True. It's a dinosaur or egg question, to use an evolutionary term. Agreed that it can be changed. Indeed. No need to go like "Pass the salt, adopted child of mine," lol. LOL
Hmmm. I hadn't heard of that before--that is interesting. But I think that's less biology and more, um, really early life experience? Before they're even supposed to remember life experience? I guess you could say it like that.
I do feel sad as well thinking about someone being unable to find their biological parents, but again I don't know whether that's instinctual or not. Anyway, I have no problem with someone wanting to know their biological parents; but I also have no problem with someone not wanting to know their biological parents either. It's up to them. rereading that I'm a bit horrified at how that sounded - I don't believe that feelings should be a base for an argument. As you mentioned, practically speaking, instinctual can be either bio or culture (or a million other things).
(There's an interesting TV show called "Switched at Birth" that deals with these issues, among others...) I only read. :)
Haha. Quite possibly. I'll have to try it out myself first and see. Yep. I never heard anyone say that raising kids was easier than being one, though.
I agree. You might enjoy this post. I did, thanks.
I think plenty of people learn to think of another being before themselves without having to get pregnant. Yes - they are usually good parents, but any parent has to.
Yeah, I know. You may be right. This is the kind of thing that's impossible to test, so we'll probably never know for sure. Precisely.
I wouldn't know. Surprised there isn't a TV show about that.
Before they're even supposed to remember life experience? I guess you could say it like that.
Well, I guess it depends on exactly when the twin, er, 'died.' If it was after the third trimester I can definitely see it...
rereading that I'm a bit horrified at how that sounded - I don't believe that feelings should be a base for an argument. As you mentioned, practically speaking, instinctual can be either bio or culture (or a million other things).
Actually, it's not so much that you used feelings as the basis for an argument, but that you used the fact that most people find not knowing your biological parent sad, which is fine (although that fact itself could use some evidence I suppose).
Yep. I never heard anyone say that raising kids was easier than being one, though.
I was joking, mostly. It does depend on who your parents are.
Yes - they are usually good parents, but any parent has to.
Agreed.
Surprised there isn't a TV show about that.
There probably is, but I haven't seen it at any rate.
Well, I guess it depends on exactly when the twin, er, 'died.' If it was after the third trimester I can definitely see it... The research mentioned this occurring even with twins that disappeared early. (My sibling's twin disappeared less than 2 weeks in the pregnancy.)
Actually, it's not so much that you used feelings as the basis for an argument, but that you used the fact that most people find not knowing your biological parent sad, which is fine (although that fact itself could use some evidence I suppose). Yes.
I was joking, mostly. It does depend on who your parents are. Everything depends. So no argument.
Well, it seems the discussion basically wound down, lol. Thanks, though--it was interesting! And I'm still not quite sure what to say about those "twin dying" studies.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
inverarity) wrote2012-04-27 07:33 am
tealterror
"Sorry, but that's nowhere near enough to form anything like a meaningful relationship IMO. Parrots can do both those things."
I guess this goes back to the other discussion about what makes a person who they are - just giving birth, taking care of Alex, and loving her, makes her her mother in my book. I accept that you don't agree.
note: Anyway, you can't be telling me that Alex doesn't get to fix her mother; isn't there some kind of nondisclosure agreement for betas? :P
Or, if she does fix her, she's a different person than when she was a cat (although she retains that transformative ability.)
"Yeah, my cat died a while back. :("
Sorry to hear that. Just to be clear, I was referring to the human relationship part, I was kidding. :)
"True enough. I tend to instinctively side on the "nurture" part when in doubt."
I also have my instinctive reactions. See next:
"Claudia is most certainly not the best mother figure. :p There are plenty of bad mothers out there. I think Claudia's about average TBH."
Average good or average all others?
It's the difference between being average as a student in preschool, and being an average student in PhD Philosophy at Harvard. When you say someone is an average mother, imo it's not enough that she doesn't abuse the kid and provides a physically safe environment so that they survive childhood with most limbs intact and minimal trauma. Such a kid will still have lots of problems. An average good mother, imho, is involved with her kids' lives, and doesn't just ignore unpleasant issues. She may not handle them perfectly well, but she doesn't neglect them either.
I hope this is not frustrating you, as I recognize that my instinct in this area is pretty strong, so there's really no purpose arguing it. For example, the conversation over dinner in this chapter really got on my nerves (as much as I admired Inverarity's execution.) I consider Claudia a poor mother, perhaps she did her best but it wasn't good enough. It may not have been her fault - being a bad mother doesn't mean she's a bad person - but she's not a good mother, even an average good mother.
"That is entirely possible. But if that was the case, I don't think it's because Alex isn't hers biologically. Rather, it would more be a case of having Alex be forced on her without giving her much of a choice."
Makes sense to me.
"I just don't want to put myself into the position of having to say parents are necessarily less loving toward adoptive children than they would be to biological children."
Given a choice between biological children and adoptive, or just one?
"It depends on what you mean by 'family.' There are plenty of families that are technically families, in that the people there are related by blood, but so lack in warmth we might want to say they're not "actually" families."
Correct.
"Heh. You could say that the printing press was invented by "Gutenberg," just by the Gutenberg who existed before he got amnesia."
Got it, thanks. :)
"It makes perfect sense, and I agree. :)"
Great.
Claudia
(I should add that he didn't know Claudia's secret at the time, but I don't think it would change his opinion much.)
I am not sure what you are saying about adopted vs. biological children, but I think anyone with adopted children in their family (or who is one) might take exception to the idea that biological children are automatically more loved.
Re: Claudia
Just to clarify - I think Claudia did the best she could, and that Alex should forgive her, regardless of whatever Claudia has hidden from her.
Alex shouldn't (again, imho) forgive her father, who didn't do anything for her until recently. For some reason, she accepts him more easily than she does Claudia. Perhaps she is more deeply attached to Claudia, so secrets upset her more from that source.
While I do think that a biological bond plus an emotional bond can be stronger than a purely emotional bond, I also think it is stronger than a purely biological bond. These bonds influence each other, as we know from epigenetics that environment can influence one's biology as well.
I agree that an emotional bond is far more important than a biological bond. I think that not having that biological bond can be a weakness in a parent-child relationship, especially when you are talking about teenage years when the best of parents struggle with their kids.
It seems to me that that's what's happening with Alexandra - she loves her parents, but now she has two mothers AND fathers, all of whom she is going to express her independence from and connection to. I guess time will tell which bonds are stronger! For her mother, I think Claudia will win - nurture. For the father, I think Abraham Thorn will win - nature. So we're at an impasse.
It will be interesting to see what you decide to portray.
Re: Claudia
Re: Claudia
Re: tealterror
She took care of Alex for what, like a day? Yeah, sorry, that's not enough in my book.
note: Anyway, you can't be telling me that Alex doesn't get to fix her mother; isn't there some kind of nondisclosure agreement for betas? :P
Or, if she does fix her, she's a different person than when she was a cat (although she retains that transformative ability.)
Hey, all I've read is the fourth book; it's not like I know. ;) But considering Inverarity's habits when it comes to plot, I think it's highly likely Hecate's never coming back.
Sorry to hear that. Just to be clear, I was referring to the human relationship part, I was kidding. :)
Oh. Oops. Eh heh...heh.
Average good or average all others?
It's the difference between being average as a student in preschool, and being an average student in PhD Philosophy at Harvard.
Then average all others.
When you say someone is an average mother, imo it's not enough that she doesn't abuse the kid and provides a physically safe environment so that they survive childhood with most limbs intact and minimal trauma. Such a kid will still have lots of problems. An average good mother, imho, is involved with her kids' lives, and doesn't just ignore unpleasant issues. She may not handle them perfectly well, but she doesn't neglect them either.
I agree with you. I don't mean average on any kind of objective scale; I mean average compared with all the others. As I said, there are a lot of bad mothers out there, far worse than Claudia.
I hope this is not frustrating you, as I recognize that my instinct in this area is pretty strong, so there's really no purpose arguing it. For example, the conversation over dinner in this chapter really got on my nerves (as much as I admired Inverarity's execution.) I consider Claudia a poor mother, perhaps she did her best but it wasn't good enough. It may not have been her fault - being a bad mother doesn't mean she's a bad person - but she's not a good mother, even an average good mother.
I tend to give Claudia a lot more leeway than most people, I think. It's important to remember that we only see her and Archie through Alex's point of view, and being a parent of a kid like Alexandra is not easy at the best of times. Claudia certainly does not handle everything perfectly, but given all the circumstances I think she overall does an OK job.
Given a choice between biological children and adoptive, or just one?
I don't understand the question.
Looking at a few paragraphs from your later post:
While I do think that a biological bond plus an emotional bond can be stronger than a purely emotional bond, I also think it is stronger than a purely biological bond. These bonds influence each other, as we know from epigenetics that environment can influence one's biology as well.
I agree that an emotional bond is far more important than a biological bond. I think that not having that biological bond can be a weakness in a parent-child relationship, especially when you are talking about teenage years when the best of parents struggle with their kids.
Well I don't think this is something we'll ever come to an agreement on, but I have to say I just plain disagree with this. I think it's entirely possible for an adoptive child to be just as loved as the most-loved biological child--yes, even in their teenage years. And I definitely think it's wrong to think of the lack of a biological bond as a "problem."
Not to say there aren't some unique issues with adoptive children, including deciding when and how to tell them they're adopted. But again, I just don't want to say to an adopted child "Sorry, but your relationship with your parent is inherently lacking in some fashion." Not that you'd ever say that of course...but I feel that's the logical consequence of your position.
Re: tealterror
Fine. :)
Hey, all I've read is the fourth book; it's not like I know. ;) But considering Inverarity's habits when it comes to plot, I think it's highly likely Hecate's never coming back.
Got it. Well it would totally ruin the other stuff going on, in a way that can't be resolved in 4 chapters.
Then average all others.
...
I agree with you. I don't mean average on any kind of objective scale; I mean average compared with all the others. As I said, there are a lot of bad mothers out there, far worse than Claudia.
...
I tend to give Claudia a lot more leeway than most people, I think. It's important to remember that we only see her and Archie through Alex's point of view, and being a parent of a kid like Alexandra is not easy at the best of times. Claudia certainly does not handle everything perfectly, but given all the circumstances I think she overall does an OK job.
I hear that, and good point about this being Alex's immature viewpoint.
What determines a person's reaction to Claudia? I think it's largely a matter of personal experience. These things are set early in life, and its hard for someone raised in a less connected family to understand why someone raised in a more emotionally expressive family doesn't get their sense of family.
Given a choice between biological children and adoptive, or just one?
I don't understand the question.
looking back, I don't understand it either. :)
What I meant to say: If someone has one biological and one adopted child, I am not sure that they will have an equal relationship. Maybe they will. My instinct is that they won't. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure it depends on the individual.
(the above is my way of awkwardly ducking out of a debate)
Looking at a few paragraphs from your later post:
Well I don't think this is something we'll ever come to an agreement on, but I have to say I just plain disagree with this. I think it's entirely possible for an adoptive child to be just as loved as the most-loved biological child--yes, even in their teenage years. And I definitely think it's wrong to think of the lack of a biological bond as a "problem."
Not to say there aren't some unique issues with adoptive children, including deciding when and how to tell them they're adopted. But again, I just don't want to say to an adopted child "Sorry, but your relationship with your parent is inherently lacking in some fashion." Not that you'd ever say that of course...but I feel that's the logical consequence of your position.
I don't think it's lacking - any more than any of my friendships could be considered to be lacking because I'm not their biological sister! I have no adopted siblings so this ia all hypothetical for me. For all I know, you're right and a child adopted at birth would pick up these same habits and peculiarities. If I would adopt a child, I hope to love them just the same and certainly ensure that the child would never feel different than my other children. But pretending the child isn't adopted shows that there is insecurity in the parent's part about their mothership, if they can't face the truth. And admitting the child is adopted is opening the door to a LOT of internal conflict as the kid gets older, and that conflict is only going to settle once the kid accepts both parents in some way - which is usually done by adopted kids finding out what happened to their bio parents.
I think it wouldn't be as easy as being your parents' bio kid, either way.
Why does my opinion bother you so much?
Re: tealterror
I wouldn't say I was raised in a "less connected family." I had one very good parent and one very bad parent--so I think I saw something close to the full range of parenthood, as it were. Claudia isn't a good mother, but trust me, she's nowhere near being a bad mother. (And I wasn't physically/sexually abused, so I'm not talking about that--that kind of thing is just on a whole different scale. :/)
What I meant to say: If someone has one biological and one adopted child, I am not sure that they will have an equal relationship. Maybe they will. My instinct is that they won't. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure it depends on the individual.
(the above is my way of awkwardly ducking out of a debate)
Lol. Given we do have a cultural bias toward biological parenthood, it's likely that in the majority of cases the relationship won't be equal. But that's not an inherent thing; it's the product of the culture. Edit: IMO, at least.
But pretending the child isn't adopted shows that there is insecurity in the parent's part about their mothership, if they can't face the truth.
I agree. If I ever adopt a child I intend to let the child know they're adopted as soon as possible (assuming they don't already know).
And admitting the child is adopted is opening the door to a LOT of internal conflict as the kid gets older, and that conflict is only going to settle once the kid accepts both parents in some way - which is usually done by adopted kids finding out what happened to their bio parents.
Perhaps, but I don't think that internal conflict is inevitable. Certainly plenty of adopted children want to know their biological parent, but I'm not sure if that's an instinctual thing or because, again, we have a cultural assumption in favor of biological parenthood.
I think it wouldn't be as easy as being your parents' bio kid, either way.
I dunno about that. It's never easy being someone's kid, bio or not. ;)
Why does my opinion bother you so much?
Hmmm...that's an interesting question. I am not myself adopted, nor do I know anyone who is--so this debate is hypothetical for me as well.
After a relatively short bout of self-analysis, I'd say it's because of my beliefs regarding love, and perhaps emotions in general. Lots of people seem to think of love as some sort of overwhelming force that you have no choice but to get swept up into. But I think that you can choose to love or not to love, and indeed, a chosen love is much more likely to last and be real than a non-chosen one. And it's hard to find a better example of chosen love than adopting a child.
Plus, it does get annoying that foster children in fiction almost always seem to have angst about it, lol.
Do understand, I've never thought about this in this way or put it into these words before, so I may very well be missing the point completely.
Re: tealterror
I wouldn't say I was raised in a "less connected family." I had one very good parent and one very bad parent--so I think ...)
Let's not just trust each others' assessments- I think we really do agree on this, just your scale of good is slightly lower than mine.
Lol. Given we do have a cultural bias toward biological parenthood, it's likely that in the majority of cases the relationship won't be equal. But that's not an inherent thing; it's the product of the culture. Edit: IMO, at least.
There is definitely a cultural bias towards biological parenthood - and I would argue it comes from a biological bias towards ones' children. In the past, when food was scarce, children who were adopted or had step parents were at a severe disadvantage. Today it's not as evident. IMO, of course.
I agree. If I ever adopt a child I intend to let the child know they're adopted as soon as possible (assuming they don't already know).
Right - by the age of 3 they should hear the word. But there's also no point drilling it into them. As with everything, there's a balance.
Perhaps, but I don't think that internal conflict is inevitable.....
Whether wanting to know one's relatives is biological or cultural: there's an interesting study on twins where one dies in utero, the other tends to have attachment issues. (I once told my family about this over dinner, in detail - one sibling semi-jokingly commented that they always felt they were missing something. My mother was shocked, she said that child had had a twin who disappeared early in the pregnancy, she never thought about it.)
Think about it: One wants to know their parents to know who they could have become and what to expect from life. It is very sad when someone cannot find their biological parents or have a relationship, but we aren't sad because, oh, they could have adopted me and I would have had a better life, rather, they wish their parents were better.
I don't think this is purely cultural, but like you said, it's an opinion.
I dunno about that. It's never easy being someone's kid, bio or not. ;)
Maybe, it's certainly easier than being someone's parent!
Hmmm...that's an interesting question. I am not myself adopted, nor do I know anyone who is--so this debate is hypothetical for me as well.
.
I hear your point about chosen love, and why it would bother you that something thinks love is something you can't control. I definitely agree that love is a choice, in fact I'd go further and say that love comes from actions, not the other way around. (Actions again - I have to see something demonstrated or it means nothing to me.)
OTOH, a biological mother has no choice, but she does have to keep the baby and work hard, even moving during the later months is often difficult. Whether she likes it or not, she learns to give and think of another being before herself, and this is the first kind of love a baby experiences. I believe this is a unique bond.
Of course, I agree that an adopted child can have a wonderful bond, far better than they would have with their mother. But the potential is greater with a biological mother. That's all I'm saying.
Just noting - an adopted child can be related to you and you already know you have what it takes to support them, at least financially. I think a marriage is the best example of chosen love. One has to choose a person, then choose to love them.
Oh, and I do know something about the foster system - it is nothing like being adopted. I feel terrible for any child in that system, at least in the USA. Any angst they have is usually justified. But I don't read such stories and wouldn't know.
I'm not the greatest writer and can hardly complain over mis-statements by others (I only hate grammar and spelling mistakes, and make mistakes myself whenever I attempt to correct them, so I don't.)
Re: tealterror
Well, if you want to go all ev-psych you could tell a story about how we evolved to better pass on our genes so that's the only reason why we love our children blah blah. But I don't put much stock in ev-psych as a rule--at least not when it's so simplified.
Culture and biology are so inextricably linked it almost doesn't make sense to talk about what the origin was. More important is whether or not we can change it, and I think we can. Biology isn't destiny.
Right - by the age of 3 they should hear the word. But there's also no point drilling it into them. As with everything, there's a balance.
Indeed. No need to go like "Pass the salt, adopted child of mine," lol.
[T]here's an interesting study on twins where one dies in utero, the other tends to have attachment issues.
Hmmm. I hadn't heard of that before--that is interesting. But I think that's less biology and more, um, really early life experience?
Think about it: One wants to know their parents to know who they could have become and what to expect from life. It is very sad when someone cannot find their biological parents or have a relationship, but we aren't sad because, oh, they could have adopted me and I would have had a better life, rather, they wish their parents were better.
I don't think this is purely cultural, but like you said, it's an opinion.
I do feel sad as well thinking about someone being unable to find their biological parents, but again I don't know whether that's instinctual or not. Anyway, I have no problem with someone wanting to know their biological parents; but I also have no problem with someone not wanting to know their biological parents either. It's up to them.
(There's an interesting TV show called "Switched at Birth" that deals with these issues, among others...)
Maybe, it's certainly easier than being someone's parent!
Haha. Quite possibly. I'll have to try it out myself first and see.
I definitely agree that love is a choice, in fact I'd go further and say that love comes from actions, not the other way around.
I agree. You might enjoy this post.
Whether she likes it or not, she learns to give and think of another being before herself, and this is the first kind of love a baby experiences. I believe this is a unique bond.
I think plenty of people learn to think of another being before themselves without having to get pregnant.
Of course, I agree that an adopted child can have a wonderful bond, far better than they would have with their mother. But the potential is greater with a biological mother. That's all I'm saying.
Yeah, I know. You may be right. This is the kind of thing that's impossible to test, so we'll probably never know for sure.
I think a marriage is the best example of chosen love. One has to choose a person, then choose to love them.
Fair enough.
Oh, and I do know something about the foster system - it is nothing like being adopted. I feel terrible for any child in that system, at least in the USA.
I wouldn't know.
Re: tealterror
Well, if you want to go all ev-psych you could tell a story about how we evolved to better pass on our genes so that's the only reason why we love our children blah blah. But I don't put much stock in ev-psych as a rule--at least not when it's so simplified.
Culture and biology are so inextricably linked it almost doesn't make sense to talk about what the origin was. More important is whether or not we can change it, and I think we can. Biology isn't destiny.
True. It's a dinosaur or egg question, to use an evolutionary term.
Agreed that it can be changed.
Indeed. No need to go like "Pass the salt, adopted child of mine," lol.
LOL
Hmmm. I hadn't heard of that before--that is interesting. But I think that's less biology and more, um, really early life experience?
Before they're even supposed to remember life experience? I guess you could say it like that.
I do feel sad as well thinking about someone being unable to find their biological parents, but again I don't know whether that's instinctual or not. Anyway, I have no problem with someone wanting to know their biological parents; but I also have no problem with someone not wanting to know their biological parents either. It's up to them.
rereading that I'm a bit horrified at how that sounded - I don't believe that feelings should be a base for an argument.
As you mentioned, practically speaking, instinctual can be either bio or culture (or a million other things).
(There's an interesting TV show called "Switched at Birth" that deals with these issues, among others...)
I only read. :)
Haha. Quite possibly. I'll have to try it out myself first and see.
Yep. I never heard anyone say that raising kids was easier than being one, though.
I agree. You might enjoy this post.
I did, thanks.
I think plenty of people learn to think of another being before themselves without having to get pregnant.
Yes - they are usually good parents, but any parent has to.
Yeah, I know. You may be right. This is the kind of thing that's impossible to test, so we'll probably never know for sure.
Precisely.
I wouldn't know.
Surprised there isn't a TV show about that.
Re: tealterror
Well, I guess it depends on exactly when the twin, er, 'died.' If it was after the third trimester I can definitely see it...
rereading that I'm a bit horrified at how that sounded - I don't believe that feelings should be a base for an argument.
As you mentioned, practically speaking, instinctual can be either bio or culture (or a million other things).
Actually, it's not so much that you used feelings as the basis for an argument, but that you used the fact that most people find not knowing your biological parent sad, which is fine (although that fact itself could use some evidence I suppose).
Yep. I never heard anyone say that raising kids was easier than being one, though.
I was joking, mostly. It does depend on who your parents are.
Yes - they are usually good parents, but any parent has to.
Agreed.
Surprised there isn't a TV show about that.
There probably is, but I haven't seen it at any rate.
Re: tealterror
The research mentioned this occurring even with twins that disappeared early. (My sibling's twin disappeared less than 2 weeks in the pregnancy.)
Actually, it's not so much that you used feelings as the basis for an argument, but that you used the fact that most people find not knowing your biological parent sad, which is fine (although that fact itself could use some evidence I suppose).
Yes.
I was joking, mostly. It does depend on who your parents are.
Everything depends. So no argument.
Re: tealterror
Re: tealterror
Yes, well, arguments don't have to last forever, that's what I always say. I like coming to a nice peaceful compromise. :)
Thank you too - I sincerely enjoyed it (and discovered that comment discussions are a great means of short term self-reward.)