DOES IT INSULT KIDS TO SAY THEY NEED PARENTS? Ashley Doherty and Elizabeth Marquardt

Ashley writes: Might some of the divergence between Ms. Gallagher's point of view, and that of her airplane seatmate, be due to different interpretations of the word "need"?

More specifically, what is Ms. Gallagher saying when she says that children "need" a father, or "need" a mother-and-father? The young man on the plane may interpret that as meaning "is irrevocably screwed up without." Since he's the child of divorced parents, to accept that definition would be to accept that he's a mess and will never be put right. If that's the way he interpreted it, it's hardly surprising that he rejected the notion. (In fact, his restraint in the face of what could be perceived as a colossal insult is admirable.) If, on the other way, Ms. Gallagher means only "would be a lot better off with, or at least happier, at least for so long as one is a child," then her contention is not insulting. And it might, if phrased that way, have received an assent.

Take yourself, for example. You mention from time to time that you found (and maybe still find) it painful to have been a child of divorce. But you don't seem irrevocably screwed up to me, and I doubt that you'd describe yourself that way. (It'd be a sure way to undermine pundit authority!) So did you "need" your biological father (or mother) in your home? Or would it have just been a lot better for you if they'd both been there?

Elizabeth replies here.
posted by Eve at 5:29 PM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home