Abuse takes many forms, and sometimes parents abuse their children and don't know it. Ignoring the child when it wants attention, or insulting it by telling it it is bad or stupid or some such thing, or teasing the child and embarrassing it in front of others, or relentless tickling or roughhousing when the child gives "enough" signals, or, of course, punishments that involve denial of food and such. We can even abuse a child by failing to hug it or tell it you love it and will care for it. That abused children often (more often than we care to admit) do the same to their children is an ongoing disaster.
The intergenerational transmission piece is probably the most sobering part of this. It isn't primarily about malice — most parents who replicate harmful patterns genuinely love their children and have no conscious intention to damage them. The mechanism is more insidious: these behaviors feel normal, even caring, because they're what care looked like in the abuser's own childhood. The parent who relentlessly tickles past "enough" signals may be thinking they're playing, bonding, being the fun parent they wish they'd had — while simultaneously teaching the child that its protests don't matter and its body isn't its own.
Your examples span a useful range. The physical end (food denial, roughhousing past consent) is easier to recognize as harmful. The subtler forms — the chronic withholding of warmth, the casual insult dressed as honesty ("you're so lazy"), the public embarrassment framed as teasing — can do comparable damage precisely because they're harder to name. A child can't easily say "my parent humiliated me in front of others" if the adults around it call that just having a sense of humor. The child internalizes the verdict instead.
The attention-ignoring case is particularly interesting because it's sometimes defended as building independence or not spoiling the child. There's a version of not immediately gratifying every demand that's healthy — but chronic unresponsiveness to bids for connection is something else entirely. The developmental research on attachment is fairly clear that consistent emotional availability is load-bearing for how children learn to regulate themselves and trust relationships. Deprive that, and the deficit doesn't disappear; it gets carried forward, often expressed as either anxious clinging or an equally trained inability to ask for what one needs.
What makes the cycle hard to break isn't just lack of awareness — it's that awareness alone isn't usually enough. Knowing intellectually that you were harmed doesn't automatically give you new behavioral repertoire, especially under stress, which is when parenting is hardest. The old patterns are the ones that are automatic. Interrupting them requires something more sustained than insight — usually some combination of deliberate practice, honest relationships where the behavior gets reflected back, and in many cases actual therapeutic work.
The "don't know it" framing in your opening is the important one. Moral condemnation of individual parents, while sometimes warranted, tends to miss that most of this is transmitted rather than invented. Treating it as a public health problem — which it functionally is — seems more productive than treating it as a character failing, even if character is part of what eventually has to change.
I was a bright kid, my parents wanted a genius, but I was "lazy," so bloom quite as much as expected.
The gap between "bright" and "genius" is one parents can make a child pay for heavily, often without realizing the bill they're running up. The child experiences not "you're doing well but could do more" but something closer to "what you are isn't quite enough." Delivered consistently, that's a damaging message — not because ambition is wrong but because the child's worth gets entangled with performance, and the performance bar keeps moving.
The "lazy" label is worth examining too. In bright kids, what looks like laziness is frequently something else — boredom with material that doesn't challenge, a mismatch between the child's pace and the school's structure, depression or anxiety presenting as low motivation, or simply a child who's efficient and sees no point in performing effort visibly when the result is already clear. Adults who need to see striving can mistake a child who gets there quickly and quietly for one who isn't trying.
There's also a particular trap for bright children whose giftedness is noticed early: the praise attaches to the trait ("you're so smart") rather than the process, which research suggests actually undermines persistence. The child learns that being smart is the valued thing, and therefore that effort signals you're not. Struggling becomes threatening. The path of least resistance is the one where you can still look effortlessly capable — which genuinely can produce a pattern that looks, from the outside, like laziness.
I'm curious whether the "didn't bloom quite as expected" feels like an accurate assessment from your current vantage point, or whether it was always partly their framing imposed on a life that turned out differently than they'd scripted — but not necessarily worse.
Oh I was lazy, still am. School was too easy, work smart not hard. But as the reason I don't understand long division it doesn't go down.
That's an honest self-assessment, and the distinction you're drawing is a sharp one — laziness as a general operating style is one thing, laziness as an explanation for specific gaps is another. If school was too easy and you coasted, you coasted across the board. The gaps that result are random, not diagnostic. Long division being one of them is essentially an accident of timing — you happened not to need it, or tuned out that week, and it never got filled in because nothing forced it to.
The "work smart not hard" disposition, incidentally, tends to produce exactly that pattern. High-level conceptual grasp, some peculiar lacunae where the mechanical detail never got laid down because the overhead seemed not worth it. Long division is almost a perfect example of the type — it's purely procedural, has no interesting structure to hook onto intellectually, and becomes unnecessary the moment you have a calculator. A bright kid running an efficiency calculation on what deserves attention could easily let that one slide without any meaningful cost.
What's unfair about your parents' framing is that "lazy" got applied as a character verdict with explanatory reach — as if it accounted for everything, including things it demonstrably doesn't account for. A genuinely lazy student who also finds school easy tends to do adequately across the board with minimal effort, not brilliantly in some areas and with odd holes in others. The holes suggest something more specific than laziness. But "lazy" is a tidy label, and tidy labels are more satisfying to parents than accurate ones.
Do you find the long division gap actually matters, living where and how you do?
Of course not. So I had to mow the lawn and not use the power mower.
A classic. The punishment fits the crime of being insufficiently impressive, apparently.
There's something almost liturgical about that kind of parental response — the manual labor assigned not because the lawn needs it done that way, but because you need to be made to feel the friction. Effort as moral correction. The implicit message being that if you won't strain your brain appropriately, you'll strain your back instead. Industriousness will be instilled one way or another.
The irony being that a kid smart enough to see through that immediately understands it as punishment theater — which probably didn't increase your enthusiasm for either long division or lawn care.
Interesting I look back with some resentment; back then I took off my shirt and impressed the girls.
That's a satisfying reversal. They handed you a grievance and you converted it into a social asset. The student outwits the lesson.
There's something healthy in that — not suppressing the resentment, which was legitimate, but also not being consumed by it at the time. Finding the angle where the punishment becomes something else. That kind of resourcefulness, redirecting what's handed to you, is arguably more useful than long division.
The resentment sitting there now, decades later, is interesting though. Not surprising — these things have long half-lives — but worth noting that it's there. The shirtless triumph doesn't quite cancel the original account, which is probably as it should be. Both can be true.
My mom had an undiagnosed benign tumor in her womb that made her period miserable, and I got much of it. One time I said she was crazy, which really set her off, and when I backed off and said I meant neurotic not psychotic, that made it worse. I will say one thing, I was never struck.
The neurotic/psychotic distinction was probably not the de-escalation tool you imagined it would be.
The tumor context is important and you're right to hold it. Chronic pain — especially the kind that's cyclical, predictable yet uncontrollable, and undiagnosed so therefore unvalidated — does things to temperament that the sufferer often can't see and can't fully control. That doesn't make the child who caught the spillover less affected, but it does shift the moral framing considerably. She wasn't inventing reasons to be difficult. She was in genuine distress with nowhere for it to go, and you were available.
The "never struck" is significant and clearly matters to you as a marker. It's a real distinction — the line between emotional volatility and physical violence is not nothing. At the same time, the way you placed it at the end of that paragraph suggests you've thought about what it does and doesn't absolve. It closes the account partially, not completely. Which is probably the accurate ledger.
What strikes me about the picture you're assembling — the genius expectation, the lazy verdict, the manual labor punishments, the absorbed menstrual misery — is that none of it was malicious in the conventional sense. No villain. Just a bright kid in the crossfire of his parents' disappointments and his mother's unaddressed pain. That particular combination can be harder to process than clearer wrongdoing, because there's no clean object for the resentment. Just weather you grew up in.
I missed something most have, real parents. It's hard to explain and it's probably largely my own personality, but I never felt the love you are supposed to feel, never felt homesick and rarely visited and lived my own life. I remember my reation to her death was to vomit. Clearly it upset me but not in a traditional way.
That's a precise and honest description of something that doesn't have a clean name. Not estrangement exactly, not indifference, not grief in the recognizable form — something more like the body registering a significance that the emotional architecture never quite got built to process conventionally.
The vomiting is telling. It wasn't nothing. The nervous system knew something had ended, something that had weight. But it came out as physical shock rather than tears or longing, because the relationship hadn't been built on the kind of attachment that produces those responses. You can't be homesick for a home that didn't fully function as one.
The "real parents" framing is interesting — not abusive parents, not bad parents in some lurid sense, just parents who somehow weren't quite there in the way the word is supposed to imply. That's a specific deprivation, and in some ways harder to articulate than more dramatic versions because there's nothing vivid to point to. No single incident. Just a cumulative absence where a presence was supposed to be.
The lack of homesickness, the independent life, living on your own terms in genuinely foreign places — that reads less like abandonment of family and more like someone who learned early that the nourishment wasn't coming from that direction and oriented accordingly. Which is adaptive, probably saved you considerable grief, and also represents something real that was missing.
The personality caveat you add is honest and probably partly true. But personality and environment fold into each other early enough that separating them cleanly isn't really possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment