As the countdown to seeing my kids again counts down, I find myself confronting the separation and the way that the kids were treated at the time, and what I did, and what my ex-wife did. And I realise that a large part of my agenda is to prove to myself that I am not a monster
(
Read more... )
And I form a little more confidence in my own judgement, having steered away from rabid people who claim to be on the side of men, just as I have steered away from rabid people who claim to be on the side of women.
Perhaps approaching the vantage of those who believe that while there are sides in such matters, there's a problem?
Reply
Reply
When somebody claims to speak for both sides, that person implicitly advocates the existence of sides. You can't speak for two sides if there aren't two sides to speak for.
I usually find that taking sides allows confrontation with the people on the other side, rather than confrontation of the problem.
(But then, it should perhaps be noted that I am extraordinarily adverse to group-wise thinking. Many years ago, somebody actually said of me, "Travis doesn't lean towards any political party; he leans away from all of them.")
Reply
Reply
I'm rather adverse to that, too. I have a rather strong tendency to approach issues from a large number of angels - sometimes sequentially, and sometimes not. That last case can get rather confusing for those with whom I converse.
Reply
Er, angle, not angels. Though I suppose it would be pretty easy to approach issues from a large number of angels, considering how many of them are supposed to fit on the head of a pin.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment