"Kids need Parents, not Friends"

"Kids need parents not friends."

I've heard this phrase since I was little and was often shocked at the voices who repeated it as many came from homes that were abusive even by social standards.

There also comes with this statement an intensity and a stalwart refusal to look at any other information once that phrase has been uttered.  This tells me that the statement is taken as fact even though all evidence points to the contrary and that the person who spoke those words is hiding from something deeply upsetting and using those words as a shield.

So the question is: What deep hurt is this phrase covering up?

Let's start by looking at the phrase itself.

First off, there are certain things in life that we take as concrete realities but which actually only exist because we say they do.  Kings and judges are the easiest example.  Kids are another.

Now, "children" do exist, but only in relation to the people who squirted them out.  "Child" and "parent" are terms that establish a person's immediate biological relationships and are immutable and undeniable.  They are real, concrete things, but are really only applicable when considering biological issues such as immunity, reproduction and hormone balance.  These terms often get misused though to describe a hierarchy of social roles which are imaginary constructs just like kings and judges.  This is a result of our social order of standardized oppression and is enforced by such attitudes as, "Control your child."

The word "kid" is specifically a put-down.  The word "child" is also misused in such a way because of our acceptance of social hierarchy.  It is an insult.  So let's remove the insult and use the word child, specifying the genetic paternal/maternal relationship as opposed to the imaginary, hierarchical relationship.

Next is the word "need", which is a word that I have always had difficulty talking to people about.  We use "need", again, to establish a hierarchy, but this time specifically with regard to emptiness.  Now, emptiness is just emptiness and all emptiness seeks fulfillment.

That is the very nature of the Universe.

See a hole.  Fill the hole.  Filling the hole creates another hole.  Fill that hole.

This is how life works.  But there are sooo many things and sooo many holes, that we get overwhelmed by the cacophony of life crying for fulfillment, so we use the words "need" and "desire" to delineate those holes that we can justify ignoring or refusing to fill.

It's easier to walk past someone who needs touch than it is someone who needs water, so we call the emptiness that calls for touch a "desire" and the emptiness that calls for water a "need".  Authority, direction and enforcement are easy to dish out in this society of orchestrated abuse so the emptiness that calls for authority and enforcement we call a "need", but the emptiness that calls for equanimity and respect we call a "desire".

Now in reality there is no difference between these different areas of emptiness, because emptiness is just emptiness.  And in reality our responsibility to emptiness does not change.  What does change is our social responsibility regarding emptiness.

Not only are there emptinesses that we are allowed to ignore, but there are many holes that we are even FORCED to ignore or are restricted in when, where and how we fill them.

Since ALL children come from parents, and a "need" is a hole that calls for fulfillment, then it is impossible for any child to "need" a parent.

Even if a parent was never around after the initiating event, the child STILL HAS a parent.  Often that absence is the best thing that a parent can give their child.  Such things are specific to each individual relationship and are very hard (often impossible) to recognize from a third-party perspective and therefore, if we are concerned for individual well-being, must never be the subject of blanket regulation.

What then, is a "friend"?

1- one attached to another by affection or esteem

2- one that is not hostile

3- one that favors or promotes something, a patron or supporter

This defines a social relationship distinct from a genetic relationship.

So considering the intention of the original statement to be the enforcement of social standards and authoritarian control, there is only one of these three definitions of “friend” that would prevent a genetically defined "parent" from also being a socially defined "friend", #2.

Our entire social order is founded on, and maintained by, parental hostility.   Plus, the requirement that the relationship be hostile excludes the possibility of affection and requires that the child be held lower than the parent in mutual esteem.  It also puts severe limits on, if not the full negation of, a child's ability to support and promote their parent because that parent is now seen as a threat.

So at first glance it would appear that the deep hurt that people are covering up is the abuse of their parents and the emptiness inside themselves left when they could not support or express affection for one another.  This IS a really large part of all of our hurt.

However, it is a hurt that we could easily heal by forgiving our parents in recognition of the pressures put on them and refusing to pass that abuse down.  But our present social order DEMANDS that we enforce direction and control our children and introduces conflict into the home, forcing separation between parent and child.

"Kids need parents not friends."

People with children say it.  People who have not had children do not say this except by rote entrainment.  This happens in the same way that people who have never driven might argue over which company makes the best trucks based on which trucks their dads drive or staunchly defend their native religion without exploring any others.

Parents say this to avoid the hurt they feel at being forced by society to be assholes to their children.  The pain of forced separation from their most intimately connected FRIEND.  The phrase is a verbal scouring pad used to callous our hearts against our own children.  To facilitate continued physical abuse and emotional sterility.  And having now been proven false, it is a phrase that we can now discard.

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

Associated thought lines to explore later...

-You can never fill your own holes without either taking from someone else or creating more holes within yourself.  We must fill each other's holes.  Since there will always be a hole to fill, it is the action of continually filling each other's holes that makes us feel fulfilled.  Thus equilibrium is NOT STATIC, it is ecstatic.  Equilibrium is the sensation of everyone always filling all holes simultaneously.  Since consciousness arises from the urge to fill a hole within, consciousness is obliterated in this ecstatic state.

The obliteration of consciousness has been confused with "death" and is therefore a frightening prospect.  But you don't feel your clothes when they fit.  When your ears work, you don't hear your ears.  When YOU are working properly, YOU are not aware of yourself.

-When I say that something is "imaginary" this is not an insult, nor is it intended to imply that it is less important or less effectual than something that is a concrete reality.  What I mean by "imaginary" is that it is something whose reality is based entirely on our mutual agreement and that it is therefore completely within our control and we can change it just by changing our minds.