Why are we quick to judge certain situations?

relish

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 4:46 pm

Mommy3b2c brought up an important point in another thread. I would love to understand it better.

Why is it that some topics are overall considered okay to be judgemental about, and other are not?

My theory is that it may have something to do with a trigger, based on our systems of raising children.

If I have painful memories of being told that I have to be a certain way, then I may come to say that it is okay to be different. In this way I fight that painful memory by standing up to the values that were preached.

This may be to say that it's okay to be gay.

It may also mean that I speak out vehemently against people who seem to be following the original path.

Now, what happens if I am second generation of this thinking. It's ingrained in me from my parents' views, and I don't think twice before preaching the views I grew up with.

So we have A similar pattern.

Does this make sense?

amother

Periwinkle

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 5:04 pm

I'm hearing you say that as a child it was so painful to be dismissed or invalidated or otherwise judged for being you (saying certain things, thinking certain thoughts, etc.), and that with your own children you say to them what you as a child would've wanted to hear from your parents.

Am I getting it right so far?

I'm also hearing that you react (vehemently) when you hear others doing what your parents did to you. Is that right?

And I'm also hearing something about a similar pattern. That's where I'm unclear. Care to say again what you mean by similar pattern?

amother

Orchid

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 5:32 pm

relish wrote:

I actually disagree with your entire premise of people being judgy. I think that for the most part we live in a very tolerant society. I think for the most part people have the attitude of " live and let live". Can you give a few specific examples that often have many judgy responses? Of course you can always find 1 or 2 judgy responses out of 100. I'm talking about topics where the general response to the op us judgy.

Iymnok

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 5:37 pm

amother wrote:

The thread she referenced in which most responses are berating the OP for getting pregnant when she is having financial trouble and accepting assistance from her in-laws.
These responses are to the situation, not her question, and not her posts. This situation seems to hav struck a wrong nerve among many ladies here.

Why is that?

Fox

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 5:42 pm

Every group, large or small, has certain ideas or opinions on which "everyone has agreed to agree."

The specifics of which ideas fall into this category vary by geographic region, religious group or subgroup, socio-economic level, age, racial/ethnic background, history, and a million other variables.

When someone wittingly or unwittingly challenges one of these ideas, it represents not just a disagreement, but a rip in the underpinning of the unspoken agreement.

Let me give an example that I've found fascinating:

Would I be correct in stating that everyone here on Imamother and the vast majority of people in Western countries would consider a s-xual relationship between a grown man and a 12-year-old girl to constitute abuse?

Through legal, social, and religious mechanisms, we have "all agreed to agree" that such a relationship is not simply inappropriate but damaging.

But that assumption was at the heart of the s-xual assault trials in 2004 in the Pitcairn Islands. These islands, located in the South Pacific, are inhabited almost entirely by descendents of the HMS Bounty mutineers (of "Mutiny on the Bounty" fame) and Tahitians who accompanied them.

Pitcairn is part of the British Commonwealth, but it is so isolated that it doesn't necessarily "agree to agree" with the ideas of other Western societies. In particular, promiscuous s-xual activity is common for girls starting at age 12 and for some as early as age 10. Pitcairn natives find that reasonable and appropriate, and were therefore shocked when New Zealand law was applied and a number of men were accused of s-xual assault.

What was fascinating about the situation was the complete bewilderment on the part of the Pitcairn natives when confronted with the Western world's disapproval and outrage. They simply couldn't imagine what the fuss was about.

To us, it seems obvious that 10-year-old girls should not be having s-x, and asking, "why not?" would earn you disapproval from the most laissez-faire corners. To the people of Pitcairn, who didn't "agree to agree" on this topic, it's a legitimate question.

What leads to the most explosive discussions on Imamother -- and sometimes results in the banning of particular topics -- is the presence of people who have not "agreed to agree" on certain ideas.

Once upon a time, the purpose of higher education was to examine and question the ideas on which everyone had agreed to agree and the kill-joys who could only respond with, "You're disgusting for even asking that question" generally went to bed early.

Fox

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 5:46 pm

Iymnok wrote:

Oh, well, that's easy. Many of us have agreed to agree that a nuclear family's financial stability is more important than having more children. Even act like you're going to examine that "agreement" and watch the fur fly!

Fox

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 6:01 pm

relish wrote:

Now, what is the harm in discussing it? Why all the hurt?

I think it depends on the individual. Some people simply have no interest in thinking about anything outside their own experiences and environment. Some people, as other posters have noted, are defensive about certain topics.

Why shouldn't grandparents help support the upcoming generation? It's a reasonable question, particularly since that's how things worked for untold generations and how things still work in some parts of the world. Who died and decided financial independence based on nuclear family was a good thing?

One reason that Imamothers get our noses bent out of shape, IMHO, is that many of us like to think of ourselves as somewhat independent thinkers. We get testy when confronted with evidence that we, just like all those "sheep" we criticize, are simply part of a herd when it comes to ideas and values.

We also suffer from having actually invested in the agreements to which we agreed to agree. That's the difference between us and college students (aside from the beer, pizza, and weed). A 20-year-old can debate the pros and cons of various beliefs because she hasn't really committed to those values in any serious way. Once you're a little older and have bought in, so to speak, it's more uncomfortable to think about being wrong -- or at least not being completely right.

amother

Periwinkle

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 6:13 pm

relish wrote:

No, I meant the chinnuch system.

Like, certain things can be presented as the ultimate and only form of Judaism. When kids get hurt from it, they grow up to be the adults of the next generation who speak out against the issues that they found painful.

Then their kids grow up with those views and continue to speak out.

I think that is why we tend to be more accepting of differences, as long as they are different than "those ideals".

Oh, ok. So then I really don't understand. I'd love to, though. Would you say a specific example?

Fox

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 6:28 pm

amother wrote:

Not in my corner of the world :-(
The agreement here is that we keep having children, and Hashem will provide. (How? I do not know. ''Accept it on faith that Hashem will provide'', is what I heard repeatedly)

Not entirely sure where your "corner of the world" is, but I would question whether "Hashem will provide" is really evidence of a social agreement or not.

For example, among many groups of Jews in the U.S., there's a bit of a dichotomy. The official line is, as you say, "Hashem will provide for your children, however many you may have."

But the real "agreement" is to allow Hashem to provide only in ways that conform to the practices to which we're accustomed. For example, we simply assume that young couples will have their own apartments rather than live with either set of parents. We assume that extended families will not, in general, pool resources, but that nuclear families are in charge of their own finances. We assume that grandparents are entitled to a degree of leisure and independence in their retirement years.

At least in America, we're kinda picky about what kind of provisions we're willing to accept from Hashem.

amother

Orchid

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 6:41 pm

Iymnok wrote:

I think the general rule is as follows:

Behaviors that we feel have nothing to do with us, is not our business, we can ignore and not be judgy. If I decide I never want to daven, never want to learn torah, don't want to cover my hair, buy a 90 inch flat screen tv and put it up where I previously had gedolim pictures, go to the beach in a bikini, I don't think I would be subject to bashing if I announced this on ima. On the other hand behaviors that people feel are imposing, are often subject to bashing. Someone who lives in poverty, is on programs, and continues to have babies is opening themselves up to bashing because people feel that the programs are being financed by working people essentially making it that the working person is paying bills for the able bodied person who chooses not to work. Earlier this week there was a woman on here who described her predicament of poverty and complained that her husband had used 5000 in their savings for Ladin surgery. I'm thinking so many working people are not able to put aside any money, yet she is able to save 5000 while collecting programs funded by working people who have no savings. Doesn't seem right.

amother

Plum

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 6:44 pm

amother wrote:

Unfortunately the tolerant stance is often only applied to people doing things halachically wrong. Because that's the PC way to behave.

relish

Wed, Jun 21 2017, 6:53 pm

amother wrote:

So you are saying that if she gets a job and goes off of programs, your taxes will go down?!