What does it mean to be an advocate?
This is a complicated ask.
Advocacy isn't merely voting in favor of another person. It's actually using your intelligence to understand that person firstly (to the best of your ability) prior to supporting them (customized) therein. This is a time-consuming process that requires your complete focus on someone other than yourself.
To do this (advocacy) well, you cannot establish yourself as more (better) smart, more (better) straight, more (better) anything. Otherwise, true advocacy cannot occur. For advocacy is the purest form of sacrificial love between two human beings.
In summary, advocacy is a bottom-up support. It's attempting to elevate another person relative to their value TOWARDS THEMSELVES. From there, others around them (hopefully) buy into this (infectious) self-renew and continue forward with the trend (thereby accelerating the elevation).
Individuals who'd benefit from advocacy - for whatever reason - cannot or will not advocate for themselves. Regarding the latter, if they've been brainwashed to believe they've no / lesser value, advocating on their behalf will be that much harder to pull off successfully. This is due to the codependency that tends to result from said brainwashing.
-------------------------
Parents of multiple children who refuse to advocate for certain offspring befuddle me via their discriminatory behavior.
Here're two thoughts that come to mind:
- Isn't a parent - by default - qualified to be the ideal advocate for their children? Particularly if they're a biological parent?
- What benefit (to the parent, in particular) is it to withhold advocacy from one of multiple children?
-------------------------
Please consider the following disclaimer: I'm not referring here to rebellious / disobedient / delinquent children.
Instead, I'm referring to children who aren't homogeneous amongst the ranks (within the fam). Perhaps they're NOTICEABLY less intelligent, less masculine / feminine, etc. than the other offspring. As such, they're in need / owed (I would argue) - to an even greater degree - of parental advocacy.
-------------------------
Therefore, what might this advocacy actually look like?
For discussion's sake, let's say you are the parent of four beautiful children, all over the age of eighteen. Two of these children are up and out of the house, living as productive, responsible adults. But one of the remaining two is noticeably less intelligent (& always has been), and this dramatically impacts his short-term memory. Yet, he's far more athletically built (larger skeleton) than his (other male) siblings.
As such, wouldn't you advocate for this child, specifically as it pertains to his athleticism (noticeable physical strength / prowess)? And don't assume I'm referring to team sports here. What about strength training, CrossFit, etc.? Activities that are biased towards athleticism without the requirement of above average intelligence.
Wouldn't advocating for your child's customized success therein likely reap substantial benefits within his self-esteem, thereby improving your relationship therein?
-------------------------
But what if you, as the parent, didn't speak that strength training / CrossFit language due to you yourself not having an athletic bone in your body? What then?
You reach out to someone who does and entrust them to become your child's advocate (whilst keeping a watchful eye).
This is not rocket science. Yet, I'm beginning to believe the (parents) embarrassment problem (towards their dunce / queer child) doesn't lie within the brain. No, I'm now convinced that this is a heart problem.
These parents simply do not care to either enmesh or burden themselves with the notion of advocacy for this specific offspring. Hence, these children are left to flounder / rot on the vine.
But why? This only hurts them in the end by burdening everyone within the family that much further.
I'm so confused. What's the benefit of deeming a child - as I've described here - a lost cause?
No comments:
Post a Comment