C:
“唯女子和小人难养。”
一个家庭饭桌，男男女女，而在场的女人听了这句话，没有任何人有反应。
B:
因为他虽然在说女人和小人，但他没有说我呀。我可是他亲爱的。他即使在说我，那又怎么样？这个话是古人说的呀，是很有道理的。
但你如果问他后两句是什么，他可能都接不上来，因为他只知道这句话。
唯小人与女子难养也，近则生逊，远则深怨。
但是我觉得，我们需要考虑的大背景：在家庭里面，为什么这些男人看上去如此具有话语权？其实就是因为原始积累和人脉资源，确实是家里的男性积累起来的。有了这样的积累和基础，家里的女人才能在这样的生活环境里生活，或者说为下一代提供更多的资源。然后我们却在通过他们获得了一些教育人脉资源的基础上，去质疑他们的权威，这个是他们无法接受的。
虽然这个事非常尖锐，但事实上也是这样，没有什么可以走的其他路，最终就是自己争气，自己积累原始的东西，包括资源、人脉、各方面。说到底，就是不靠他们了，你就可以把腰板挺直。
C:
不是尖锐。（在接受了父母抚养、受教育、成年、独立后，不再想接受掌控与规训，想自己走自己的道路，但在不想接受“长辈建议”的同时，却自发产生了愧疚感，认为如果没有当时的培养，那么现在我们甚至不会产生“反抗”，而只有“顺从”的路，所以这种“反抗”的精神，都是父母给的。），我认为你（之前的谈话）逻辑有问题，这依然是这个问题。
给予资源，特别是给下一代，是家庭内部投资，为了让生命个体具备独立判断的能力，包括你说，是你父母给了你“反抗”的前提，你才有“反抗”的想法。这个逻辑把人资产化，却不是主体化。因为如果一个家庭的稳固，后代的发展要依赖于下一代服从、复制，那么这个家一开始做的就只是投资。你认可，除非你把人当手段，这是一种斯德哥尔摩的心理。
（当然，给予资源，是为了让生命个体具备独立判断能力，是一种现代教育理想，大量父母没有这个意识，他们可能只是：养老需求、传宗接代、社会期待、家庭责任，以及所谓的文化传统。）
B:
但你这样认为，是基于：他们给下一代资源，是因为让下一代有独立判断的能力。但我觉得基于底层逻辑，大量父母繁育下一代最主要的原因是想把自己东西传承下来，把我的血脉、基因、everything，传承下去。
C:
如果他们这样想，我不奇怪。
（很多家庭的资源确实是上一代积累的，这是事实；资源提供者天然拥有更多话语权，这是事实；很多父母养育孩子，并不是为了培养独立人格，虽然不是全部父母，但确实很多，这是事实。）
我的重心在于，后来你主动解释你自己的“反抗”那一段。你以为你在反思你的来路，但你只是充满囚徒困境的原罪感：因为从他们那里获得过资源，所以不该反叛。
做个简单的逆否命题。
反叛，是因为获取不了资源吗？
有了资源，才具备质疑的认知能力，这不是恩赐的代价，是自然演化的直接结果。价值的流动是双向的，下一代子女的成功与反叛，才是优秀的、超越系统的个体。这是个定义的问题。
B:
OK, 我说的第一个事情就是，为什么我在分析家庭里面的男女性别和长辈晚辈之间的矛盾如此突出。其实我觉得应该是大部分的中国家庭都有的情况，就是因为代际之间、所谓传承的目的是不一样的。儿女有了资源，靠着这个基础往上不断的学习的时候，可能有了自己的独立意识。但他们的最终目的，并不是为了让你有独立意识和反叛意识。
所以这个可能，是我自己推测的，可能才是代际之间，就是性别之间最根本的冲突。那我把性别为什么放在这里跟你分析，是因为你今天听到了这个事情，我会跟你说，家里的女人为什么没有反应？因为很正常，她们就是生活在这样的基础之上，并且她们自己非常清楚，自己是享受了家里男人带来的资源。
如果今天她们掀桌了，那么这个资源可以立刻消失，她们自己也创造不了更多的价值，只能选择沉默。
（或是认可，因为早已经是既得利益者。）
（但男人依然会让很多东西在这个账本上隐身，比如生育、照护老人、情绪劳动、维持家庭关系、支持男性进行外部事业、放弃自己的职业发展。）
然后你说我在反思自己处境的时候，把自己进行价值物化，我是赞同这个观点的。然后你说，获取了家里面的资源，再一步步去形成自己的独立思维。但是，在这中间，你刚刚也用了另外一个词，叫做：礼教思维。也就是孝道。
昨天我也提到了这个。为什么我会主动把自己价值物化，跟孝道联系起来，是因为我跟你不太一样的地方。我非常清楚自己的资源是从何而来，我也很清楚他们想要我成为什么样子、我自己现在是什么样的角色，我应该做什么事情。
但是这对我的影响逐渐……包括我辞职，和其他的一些所谓的“反叛”，其实也在渐渐隔离。
我觉得用非常世俗的话语来说，就是我挺直了腰板，不再使用家里的资源，而是我自己去创造的时候，我就可以来对你的价值观进行不同的输出。但在我没有实力的时候，我是根本不敢掀桌的。
相当于在这种夹缝中，去找到自己的存在感和价值感。是父母无法给予你的东西，只能自己去找。
C:
我觉得没问题。你要在什么节点允许自己开始有具体行为，是很个人的。因为这些在我看来只是一些路径和时间选择、行事风格。
但是如果你在我面前说：你觉得你这样，是你父母允许你成为这样的人。这个逻辑滑坡我接受不了，因为后面影响就更多，是思维上的，不是选择上的。
B:
因为如果我的父母像你的父母一样（我可能更好选择）。我之前特别特别窒息的时候，我会觉得，我父母离婚了挺好。我当时就在幻想，我要是从小都是爹不爱、妈不疼，然后我父母离婚了，我现在可能还没有那么大的感情牵绊，没有那么多觉得我对不起他们的地方，浪费了他们的地方。
C:
你在家庭上考虑比我多，原因我能够知道的。
因为这些原因，你在自己工作这些相关的选择上，涉及到家庭，会考虑更多一点，因为一直都有他们的影响在，连接本来比我更强一点，这些原因对我来说都是很简单的前提，所以你怎么选，选什么时间点，通不通知，怎么通知他们，我都觉得没问题的。
我抓的点只有你逻辑滑坡那一段，因为我觉得那样想，你可能当下满足了自己的“高道德欲”，但接下来就是内耗，因为始终你会在内心审判自己：我明明接受了他们的恩赐，还要反过来抗拒他们。
我不想你那样。但如果这样想，给你带来的心理舒适好处大过内耗，就当我没有说……
B:
是的，我几乎大小事情都会审判自己到底有没有越过那条道德线，自己该或不该。
C:
你也审判我。
B：
这不是审判，本身我就这个逻辑。
C:
昨天，你说我社会化不完全。当时的语境是，我在说我创作的时候会消失，所以我朋友吐槽我，每到我进入创作状态，就找不到我人了。然后你说我：你这就是社会化不完全，你承认吗？
但消失是选择问题，不是能力问题。如果消失是能力，大批艺术家作家都中枪。
B:
你要是觉得不认可，可以输出。
C:
不是认可不认可，是定义。人的解码系统是不一样的。如果你不能说你对“社会化”的定义是什么，我只觉得你在乱来。
B:
我对“社会化”的定义就是沉浸式进入这套礼教系统。有些人他是打心里是这样想，他也在这样做；有些人他不是这样想，但是他也要这样做。这个才是我说的社会化，就是一个人为了顺应这个社会的运行规则而去做了某件事，无论他心里认不认可。
C:
那确实是你定义的。因为社会化是一个很标准的心理学词汇，包含：共情力、合作能力、沟通能力、长期关系构建能力等等。这些是“社会化”。如果你是说传统礼教那一套，我确实没有。君臣父子，那个被我称作糟粕洗脑。
我就只能说：好的。你有权评判，但我不接受。如果有一天这一套都能被称作社会化了，我愿意做个原始人。
——
“孝顺”的问题并不局限于“孝顺”，而是它很容易在人的内心安插一个看不见的法官。
这个法官时时刻刻在判决：
我是不是不孝？
我是不是自私？
我是不是辜负？
这些东西超出了我们日常所谈论的嘘寒问暖、回馈资源，或者情感上的心有挂念。
于是被审判的人会自然产生一种思维：既然资源来自父母，那我是不是欠他们？
资源是资源，爱是爱，人格是人格，权利是权利。
经济账、情感账、伦理账、权利账、人格账。
这些东西的边界并不是清清楚楚，它们一定有重合且无法分离的部分，但全部混为一谈，结果就是：末日。
人会永远活在一种无期徒刑式的道德债务里。
因为父母给予的东西无法精确计价，既然无法计价，就永远无法还清。
自我审判永远不会结束。
我承认自己从哪里来，也感谢曾经得到的东西，但这些东西参与了我的形成，并不拥有我的最终解释权。
——
C:
“Women and narrow-minded men are the most difficult to deal with.”
Picture a family dinner table, men and women all present, yet none of the women at the table reacted at all upon hearing this phrase.
B:
Because even though he’s talking about women and narrow-minded men, he’s not talking about me. I am his dear one, after all. And even if he were talking about me, so what? These words were spoken by the ancients, and they make a lot of sense.
But if you asked him what the next two lines are, he probably wouldn’t even be able to tell you, because he only knows this one phrase:
“Women and narrow-minded men are the most difficult to deal with: if you get too close, they lose their humility; if you stay too distant, they harbor resentment.”
However, I think we need to consider the broader context: inside a family, why do these men seem to hold so much authority? It’s simply because the primal accumulation and the network of resources were, in fact, built up by the men in the family. It is precisely because of this accumulation and foundation that the women in the family can live in such an environment, or provide more resources for the next generation. Yet, here we are, questioning their authority on the very basis of the education and network of connections we obtained through them—that is something they find impossible to accept.
Even though this reality sounds incredibly sharp, it is simply how it is. There is no other path to take; in the end, you just have to prove your own worth and build your own foundational assets—including resources, networks, and everything else. Bottom line: once you stop relying on them, you can finally straighten your spine.
C:
It’s not a matter of being sharp. (After accepting parental upbringing, receiving an education, reaching adulthood, and becoming independent, one no longer wants to accept control and regulation, wishing instead to walk one’s own path. Yet, while rejecting “elderly advice,” a sense of guilt spontaneously arises—believing that without that initial cultivation, we wouldn’t even have developed the capacity to “rebel” and would have only known the path of “submission.” Therefore, this spirit of “rebellion” feels like something gifted by the parents). I think there is a flaw in your logic from before; it’s still the exact same issue.
Providing resources, especially to the next generation, is an internal family investment meant to enable an individual life form to develop independent judgment. This includes what you said—that it was your parents who gave you the premise for “rebellion,” which is why you now have the desire to rebel. This logic treats people as financial assets rather than subjects. Because if the stability of a family and the development of its offspring depend on the next generation obeying and replicating the previous one, then what that family did from the very beginning was nothing more than a financial investment. If you accept that, unless you view people strictly as a means to an end, it becomes a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
(Of course, providing resources so that an individual can develop independent judgment is a modern educational ideal. A vast number of parents have no such awareness; they might simply be driven by: the need for elder care, carrying on the family line, social expectations, family responsibilities, and so-called cultural traditions).
B:
But your view is based on the premise that they give resources to the next generation in order to give them the capacity for independent judgment. I think when you look at the baseline logic, the primary reason a vast number of parents reproduce is to pass down what is theirs—to transmit my bloodline, my genes, my everything.
C:
If they think that way, I’m not surprised.
(It is a fact that the resources in many families were indeed accumulated by the previous generation; it is a fact that the provider of resources naturally holds more authority; it is a fact that many parents do not raise children to cultivate an independent personality—though not all parents, certainly a great many).
My focus is on the part where you later actively explained your own “rebellion.” You think you are reflecting on your roots, but you are actually just filled with a prisoner’s dilemma-style sense of original sin: believing that because you obtained resources from them, you have no right to rebel.
Let’s do a simple contrapositive proof.
Does rebellion only happen because one fails to obtain resources?
Having resources is what allows one to develop the cognitive ability to question in the first place; this is not the price of a gift, but the direct result of natural evolution. The flow of value is bidirectional. The success and rebellion of the next generation of children are what make them excellent, system-transcending individuals. This is entirely a question of definition.
B:
OK, the first thing I was doing was analyzing why the contradictions between genders and between generations within a family are so prominent. Honestly, I think this is the case for the vast majority of Chinese families, simply because the purpose of transmission differs across generations. When children have resources and keep learning based on that foundation, they might develop their own independent consciousness. But the ultimate goal of the family was never to give you an independent consciousness or a rebellious spirit.
So this discrepancy—this is my own speculation—might be the most fundamental conflict across generations and genders. The reason I brought gender into this analysis for you is because you heard what happened today, and I wanted to explain: why didn’t the women in the family react? Because it’s completely normal; they live on top of that very foundation, and they know full well that they are enjoying the resources brought in by the men of the house.
If they were to flip the table today, those resources could vanish instantly, and since they cannot create more value on their own, they choose silence.
(Or they approve, because they are already deeply entrenched vested interests).
(Yet men will still make many things disappear from this ledger, such as childbirth, elder care, emotional labor, maintaining family relations, supporting men in their external careers, and sacrificing their own professional growth).
And when you said that I am objectifying my own value while reflecting on my situation, I actually agree with that point. Then you said that we acquire resources from the family and step by step form our own independent thinking. But in the middle of this, you just used another term: ritualistic-orthodox thinking. In other words, filial piety.
I mentioned this yesterday too. The reason I actively objectify my own value and link it to filial piety is where I differ from you a bit. I know exactly where my resources came from, I know exactly what they want me to become, I know what my current role is, and I know what I ought to do.
But the influence of this on me is gradually… including my resignation and other so-called “rebellions,” I am actually gradually isolating myself from it.
To put it in very worldly terms, it means that once my spine is straight, and I am no longer using family resources but creating them myself, I can then output a different set of values to you. But when I don’t have that strength, I absolutely dare not flip the table.
It’s like finding your own sense of existence and worth within these cracks. It’s something your parents can never give you; you have to find it yourself.
C:
I think that’s perfectly fine. At what node you allow yourself to begin taking concrete action is deeply personal. To me, those are just choices of path, timing, and behavioral style.
But if you say to my face: you feel the way you are is because your parents allowed you to become this kind of person—I cannot accept that logical slippery slope. Because the downstream impacts of that are vast; it affects your entire framework of thinking, not just your choices.
B:
Because if my parents were like yours, maybe it would be an easier choice for me. Back when I felt completely suffocated, I used to think it would have been great if my parents had divorced. I used to fantasize that if I had grown up unloved by my father and uncared for by my mother, and they had just gotten divorced, I wouldn’t have such an immense emotional entanglement now. I wouldn’t feel so much like I’ve wronged them, or wasted what they gave me.
C:
You think about family a lot more than I do, and I can understand the reasons why.
Because of these reasons, when it comes to choices regarding your career and things related to family, you will naturally consider them more, because their influence has always been there, and your connection is inherently stronger than mine. To me, these reasons are all very straightforward premises. So how you choose, what timing you pick, whether you notify them, and how you notify them—I think all of it is completely fine.
The only point I am gripping onto is that logical slippery slope of yours. Because I think thinking that way might momentarily satisfy your “high desire for moral purity,” but what follows is inevitable internal burnout. You will constantly be putting yourself on trial in your own heart: I clearly accepted their grace, yet I am turning around to resist them.
I don’t want you to be like that. But if thinking this way brings you psychological comfort that outweighs the burnout, then just pretend I never said anything…
B:
It’s true, in almost matters big or small, I put myself on trial to see whether I’ve crossed that moral line, whether I should or shouldn’t.
C:
You put me on trial too.
B:
That’s not a trial, that’s just my inherent logic.
C:
Yesterday, you said I am incompletely socialized. The context at the time was me saying that I tend to vanish when I am in the zone creating, so my friends complain that whenever I enter a creative state, I become completely unreachable. And then you said to me: You are just under-socialized. Do you admit it?
But vanishing is a matter of choice, not a matter of capacity. If vanishing implies a lack of capacity, a whole host of artists and writers would be caught in the crosshairs.
B:
If you don’t agree with that, you are welcome to voice your output.
C:
It’s not a matter of agreeing or not; it’s a matter of definition. Everyone’s decoding system is different. If you cannot explain what your definition of “socialization” actually is, I just think you’re throwing words around wildly.
B:
My definition of “socialization” is entering this ritualistic-orthodox system in an immersive way. Some people genuinely think this way from the bottom of their hearts, and they act accordingly; some people don’t think this way, but they still have to act accordingly. That is what I call socialization—when a person does something in order to conform to the running rules of this society, regardless of whether they agree with it in their heart.
C:
Then that truly is your definition. Because socialization is a very standard psychological term, encompassing: empathy, cooperation, communication skills, the capacity to build long-term relationships, and so on. Those constitute “socialization.” If you are referring to that whole system of traditional ritualistic-orthodoxy—ruler and subject, father and son—I certainly do not have it. I call that dross and brainwashing.
I can only say: fine. You have the right to judge, but I do not accept it. If one day that whole system can be called socialization, then I would rather be a primitive human.
——
The issue with “filial piety” isn’t limited to filial piety itself; rather, it easily installs an invisible judge inside a person’s heart.
This judge is handing down verdicts every single moment:
Am I being unfilial?
Am I being selfish?
Am I letting them down?
These things go far beyond the everyday checking-in, the returning of resources, or the emotional holding of someone in your thoughts.
As a result, the person being judged naturally develops a mindset: Since the resources came from my parents, do I owe them my entire self?
Resources are resources, love is love, personality is personality, rights are rights.
The economic ledger, the emotional ledger, the ethical ledger, the rights ledger, the personality ledger.
The boundaries of these things are not clear-cut; they certainly have overlapping and inseparable parts. But when you mix them all up completely, the result is: doomsday.
A person will live forever in a life sentence of moral debt.
Because the things parents give cannot be precisely priced, and since they cannot be priced, they can never be paid off.
The self-trial will never end.
I acknowledge where I came from, and I am grateful for the things I once received. But those things participated in my formation; they do not hold the final rights of interpretation over who I am.