How would you feel if your daddy says he is disowning your elder brother or sister?

I guess that would depend on why they were being disowned.

I'd say, "dad, make up your mind already which it will be of the two."

-----

Sorry, I am not trying to make fun of you. But seriously, man, I don't know. You give very little of the circumstances, because I can't shake the feeling that it's happening to you, so to put ourselves in your shoes, we would need to know more.

If it happened in my family, I would say what I did above. But I am quite sure this is not what you wanted to hear.

Give us please more details, and we can tell you then better, what we would say if we were you, when your dad disowned your older sibling.

since no one really 'owns' anyone , seems a silly question...
how any parent can turn their back on their child is beyond me anyway

we all have bad days, Id take it with a grain of salt and expect your dads feelings to keep evolving and changing,,,,like we all do

emotions arent permanent,,,,,,dont let it be too much of a concern for you

You are right. If my dad ever turned his back on any of us, his three children, then we would have stabbed him fatally between the sixth and seventh rib.

My dad was a wise and smart man. He never turned his back on us.

I think "disown" means to cut off from an inheritance or not allow the person to attend family functions.

I can think of several reasons why this may become necessary.

yeah, I generally think of people being disowned as people who are outcast from someplace

it usually manifests in them being dealt with as if they never existed in the first place; no mention of them, no talking to them, no talking about them, ,,,etc,,,

I would hope that they could work out their differences

That's pretty harsh but I have heard of that. I was thinking more of how you would handle a grown child who is a drug addict or abusive in some way.

I wouldn't be surprised. I can think of several good reasons. Just because someone is your flesh and blood does not mean that they qualify as a human being.

You regarded your father as "daddy", which makes me think you may be very young.

If my daddy said that to me about my siblings I would not worry. daddys sometimes say things like that so to inforce and establish who is in charge.

in strict Jewish tradition disowning a child is not merely an action or a feeling, it is a well-defined process.

I don't know all the steps in the process, but some involve giving the child its "due", that is, part of the family wealth that had been prescribed as a percentage of the total in the Talmud.

After several steps, the parents sit "shiva" over the child. "Shiva" is a 24-hour mourning period for the recently departed. Then after the parents sit Shiva for a still living child, and other parts of the prescribed procedures had been followed, then whatever ties had been existing between child and parents will be severed for good.

A child in the Jewish tradition can't disown his parents the same way, since the ten commandments forbid it. The ten commmandments have no say about the parents' responsibilities for their children.

A child had to do a major disobedience to get disowned. Some would be squandering family wealth; some, marrying a gentile; some, blasphemy; some, criminal behaviour. It's all in the talmud, read it if you want to know.

A child under 13, before his or her bar- or bat-mizvah can not be disowned.

Children can't be disowned by transfering ownership, although giving a daughter into marriage is a bit reminiscent of a transfer of goods transaction. The parents have to give an appropriate amount of dowry away with the girl, the amount of which is varying, according to the means and social rank of the parents of the newlyweds. The idea behind dowries is that womenfolk had been considered highly useless, since they could not fight in wars when fighting was not done with guns but with muscle-requiring arms; since they could not participate in harvesting wheet; since they could not till the earth, or run wheat mills. Women could not lift a bison and carry it home on their shoulders.

Women, therefore were pressed to do menial, horrible jobs, and they were squeezed out of the decision making process of a social unit. They had no clout. They were useless, they took more wealth than they produced, so the parents were expected to counter-balance this, and give money to the loser who married her.

Because while women were considered economic dead weight, they were also at the same time coveted for sex, singing, love, mothering babies, etc. The system could not work without them, everyone knew, but the general opinion also held that though they were essential parts of the system, they were using more than they brought, or possible ever could bring, to the table.

In Roman Law, the father could decide the fate of his issues. A son could be killed by his own father, and the father had the legal right and freedom to do this. The father could alse sell his son into slavery.

On the other hand, sons had no authority whatsoever over their fathers' decision. If daddy said, "eat that dog poo on the street", the son had no right to refuse.

Some sons could not take this very well. Their fate, if they were uncovered in murdering their own fathers, was to be put in a barrell that had nails sticking inward, and rolled down in the barrel on a mountain slope. Before the execution, other very nasty stuff was done to them. Don't think that Jesus was the only son in the Roman empire whom his father did away in very nasty ways. Scot free and without repercussions.

Mother-murder was not punished any harsher than human (unrelated free man's) murder, and daughter murder was actually an accepted process, but only used in times of great famine or when it was clear that there is a keen interest to reduce the number of hungry mouths. Girls were not murdered with glee, but only as a means of economic necessity.

I know this coz my dad was a lawyer, and in Hungary the law-school curriculum included the study of Roman law. When we were growing, his three children, and getting rebellious, he would often criticize the then present legal ambiance, and tell us how he wished that Roman Family and Child law had been still in effect. We laughed at him and took the pieces of meat out of his plate and ran with it and ate it.

In 1957, during the great famine, mom somehow got a bowl or basketful of fresh strawberries. We had our portions, and mom put the rest away for dad, for when he came home from work. He did, but no strawberries for him: I, a three-year old, figured one fewer strawberry won't show on the plate. I went back every fifteen minutes to his plate, and took another strawberry, with the same reasoning.

When dad came home, all hell broke lose. None of us three kids would admit we ate the stuff. Mom said, "okay, everybody get ready, we go down to the hospital to get your stomkachs washed out and see which contains recently eaten strawberries." I panicked and confessed.

My moral status in the family sank to an all-time low, and still could not work my way back up to normal, acceptable levels, since then.

DISOWN TO ME IS HARD I AM GAY AND MY FAMILY DISOWNS ME CAUSE THAY SAY I AM AN EMBARRASSMENT SO I AM STILL NOT ALLOWED BE AROUND THEIR HOUSE FOR AWHILE AND IT MEANS SEPARATION OR CUT FROM THE PICTURE!

if disown does not require one to stop loving, it could just be a matter of a physical detachment from each others lives/lifestyles,, which is not the end of the world

although not preferrable

There was nothing they could do with me after the strawberry incident. Mom could not disown me, coz she was Jewish, and at the time i was three years old, which is less than thirteen. Dad could not disown me, coz he was an RC and in that tradition you can get only excommunicated, but not disowned. The pontiff thought that for eating strawberries excommunicating me would be harsh (my brother saw the letter that was sent to the Archbishop of Esztergom, by the Holy See, informing them of this.) The pope said he sends his sympathy, and if the strawberries had been sprinkled with real sugar and cream, my parents would have had a stronger case.

The state orphanage refused to take me. They said that they had been terribly overbooked (this was not long after the war), and there was a twenty-year waiting list. My parents could not afford the bribes the state orphanage directors demanded, and the privately own orphanages were clearly beyond the means for dad, what with the high tuition fees to learn how to work 18 hour days finger-weaving carpets and sewing garments in windowless rooms.

There were no more legal options. Mom and dad were stuck with me. When in my teens they told me of their intolerable moral dilemma about the illegality of selling children into slavery or killing them, I showed no sympathy; I said, you should have thought of it first Dad, before you shagged Mommy. I have no sympathy for your slip. You knew the rists when you married Mom, so get off the my case, and off my back, czuse you are spoiling my Sunday underwear.

I would be really sad. It's one thing to kick someone out of the house and let them find themselves on their own, especially if they are being disrespectful(dont bite the hands that feed you?) But to disown, that's like a permanent slap in the face. . .Its a very harsh term...DISOWN--

If i was a parent and had difficulties with my children, i would let them venture out on their own, and let them know i will no longer enable them let them see the error of their ways....and hopefully one day they will return back to the family having learned some values..

I'm also thinking I'm glad I didn't grow up in a Jewish home where strawberries were being rationed.

Shame on them.
You have your work cut out for you
without the support of your family.
But, it can be done.
And the measure of a man is
not his family.