my take on the john roderick thing is that if you're CONSTANTLY looking for child abuse, child abuse is what you'll see.

this is a story about a dad being invested in his kid, being with her as she struggled with something, teaching her lessons about how to do things for herself.

you know how you can tell it wasn't abusive, if the description didn't do it for you? at the end of the story, she's eager to do it again. she's proud of herself. his parenting worked.

If she had been actually distressed (which doesn't show up in the story) and he had at that point continued to refuse, then y'all would actually have a point. but i'm seeing people calling this "torture and starvation-" giving a kid a puzzle and going 6 hours without food.

come the fuck on.

i have been there! i have looked for abuse in every single relational story i read. i did that for years. it's not a good use of your time.

and i feel bad that one day the kid might eventually find out that something that was for her a triumphant memory got her dad harrassed.