The blog won't let me post a comment. No links or anything. This is weird. Is this happening to anyone else?

Trying again. Concisely--

Covid and it's economic damage will do more to change the course of life than the Snowflakes could ever have attempted.

There's an attitude I see in younger people now, in stories of the workplace and beyond, of taking offense at everything and being unwilling to take much responsibility.

I'm not sure if you're right, but I don't have much of a counterargument. My middle kid is about a year into her first Real Job After College at a firm in the Maryland part of the DMV. It's been an eye-opener for her to be sure, but I've resisted the temptation to tell her she sounds a little like a vaguely disillusioned second lieutenant.

1. This is how schools all the way up to college have trained people to act.

2. It often works.

Feel free to chance either or both of those and this will go away. Also cut the minimum wage so teens can get jobs.

The kind of entry-level jobs once performed by teenagers are now jealously guarded by adults with their own families.
_________________________________________

Does that include flipping burgers?

What's kind of strange is that such jobs would be more "jealously guarded" TODAY. (Can anyone explain that?) Seems to me it would have made more sense for adults to demand such jobs for themselves before WWII. One big reason would have been the lack of birth control. Just because the birth rate was higher during the Depression than it is now doesn't mean any parents back then could really afford the number of babies they had - and the same was more or less true before the Depression. (The scene with 12-year-old George presumably takes place circa 1920.)

The only reasons I can think of to offer to young viewers of the movie are that

1. In 1920, most parents didn't believe in allowances, so kids who wanted money had to earn it themselves.

2. Parents actually PUSHED young boys, in particular, to become independent and step out of their comfort zone at an early age.

Btw, playdates are not necessarily "coddling."

From elsewhere:

Sheldon:
Today parents need to make playdates... WTF is a playdate, anytime I walked out the front door the entire day was a playdate.

Me:
Leaving aside the (mostly) unnecessary fears that parents have about sex predators (unfortunately, most of whom are not strangers), there's also the problem of kids' not getting any real, creative "playing" done with their peers, because if you throw them outdoors, chances are most of the neighbors' kids will either be indoors, playing on their phones, or playing on their phones OUTdoors! So the kids without phones will just sneak off and find kids WITH phones. Which means no real exercise, either.

So what do parents do? They force kids into organized sports, for exercise (which is often not so fun for the kids, since they didn't choose it); they push them into clubs and music lessons, to keep them away from screens, they forget to teach them how to do housework, since the parents got too used to plonking kids in front of the TV from age 2 onward while THEY did the chores, and they arrange playdates (I hope that means WITHOUT screens, half the time) because too many other kids are similarly scheduled and cannot be counted on to be available at any given time.

Not to mention that one undeniable benefit of over-scheduling kids is that when their unsupervised peers get in trouble with the law, the supervised kids will have sound alibis and thus be less likely to hurt their chances of getting into good schools. (Hard to blame parents for worrying about that.)

Btw, I once spotted a post from an adult who said, in effect: "I would have loved to have had playdates as a kid; I was very lonely and in my town, it was hard to meet people."

The problem I see is so many jobs these days for younger people are “pretend work”. Shuffling papers and going to meetings about where to relocate the water cooler. (Thinking federal internships)
Very few get the chance to actually do something substantial. Or produce something.

When my father was 12 he was sent up to the family ranch to take care of the cattle, tend the garden, and fix the fences by himself for the entire summer.
When he was ten, he was picking up Model T’s off the train in Denver and driving them a hundred miles north to a dealership in Wyoming.

Regarding my first post: then again, it's probably just as likely that George was working to HELP his family and didn't get to keep the money. But if that got mentioned in the movie, I don't remember.

I suppose the main reason that even many (not all) teens don't do that today is that the PARENTS don't want to get labeled as poor. (Even if the teens got to keep the money, their peers might taunt them for not getting allowances.)

Um, "ten"? Don't you mean when he was old enough to drive?

Btw, I once spotted a post from an adult who said, in effect: "I would have loved to have had playdates as a kid; I was very lonely and in my town, it was hard to meet people."

Lenona at June 22, 2020 7:09 AM

This is why modern living with families living far from their close relatives in a two parent but often one parent Working family has really failed the kids. It can be so isolated.

I was raised as an only child but not in a lonesome isolated sort of way. My father had his business at our home. My grandparents lived a block away, my aunt uncle and cousins two blocks away. I was free to go over practically any time. I lived a very free life. There were kids on every block. We all played together outdoors most of the summer. I could walk down to the library anytime I wished as well, or ride my bike in any direction for five miles.

Um, "ten"? Don't you mean when he was old enough to drive?

Lenona at June 22, 2020 7:23 AM
I meant exactly what I wrote

He was 10 in 1923. Drove with blocks strapped to the clutch and gas pedal so he could reach them.

If that was legal, I can only wonder why.

If that was legal, I can only wonder why.

Lenona at June 22, 2020 7:42 AM

You think perhaps the Romans required a license to drive a chariot? :-)

Seriously Because it took a while for the states to decide that you needed to register a car, and get licensed to drive. There had to be enough cars on the road for there to be a perception that anyone needed a license or a test to drive because of other drivers. Cars were a luxury item still in 1923 and having the means to own one was a competency hurdle in itself.

Furthermore, if you stay on your own property and want your ten year old to drive a tractor that is perfectly legal even now.
Licenses only apply to public roads.

When I was a teenager many of the kids driving were only 14. At that age you could get a hardship license so you could drive yourself and your younger siblings to school, or down to meet the bus, if the public school bus didn’t have a route that went to your ranch.

So when did the law change in that state - or all states?

More specifically, when did it become illegal for most kids under 15 to drive without a permit?

(I know that neither cars or roads allowed for high speeds in the 1930s, but bad roads had their own hazards, of course.)

In the meantime, I found the real quotation about playdates.

JoJo (from Bratfree)
Re: Failure to launch - adult kids still living at home
September 23, 2015

http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,393133,394374

"I'm not defending helicopter parents, but I grew up in the days of 'go out and play,' and 'solve your own problems,' and it wasn't the paradise the author remembers. Telling kids to go out and play is fine if you lived in a neighborhood full of kids, not so much when you live in a brand new subdivision surrounded by cornfields with literally no one within three years of your age. I would have loved to have had playdates.

"As for conflict resolution, in real terms it was the smaller, younger kids being bullied unmercifully by the meaner, older, bigger kids with no help at all from any adults.

"What's wrong with wanting to have some control over who your kids socialize with? Kids don't have good judgment. I've seen decent kids sucked into drugs and delinquency because they fell into a bad crowd. I suspect a lot of the helicopter parents saw the same thing and the push to keep the kids occupied and control who they associate with is a reaction to that.

"That being said, we as a society have gone way to far in the other direction."

(end)

I have a cousin who is in her mid-twenties who has a master's degree and is currently in law school and has never really had a job, besides tutoring.

When I was at Big State U, it seemed like most of the people I went to school with also worked. People weren't paying for living expenses with student loans. In high school, we all worked, but maybe it's because my family and most of my friends were working class. Even the "rich" girls would typically have summer jobs, though. This was in the late 90's.

Middle and upper-middle class parents are generally focused on getting their kids into college, so they aren't going to let the kids "waste time" on something that doesn't look good to admissions staff. What impresses and elitist more, membership in 10 different clubs and a BS "internship" at Daddy's law firm, or bagging groceries after school? It sucks, but it's reality.

The difference between city/suburban teens and rural teens can be pretty astounding. My husband has a 16-year-old working for him that can run and repair a chainsaw, drive a tractor, do basic work on a diesel truck, and basic welding. This boy has also raised more than one champion steer and barrows. I know similarly-aged teens who can't even drive a golf cart.

So when did the law change in that state - or all states?

Lenona at June 22, 2020 9:40 AM

I’m not willing to do the research to answer that question for you.

Found this:

“California, now known for its car culture, started requiring licenses in 1913 and exams in 1927. However, it took several decades for licenses and tests to be adopted by all states. In 1930, only 24 states required a license to drive a car and just 15 states had mandatory driver’s exams. South Dakota was the last state to begin issuing licenses (without exams), in 1954. Additionally, a handful of states didn’t impose driver’s tests until the 1950s, including Alaska (1956), Arizona (1951), Idaho (1951), Illinois (1953), Missouri (1952) and Wisconsin (1956). In 1959, South Dakota became the final state to institute a driver’s exam requirement.”

From the thread:

evilchildlessbitch:
"I don't care if somebody had hovering parents. When they become adults, they are responsible for themselves. Adult rights would ideally mean adult responsibilities but our culture seems intent on treating people like children later and later.
I'm not talking about people who enter into a room mate type arrangement with parents to make both lives easier, people providing elder care or people who have hit a bump in the road like sudden illness or unemployment who need a few months to get back on their feet. These people are still acting like adults.

"I'll bet if the parents of these 'failures to launch' blocked access to the internet and cable, imposed rules about keeping a job or job hunting until one is found, refused to let them pig out on food the parents bought, refused use of their vehicle, imposed a curfew and insisted they sign a move out date agreement a lot of this garbage would stop."

Yurble:
"Yes and no. Sometimes breeders deliberately sabotage their offspring's ability to make it. I know one person who had very religious breeders who were determined this person would not be moving out...they refused to sign any financial aid papers allowing this person to go to university, and when the person got a job they immediately started charging rent and food, so that the person could never save up enough for a deposit. Eventually the person was able to escape through marriage.

"Of course at some point people have to stop blaming their shitty upbringing for their problems and take steps to improve their own lives, but it can be really hard if you've been badly taught and are hamstrung at every attempt."

evilchildlessbitch:
"I get economy problems but that only goes so far and by the backside of their 20's a person living rent, food and utilities free has has had time to move out.

"Maybe it is my privilege speaking but independence was the first priority for 3 generations, mine being the last. Marriage and breeding were optional while launching and independence were not."

Cambion:
"That's what a lot of parents cannot comprehend: the middle ground between not caring and caring too much. I think it's a pretty broad gray area and it's possible to lean a little closer to one end of the spectrum than the other and still be a good parent, or at least an average one. But I swear it seems like about 95 percent of all parents swing to one end or the other. Most parents care waaaaaaay too much about their kids, to the point where they are controlling and don't even let their kids fucking think when they're well within the age of reason. The spawn of the controller parents are the ones who often grow up not knowing how to do anything and may have no common sense. Not all, but many. It can even be difficult to have a positive, sane family role model like an aunt or cousin because the parents don't want anyone undermining their bullshit.

"The rest are the exact opposite and they just don't lift a finger to raise or discipline their kids. If the kid gets in trouble, it's always someone else's fault: his friends, music, video games, the internet, his dad (or non-custodial parent), etc. They have kids and proceed to not give a fuck about them. These are the kids who have to grow up way too fast and have adult responsibilities while they're still kids themselves, like caring for younger siblings and doing the grocery shopping. Or, these kids might also be the kinds who are constantly in trouble and who have issues with authority. They may get into trouble so their parents will yell at them or smack them because, hey, some attention from their parents is better than none.

"WHY can no parents be somewhere in the middle? Yes, kids do need control over their lives, especially when they're very young. That's called parenting. But when those same parents are still dictating how their adult children can live their lives to the point where those grown kids can't actually transition mentally to adulthood, there's a fucking problem."

And here's the article the thread was about:

http://www.empoweringparents.com/failure-to-launch-why-so-many-adult-kids-still-live-with-their-parents.php#

84 comments.

I'm not willing to do the research to answer that question for you.
__________________________

Looks as though you did, sort of.

I'm not willing to do the research to answer that question for you.
__________________________

Looks as though you did, sort of.

Lenona at June 22, 2020 10:41 AM

Your question required a minimum of 51 answers. I gave you one very general one.

Spend more time on history and less on literature if your goal is to grock American (or any) culture

Your posts would get more milage if you didn’t quote obsessive anti human web sites who refer, derogatorily, to those who raise the future generations of this world as “breeders”

The Japanese and Koreans as well have a huge cultural problem with young men failing to launch.

They are called Hikikomori

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori

Why would any parent take advice from some sneering anti-child internet troll with no actual experience in child rearing?
Why are the people on the "anti-breeder" boards so obsessed with the idea that anyone else cares whether or not they have kids? The only people who might care whether or not you have kids are your own parents, who would like grandchildren. Nobody else cares, because nobody else has a vested interest.

Some of the worst helicopter parents I know had parents so neglectful that they were not only generally left to their own devices, but also vulnerable to abuse from outsiders. So, sometimes it's an over-correction.

Family dinner table, age 16:

Dad: "What did you do today?"

Me: "I got a job."

Mom: "Doing what?"

Me: "I rode my bike downtown after school and applied at [Acme] Theater. I'll be selling tickets and candy, that sort of thing."

Dad: "Well, good."

I had looked at the local job market. All jobs for 16-year-olds were minimum wage, of course, but working at the Acme meant free movies not only there, but at any other theater in town (including drive-ins) for me and three friends, any time I wanted to go. Plus I could stop by the Acme first for free popcorn and soda. These were major benefits in a town where there wasn't much for teenagers to do.

The work was easy and fun; I normally worked 25-30 hours a week in addition to school, sometimes until midnight even on school nights. My parents let me set my own schedule. I kept that job until I got out of high school.

Why would any parent take advice from some sneering anti-child internet troll with no actual experience in child rearing?
Why are the people on the "anti-breeder" boards so obsessed with the idea that anyone else cares whether or not they have kids? The only people who might care whether or not you have kids are your own parents, who would like grandchildren. Nobody else cares, because nobody else has a vested interest.

ahw at June 22, 2020 11:26 AM
Agreed. These web sites aren’t just anti child, they are anti human. Most of this crap springs from socialism combined with radical environmentalism, picking out the worst of the two philosophies and combining them into an authoritarian mess.

Yes, when I was in college in the 90s we all had summer jobs... do they not do that any more?

We had playdates as small kids in the 80s... not every day, there were certainly days I just played with my bestie next door or with my brother... but if I wanted to hang out with kids who lived on the other side of school, arrangements needed to be made. When I learned to use a phone I would make them myself, but we definitely scheduled them, because I'd walk home from school with them, and the au pair would have been worried if I didn't show up.

They lived far enough that it wasn't really convenient to pop out and see if they were home, but close enough to walk if I knew for a fact they'd be there.

"for three generations marriage and breeding were optional while launching and independence were not."

Of course, many conservatives would argue that making parenthood optional AUTOMATICALLY leads to slackerdom, eventually, and therefore, individuals who refuse to reproduce must be frowned upon and shunned. (As if that really happens with infertile couples who refuse to adopt. What's the difference?)

Of course, I don't agree. Parents who really care about making their kids leave home as soon as they finish school will do all they can to make their kids financially independent and employable and, if necessary, impose so many rules on them that the kids will be GLAD to leave and not return. (By John Rosemond's account, that last method is often the only one that really works.)

"Of course, many conservatives would argue that making parenthood optional AUTOMATICALLY leads to slackerdom, eventually, and therefore, individuals who refuse to reproduce must be frowned upon and shunned. (As if that really happens with infertile couples who refuse to adopt. What's the difference?)"
* * *
Who are these "conservatives?"
Is this another one of your bizarre fantasies about what goes on in other people's minds? Do you know many people in real life?

Of course, I don't agree. Parents who really care about making their kids leave home as soon as they finish school will do all they can to make their kids financially independent and employable and, if necessary, impose so many rules on them that the kids will be GLAD to leave and not return. (By John Rosemond's account, that last method is often the only one that really works.)

Lenona at June 22, 2020 12:03 PM

There is no one size fits all solution to this. Parents who love their children don’t run their family like a widget factory.
Rejecting the less than prefect ones and kicking them to the curb.

Who are you to dictate when I decide that my child needs to be totally self sufficient? And what does that mean exactly?
Have you ever considered that less than perfect people find trade offs in just about everything?

You totally cut your kids off financially for no particularly good reason it can come back to bite you in the ass quicker than you think. They might not consider themselves to be part of the family when you need them to be.

Isab, just so you know, the forum has a commonly used term that I've mentioned. It's PNB (Parent, Not Breeder). It means a parent who actually raises kids to behave considerately toward others and to grow up in general - and who doesn't take kids where they don't belong. The members are happy for the company of such parents and say so.

As Amy Alkon herself said: "I thought we had a deal. I would stay out of Chuck E. Cheese if your kids would stay out of the martini lounge."

And I doubt many socialists would be very happy with the following.

Yurble said:

"You know, I don't think I'd feel the need for a CF rant site, if the following were true:
Women were given full reproductive freedom without judgement, including the right of sterilization
Women weren't treated as potential incubators by medical staff
Nobody would inquire further or nag or bingo if you said you didn't have kids
Being childfree were presented as a valid choice, with ample role models
Media didn't display a bias toward parents
The legal system didn't display an explicit (e.g., equal right to personal leave, protected family status, tax systems) or implicit bias (e.g., equal punishment for the death of a child) against people without children
Women's issues were not conflated with mother's issues
The quality of life of the potential child were put above the right of adults to breed
I never had to interact with children, except in the most minimal fashion
No discounts for children, and other unearned privileges for breeders."

Freya:
"A few more, because I love where you are going with this!
No penalization for women in the workplace simply because they are of child-birthing age (include both genders if this is an issue for men as well)
Safety-net of tax dollars (which we all pay for) equally available and not skewed greatly towards those who breed
No tax benefits for lifestyle choices (especially breeding)
No workplace bias of any kind due to reproductive choice."

(end)

Oddly, at least some anti-abortion sites are starting to imply that women CAN have it all and that it's anti-woman to suggest otherwise. Sounds like a slippery slope toward free daycare to me, even if the sites didn't mean it that way.

I'm near retirement now. My parents didn't give much allowance so I worked for stuff from about 13. Paid for all my own movies, candy, fireworks, bike, etc. At 15 I worked summer in a factory. Had lots of other jobs as a teen and in college including one my junior year that started at 4:30 AM. I think all this was good for me.
I have hired lots of neighborhood boys to do yard work and some had never raked leaves or planted flowers (at age 18). sad

Isab, I believe you're not raising minors anymore, so I wasn't telling YOU what to do. Even if you were, I wouldn't. I only give advice indirectly to individuals, as a rule.

ahw: Concerned Women for America, for starters. Ever heard of them?

Plus anyone who voted for Rick Santorum in 2012 - or before then. Or anyone who taught/attended a fundamentalist college. Or anyone who likes having theologians like Albert Mohler rise as high as they do. Or...

In the meantime, as I've already mentioned, there's a good chance that most Bratfree members are people who are unlucky enough to be surrounded by friends, neighbors and co-workers who refuse to mind their own business and keep asking "when will you have kids" or "why don't you?" (They certainly complain of such nosy people on a regular basis.) Otherwise, the childfree would be only too happy to talk to those real-life people about what they ARE doing with their lives, not what they aren't doing, and they would have a truly friendly audience - and probably wouldn't even post at Bratfree. The fact that so many parents are that nosy suggests, at least slightly, that misery loves company, or that they're jealous, or that they feel that the childfree are engaged in a moral violation against God. (Those last nine words are Mohler's words, not mine.)

And yes, plenty of parents do care what the CF think of their childrearing, since, years ago, they kept trying to post at Bratfree and the forum finally had to ban them, so all parents can do now is lurk. It's not too surprising. The CF are outsiders, but you don't have to be an insider to have common sense, and many parents know that. Maybe the parents were feeling guilty about their kids' daily bad behavior. Another possibility is that they like the saying "it takes a village," but when "the village" demands something in return, like polite behavior, that makes parents angry.

Lenona, even using the term “breeder” to refer to someone who does not parent the same way the socialist libs approve of or has the incorrect number of kids is derogatory.

I would appreciate you pointing me to the sister web site. “Black but not a “nig**r” (sarc off)

"moral violation against God"

Whoops - I meant "moral rebellion against God."

Would you please explain what you mean by that?

I think I've made clear by now that "breeder" is most often used to refer to those who DO raise their kids in the stereotypical "socialist lib" fashion. Jeez. In other words, parents who can't be bothered to notice when their kids knock things over in stores or in other people's houses or when they torture other people's pets.

For one thing, while Bratfree members are not fond of anyone who's religious, they HAVE praised Rosemond, time and again. Same for Miss Manners. That is, they have nothing against most OLD-fashioned child-rearing practices, so long as both adults and children have certain modern rights, that are not negotiable. E.g., children deserve to be spoken to politely, but they also have to respect other people's property, and adults have to admit to children when they're wrong about something, but children over 3 should still revolve around adults, not the other way around.

Also, the only objection many CF people might have against "children should be seen and not heard" is that it means that children in the room have the right, in effect, to eavesdrop, which means the adults can't talk freely. I.e., kids are entitled to their private rooms, and so are adults - so why do more and more fancy restaurants have to make that clear? Whatever happened to WAITING for privileges?

“For one thing, while Bratfree members are not fond of anyone who's religious,“

Bingo

Bratfree is exactly who I think they are.

Rosemond is an authoritarian. That is why they like him.

If you'd read him often, you'd know that he says, regularly, that he's not authoritarian; he's authoritative, which is why many diehard CONSERVATIVES don't like him. Examples: he says that it's good for children to be in day care by age 4 at the latest, to promote independence, that children should revolve around parents, not the other way around (which made Dr. Laura furious, in 2000, since he was encouraging a 4-year-old's mother to work outside the home); he doesn't believe in ordering teens to go to college, and he doesn't believe in dividing chores by gender.

Or, as he's also said: "I am not the anti-Dr. Spock."

Another saying of his: "Should you give your children reasons? Absolutely. Should you try TO reason with children? Never!"

Sounds like an old-fashioned liberal to me. (But not socialist.)

Oh, yes - here's something else of his that freaks out extremists on both sides:

"To spank or not to spank is not the question. The question is, does a particular punishment stop the behavior from recurring, or not?"

(He's given plenty of examples of punishment that isn't physical.)

And we've all heard stories of kids who have whined "being grounded for a week without my phone is ABUSE! Why can't they just spank me and get it OVER with in seconds? It's so unfair!"

Of course, their idea of "fair" would be something that's no hassle to live with.

Fondness for authoritarian figures boils down to wanting society to be structured in the way you think it should be and finding someone of influence who, in your opinion, agrees with you.

Disappointment comes later when you find, to your immense surprise, that your authoritarian figure disapproves of your lifestyle as well. That disappointment usually comes after he's arrested all the neighbors you turned into the authorities and has no one left for whom to come but you. "First they came for...." and all.

Or (not verbatim):

"You have to micromanage toddlers. You can only macromanage teens."

And, in 2001 (verbatim):

"Leadership is not a matter of IQ, socio-economic status, the schools one attended, academic achievements, or the books one has read. It's a matter of a certain attitude, one that conveys a calm, self-confident natural authority.

"Like myself, most Americans older than over the age of 50 were raised by parents who occupied positions of natural authority, parents who ruled not by creating a host of rules, but by communicating broad expectations in a clear, and compelling manner.

"Good example: In the 1950s, it was rare that a parent so much as even checked to make sure a child had done his or her homework. Yet, most baby boomers did their homework (most of the time). Ask someone my age (54) why that was the case and he or she is likely to answer, 'Well, 've never really thought about it, but I guess I did my homework because my parents and teachers expected me to do it.' "
_______________________________________

In other words, one doesn't have to be a micromanaging tyrant to get the wanted results.

Conan, aside from what I already said about his not being an authoritarian, I KNOW he doesn't agree with me on a few things. Such as religion. Besides, at least one journalist noted that he's not eager to be anyone's friend - and that includes other psychologists. So that suggests that he's only interested in talking to those who truly listen. Almost like the Church of Christian Science - or the Amish.

Another saying of his: "Should you give your children reasons? Absolutely. Should you try TO reason with children? Never!"

Sounds like an old-fashioned liberal to me. (But not socialist.)

Lenona at June 22, 2020 2:58 PM

It has always been the plug and play child rearing solutions that allow me to sniff out the authoritarians.

You can reason with with a three year old with an IQ of 140. You can’t reason with a 21 year old with an IQ of 65 or a person of any age who literally is so blinded with emotion about a subject that reason is impossible.

Parents are in the best position to know their children and situations that child can handle and what they can’t.

Ive seen some really well behaved kids who grew into terrible adults, and I’ve seen some horribly behaved kids who are the nicest kindest adults you would hope to meet.

I have held a screaming child in a line that stretched to the back wall of the commissary because there was no way to resolve the problem at that time.
I have taken kids to the car and sat with them for an hour because their behavior in a restaurant was not acceptable.

I have one child that selected and ate a perfectly balanced diet the moment she had the hand eye coordination to pick her own food.
I had another that went to camp and refused to eat anything for three days except for dry toast because he didn’t care for the way they cooked their hamburger. (The cook mixed onions into the ground meat)
He grew out of it. But making him eat nothing but hamburger with onions mixed in, wasn't the fucking solution. Understand?

Lenona, I think you just desperate for the *big book of directions for life* because you are so terribly uncomfortable with your own judgement. You crave order, your crave certainty, and real life especially with kids is messy, and disorderly. You can’t write and enforce a rule for every little thing.

I am merely desperate not to be surrounded by 10-year-old hoodlums when I'm 80. As I've said.

Does anyone here approve of the mobs toppling statues? I didn't think so. Chances are, a lot of those "adults" weren't raised to avoid the mob mentality in the first place - or stay away from potentially violent situations, if only so they'll have good alibis. (As I referred to, in the 7:09 a.m. post.)

"Gutterboy" had this for his sig:

"If you don't want my opinion on how to raise your children, do not allow your children to behave in a manner that elicits my opinion."

And why are you apparently desperate to prove that YOU did the best you could? Obviously, I never suggested otherwise, in your particular case.

And why are you apparently desperate to prove that YOU did the best you could? Obviously, I never suggested otherwise, in your particular case.

Lenona at June 22, 2020 3:57

Only desperate to prove that reading Rosemond and Miss Manners columns don’t give you one fucking clue as to how to actually be a good parent.

My kids are alive. I did an adequate job but I suspect genetics had a much bigger role in the good outcome than I did.

Parents are in the best position to know their children and situations that child can handle and what they can’t.

Fine by me. Trust me, I don't want to do any "parenting" (what an awful word) of my own or anyone else's children. Just don't ask me to pay for them, either, and we're copacetic.

...I suspect genetics had a much bigger role in the good outcome than I did. ~ Isab at June 22, 2020 4:44 PM

What most parents are loathe to admit is that friends play a major role in influencing children once they reach a certain age. Your children may have had friends who influenced the good outcome as much, or even more, than you did.

> Your children may have had friends
> who influenced the good outcome
> as much

That's what they call unshared experience.

Your kid has a gift for chess, and enjoys it. He hangs out with other chess kids. He's building his own brain, and the shared experience with his family, even a twin, will count for ever-less with the passage of time.

Parents hate to hear that.

Only desperate to prove that reading Rosemond and Miss Manners columns don’t give you one fucking clue as to how to actually be a good parent.
_________________________________

Only in the sense that if you give any of their books on children to a SMART parent, that person is likely to say "well, duh, this is all just common sense - why do I need it?"

The answer is "because chances are you're going to be surrounded by parents who DON'T have common sense, so you'll need reminders so as not to become brainwashed."

Example: Many parents have now been brainwashed to believe that when you gently say "no" to a 5-year-old and the kid cries buckets for hours, that somehow proves you were horribly wrong and cruel and should have said "yes."

In truth, it likely only means that the kid doesn't hear "no" half as frequently as kids should.

(Had I not read his books 20 years ago, I just might have been brainwashed that way too - just by general osmosis, and I would have been a wimp. In which case, my friend, who had her first son 14 years ago, would not have said "what would I do without you?")

And just in case anyone really needs to have this spelled out, neither JR or MM believes that kids can always be controlled - or that parents can always be blamed for kids' bad behavior. (Gasp!)
From a 2009 thread:

Me:
"As Dr. Rosemond would put it, modern parents often have the mistaken idea that if they do everything right, their kids will never do anything wrong. This is untrue. Even dogs, who are born wanting to please others (unlike humans), cannot be so easily controlled, because even they have free will. Parents who can't grasp this therefore assume that every criticism of their child is either a lie or an attack on the PARENT. In the past, Rosemond said, when kids misbehaved, most parents understood that it was merely time to lower the boom on the kid, not assume that they, the parents, must have done something wrong, and that chances are, they might eventually have to punish the kid again for something completely different."

Crella said:
"...that's precisely the attitude I see, and I never understood it! My sister is her daughter's best friend, and her daughter can do no wrong. It seems to be endemic in my sister's age group,her friends and the mothers of my niece's classmates. Anytime anyone tells them anything about their kids, they shoot the messenger. 'Not my kid!' 'Who the hell do you think you are?'followed with 'You wouldn't do anything like that, would you dear?' to the child. It drives me crazy.

"I can't tell you the grief I feel watching this whole situation the last few years....I can see major problems, both now and on the horizon as consequences of the situation as it stands, but you can't say anything as it's 'criticizing'. I am going to read some of Dr. Rosemond's writings, to see if I can get my head around what I'm seeing. The insight you've given me today has brought the situation somewhat into focus.

"Sometimes I think I should wash my hands of it completely, seeing as her actual parent is unconcerned, but I can't quite give up, it bothers me so much."

Me:
"I suspect, unfortunately, that it's a vicious circle - many people DO assume that if the neighbor's kid did something bad, it must be something the parent did wrong."
__________________________________________

The thread started out with the fact that in Germany, kids are expected to make do without constant supervision, and that in Mexico, kids are expected not to scream and fight in public even when told to pick up their toys. Here it is:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/21/coddle_prod.html