So we had our usual argument, this time it was about how I dressed.
you see, there are 2 things I usually do I like being silly, so in public my shoes they have velcro straps so i like the wear thm loose as it gives the appearance of hvaing wings.
and today I was sinc eim at home wearing my belt rather loosely as I did not feel the need to wear it tight.
So we get in an argument, im arguing that if its the way I dress it is who I am, they do not ave the right to tell a 20 year old how to dress, they can give suggestions, but the decision is mine.
So it coems to the point where my dad says "no wonder your never going to get laid".
So all things being equal i told him to eff off.
He says "you have no right to speak to me that way"
I say "If you effing insult me I have evry right to tell you to eff off and where to effing shove it".
So he bunches me in the nose and my glasses go flying.
My other family members restrained me before I could finish the job.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Time to move out, Blayne.
You are too old to be living at home. Move out now.
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
Blayne, the one thing that I've learned is that I don't know everything. Maybe you need a good dose of that. Sounds to me like your father is sick of dealing with a little boy who should be acting like a young man. Get out of your parents house, not only for you...but for them. Maybe with some distance between you and them, it will give you a chance to grow, and them a chance to appreciate you. 'Cause right now it sounds like he's reached his boiling point.
And from the fact that no one else has commented on this post besides me, it seems like Hatrack has also. I doubt anyone here is going to say "Poor Blayne", as many here are parents, and grown people.
edit: Ok, no one but katharina....I hate being slow. Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I agree with the above.
Move out ASAP.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
disparing remarks about my sex life is well out of bounds of the juridistion of a parent.
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
Not so, Blayne. It may have been a bit uncomfortable, but I'm sure your dad is worried about your socialization, including girls. I think it was an odd way of saying "Clean yourself up so people see you in a better light."
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Blayne, That may be true in principle, but you do live in their home, which means your "rights" don't amount to a whole lot.
Also, while I agree with the others that you need to move out asap, I sympathize with the fact that for you it's probably not nearly that simple - for a number of reasons, I'm sure.
You do need to start making plans to find another place to live, immediately, but in the meantime you need to avoid confrontation at all costs. If that means kissing up or compromising your "rights", then so be it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not really. It was crude, I'm sure, but that doesn't matter. Stop focusing on your imagined wrongs and figure out how to move out of the house.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
At any rate, your father certainly had no right to hit you, and I'm sorry you had to go through that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Your dad doesn't want you living there anymore, and since he's a total puss, he expresses that with his fists.
A better and more mature man would have gotten you off on your own by now, but since he is neither a better man nor a mature person he's making this all as dysfunctional as he can manage.
Which brings us to the second point, and that is that if you are still living in that house in two months, you are a fool. Maybe that could be said more politely but .. why? You need to be living elsewhere, as soon as possible. Get out. Go to where the work is. Do not be beholden to a troglodyte. There are very few ways that striking out on your own could be worse for you, barring a complete inability to be financially independent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude. If your father is so explicitly insulting you and punching you in the face, be a man and just MOVE.OUT.
Stop whining about him being 'out of bounds' or out of his 'jurisdiction', stop complaining about how unfair it was for him to say such a thing, and in fact, stop complaining about him punching you in the face (even though that WAS, in fact, way off and wrong), and MOVE.OUT.
If you don't-and it's not hard, no matter what you may tell yourself-think about what that really means about you.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You are too old to be living at home.
His age has nothing to do with it. Many, many kids live with their parents while they're still in school, and this is a wonderful thing for those who are lucky enough to have parents that are willing to give them every opportunity to get their life in order.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Hitting isn't cool, but maybe being less confrontational goes both ways.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
If you are going to move out, you should at least apologize, and nothing says I'm sorry like a note made with a nice long piece of Duct tape and a Sharpie applied liberally to the back hair while he's sleeping.
But seriously, maybe some space would be a good thing, but who knows? I could only encourage you to take the first step towards reconciliation and make amends with your father.
For me personally, after being married and with 3 kids, I wish I could move back IN with my parents and cherish every day I get to spend with them now that I am older and they are subsequently quite old. My wife has a rift between herself and her father and herself and her mother, with her parents being divorced. Even if it is her parents' fault for creating a rift, she is still sad and depressed over not having a stronger relationship with them, and she envies mine with my parents in a certain way.
So please, all joking aside, be the bigger person and try to find a way to make peace. Maybe not now, maybe not for a few days or even a week, but take the time to see it through.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm about 65% sure this never happened. We got just about the same story about a year ago, with Blayne basically getting the same advice. The words probably happened, but I doubt the physical violence did.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Well then, that makes me about 100% confused...
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Squicky, that is an awful thing to say, for a whole bunch of reasons.
Blayne, for the love of christ, move out. Not next week, not tomorrow.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I assumed that somebody had bumped that old thread until I looked at the dates.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The words probably happened, but I doubt the physical violence did.
And you base that on what exactly? Also, what was your motive for posting this in the first place?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Reading the other thread makes me wonder.
Uhh blayne what was that 'logbook' thing or whatever that was where he was trying to record everything you were doing every hour?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, to be honest I'm a bit dubious about the post because it includes the part about the family having to hold him back to finish the job. I base that dubiousness on his own self-admitted lack of physical strength.
Even if it didn't happen, from what I can tell even without the violence it's a bad situation to be in. Stand up for yourself, Blayne, and MOVE OUT.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Incidentally, their right to tell you how to dress depends very much on their level of support, Blayne.
Are you paying your share of the financial expenses involved in your room and board?
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I've not read the entire thread. So I may be duplicating.
Blayne, this is not the first time you've told us of a physical altercation between you and your father over your dress, your attitude, your choice in how to spend your money, etc. And I believe that every time, you have been told that so long as you live under their roof, you have to respect them and their rules. If you don't like living by their expectations, GET OUT.
Seriously, you're 20 years old and these threads make you look like you're about 12. If you want him to respect you, then you have to earn it. and that starts by showing him that you can be responsible and mature. Dress like an adult, get a decent job, pay your bills - and make your real bills a priority over computer games - speak to them with the respect they are due as your parents.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, if I'd spoken that way to my mother I would have been gone the next day, and not by MY choice.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Who cares how he dresses? But, it is a good idea to get out... There is college to consider, and other options. Living with parents is the worse, and punching your 20 year old son is unacceptable. As well as making a statement about getting laid...Respect goes both ways, but it is definetly time to leave the nest and have one, with various friends, where you can do as you please within reason.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As well as swearing at your dad. That was completely unacceptable.
It's a bad situation all the way around. Get out, move out, get your own place. Look on Craig's list for someone who needs a roommate. Just move out of the house.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...and make your real bills a priority over computer games...
This cannot be said enough.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Who cares how he dresses?
Because society in general, and especially potential employers, make snap judgments about a person based on their physical appearance. Style and fit of clothing, overall cleanliness, the way they carry themselves. So it would benefit Blayne to dress appropriately as a matter of habit rather than having to *dress up* for work/school/etc., as being comfortable in wearing clothing appropriate to the situation does absolutely show up in body language.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If he is paying his full due share of the expenses and the time involved in paying for and keeping up a house, then in my opinion his parents have no business telling him how to dress (and expecting that to be the rule), because he is an adult.
If, on the other hand, he ISN'T...well, then, he's still in the role of dependant child no matter what his years, and all bets are off. That's the price you pay for not being self-sufficient. Depending on others means being subject to their rules to some extent.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Who cares how he dresses?
Because society in general, and especially potential employers, make snap judgments about a person based on their physical appearance. Style and fit of clothing, overall cleanliness, the way they carry themselves. So it would benefit Blayne to dress appropriately as a matter of habit rather than having to *dress up* for work/school/etc., as being comfortable in wearing clothing appropriate to the situation does absolutely show up in body language.
It's kind of silly to make snap judgements based on clothes. Especially since you can wear one set of clothes with friends, another in job settings, a different set at heavy metal concerts. It's an annoying thing to argue with a person about and one more reason why it's a good idea not to live with parents.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not remotely silly to make snap judgements on the basis of clothing. Whether or not it is depends entirely on what kinds of judgements they are, and how far those judgements go.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's silly to make snap judgements and cling to them as fact when they have been proven wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, of course it is.
When did that even come up for discussion?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, of course it is.
When did that even come up for discussion?
It was implied by giving any real credence to those snap judgments.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, of course it is.
When did that even come up for discussion?
I don't know, I'm random, and I'm reminded of my father's girl friend, who I didn't even KNOW saying something disparaging about whatever I was wearing. I was in high school or something at the time. Was he helping to buy my clothes? Of course not...
I say as long as a person isn't wearing those pants that show off their undawears, or running around in tiny skimpy outfits, it's OK, but it's not as if I'd think, HA, YOUR DRAWERS ARE SHOWING, YOU ARE A THUG! Or, You're drawers are showing, you are a ho! But if parents are not buying your clothes, and if you are not dressing stupidly in pink and orange, then it doesn't matter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No it wasn't. A snap judgement doesn't have to be wrong, nor must it be believed as fact when it is made.
If I meet someone and they're thugged out, I can safely assume they enjoy hip-hop music. If I meet someone and they're cowboyed up, I can make the same generally safe assumption about CW music. If I meet someone wearing a $200 pair of jeans, I can safely assume that clothing is very important to them and that they take care to look good, or that they've got a lot of money to spend. If I meet someone wearing a shirt with a team logo on it, I can safely assume they are fans of that sport or that team.
These are all snap judgements, and sound judgements. Making them does not at all imply that I believe in holding to snap judgements after they've been disproven by facts.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
WHO WEARS VELCRO STRAPPED SHOES?
Extreme Makeover: Blayne Edition
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey! Sophie has velcro-strapped shoes! She can't tie the big-girl ones yet.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
Rock climbers wear velcro-strapped shoes. Well, some do, anyways. Mostly boulderers, who want to be able to remove those buggers when not in use.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I wear strapped shoes, but they are buckles... and they are Birkenstocks...
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Even Velcro strapped shoes are better than Crocs...
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hey! Sophie has velcro-strapped shoes! She can't tie the big-girl ones yet.
Whereas around here, it seems to have become impossible to find velcro-strapped toddler shoes, so I spend large portions of my day retying shoes. I swear those laces are greased or something.
--Mel
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
You know, in most cases "not under my roof" implied that parents did not want their children having sex before marriage. If "living by your parents rules" includes whether you choose to tie your shoes or not, and "getting laid" is the gauge by which your parents determine your maturity, then your parents have some serious issues.
And punching in the nose? Isn't that assault? Don't fight back, calmly call the cops.
For all the people telling Blayne to move out on his own, take it from someone who moved out at 16 years old, moving out won't solve the problems. Families aren't easy to leave behind, and an abusive father will find other ways to be manipulative, often through other family members.
Last I checked, parents are financially responsible for a child until they are 21. (That is, if a person under 21 applies for welfare because they can't support themselves, welfare will charge the parents with something akin to child support payments.) If Blayne is in college, his first goal is to finish school before getting a job. If moving out means that he has to support himself and can't afford college, that'll dog him for the rest of his life.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Double knots?
Also, Blayne: Get a job, move out, buy shoes with laces and start living.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You are too old to be living at home.
His age has nothing to do with it. Many, many kids live with their parents while they're still in school, and this is a wonderful thing for those who are lucky enough to have parents that are willing to give them every opportunity to get their life in order.
I agree, and not just because I'm 23 and still live at home. In my own defense, I'm still in school, work, pay my share of the bills, and am trying to be debt free by the end of the year, so I'm not just freeloading (not to say that Blayne is, though his gaming budget certainly deserves a hit).
In this case though, I seriously agree with most everyone else. Get out of the house. Maybe having to pay your own bills and such will be a sufficient wake up call, and being away from your parents for awhile will improve your relationship some. It can be difficult, financially especially, but if you're in school, look for on campus housing, if not, get a job (or work more at the one you have if you have one) and pay rent.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
What Glenn said. Last I heard punching someone in the face was definitely illegal.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Blayne's in Canada, though. Where it's a tradition. For loggers...with...maple...syru...yeah, I'm just gonna leave now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You know, in most cases "not under my roof" implied that parents did not want their children having sex before marriage.
When I was told "while you live under my roof..." as a teen, it was never about having sex.
At least, not directly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The words probably happened, but I doubt the physical violence did.
And you base that on what exactly? Also, what was your motive for posting this in the first place?
I base it on several things. As I pointed out, Blayne posted largely the same thread about a year ago, in a riddle-type format (Guess who punched me in the stomache?). Many people responded with emphatic advice: move out of the house.
In a recent thread, I made a point about this moving out of his parents' house. You can see the reaction for yourself. This is not the first time, I and others have talked to Blayne about his domestic situation.
His reactions don't seem to me to be consistent with someone who is getting hit by his father. The initial reaction is off. There is the total lack of concern about leaving the situation and that he doesn't mention that this is a recurring situation. Also, a year between incidents where his father hits him doesn't make sense.
They are consistent with a kid who is angry at his parents who is adding stories of violence to make them seem more wrong.
---
edit: Oh and TL, rollainm, did you two read the other thread I linked? If not, maybe you should.
[ October 08, 2007, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
On the plus side, it seems that your dad is supportive of you getting laid Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Squicky, yes, I've read it. I read it last year when it occured. Incidentally, I've also been punched in the face by my father.
Anything's possible. I mean I'm not suggesting that I know for a fact that Blayne is telling the truth, here. But in terms of making conclusions about a situation based on the available evidence, I think it's a very dark thing, and a very arrogant thing, to accuse a kid of lying about being punched in the face by his father because the story doesn't seem to be consistent to you. To me, your so-called inconsistencies constitute nothing more than a shocking lack of imagination on your part, seemingly fueled by previous negative feelings about Blayne.
I'm inclined to give a guy the benefit of the doubt.
[ October 08, 2007, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: I'm inclined to give a guy the benefit of the doubt.
Me too. Inconsistencies can arise for many reasons, which none of us who are not on the scene can know about.
Good luck Blayne! I hope things get better.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Squicky, yes, I've read it. I read it last year when it occured. Incidentally, I've also been punched in the face by my father.
Anything's possible. I mean I'm not suggesting that I know for a fact that Blayne is telling the truth, here. But in terms of making conclusions about a situation based on the available evidence, I think it's a very dark thing, and a very arrogant thing, to accuse a kid of lying about being punched in the face by his father because the story doesn't seem to be consistent to you. To me, your so-called inconsistencies constitute nothing more than a shocking lack of imagination on your part, seemingly fueled by previous negative feelings about Blayne.
I'm inclined to give a guy the benefit of the doubt.
Ditto.
edit: except that my dad's never punched me in the face.
[ October 08, 2007, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: rollainm ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I assumed that somebody had bumped that old thread until I looked at the dates.
^^ I thought the same thing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I was intending to move out by the end of the year with a friend (whose parents were moving out to Ontario and he wants to stay in Quebec... not sure why) when I finished my computer science courses, when I figured I'ld have enough money to get me settled.
I do have a job now, I work weekends at the Customs college which is some 10 minutes away from me. What I am going to try to do is ask around my friends and see which ones are willing to let me move in if I give them enough notice.
As for paying expensives, while I am not explititly paying expensives I do however help them with their home business (setting up their booth at fairs, demolding ceramics, general cleanup etc) and we had come to an implied agreement that I'ld pay the difference between high speed internet and extreme high speed (which doesn't have bandwidth limits).
Btw Squicky I'm alot stronger then I thought, recent friendly rough housing with an Italian friend has shown that. (He spoiled the end of Heroes!!!!)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Apparently his 'implied agreements' involve the notion that he's occasionally allowed to attack you. Which, y'know, sets him up as a bad boss as well as a bad dad.
So the sooner there are no implicit agreements the better.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Btw Squicky I'm alot stronger then I thought, recent friendly rough housing with an Italian friend has shown that. (He spoiled the end of Heroes!!!!)
No particular implication here, but, as a former wrestler, I can tell you that weight plays a significant factor in your ability to overpower someone. I can absolutely dominate someone half my weight no matter how strong they are and it's no credit to my particular strength or skill at wrestling. I'm just too much weight for that person to handle.
People my size who are athletes, though? Yeah, I'd get toasted in a New York minute.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a minute...Blayne, if it's a weekend gig you're working at, that doesn't really qualify as a job to be honest. In the real world of working adults that is.
Something you do for just a few hours a week is either just something you do on the side, a hobby, or a part-time job.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
Last I heard he was a student, though, and being a full time student and having a full time job are somewhat mutually exclusive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
They're really not, you know. I've done it. It's certainly not easy, though. But let's suppose that it's impossible given the job availability in his location (that IS a possibility). Two part-time jobs.
Dignity is worth a lot more than not paying interest on some student loans.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by MidnightBlue: Last I heard he was a student, though, and being a full time student and having a full time job are somewhat mutually exclusive.
LOL. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MidnightBlue: Last I heard he was a student, though, and being a full time student and having a full time job are somewhat mutually exclusive.
YES. I always knew that what I did would turn out to be strictly impossible.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
i have school 4 days a week and get home at roughly 7 PM each day, weekends i work from 8 am to 3 pm with no means of transportation to get anywhere else for any time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How far away do you work? Who works with you?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I bet you spend at least 20 hours a week playing video games, so I don't buy that you couldn't work more than you do for a second.
Of course, I know well that time spent advising Blayne is time wasted, because he'll ignore all the advice and then start another thread about his problems at home in the next 4 months.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Move out, and try to to swear at your dad in the meantime.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Blayne, I've got to wonder, why didn't you move out or at least start planing to do so last year, when your dad punched you in the stomache so hard it left you gasping on the floor?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
edit: in response to El JT de Spang: I didn't see any advice to ignore in your last post. I would ignore overly simplistic advice also. Move out. Get a job. Stop playing video games.
Certainly he should play less video games. But all of us have bad, timesucking habits we'd be well rid of. It's not easy to give up or cut back things you enjoy.
Would Blayne be better off if he lived elsewhere? Sure. But if he has to drop out of school when he's close to graduating to afford that, is it worth it?
He has a part-time job, school, and transportation issues.
I can just see the next wave of advice: get a new job and a car today, move out tomorrow.
edit: and Mr. Squicky is right: he should have planned to move out after the events of last year. But he didn't, for whatever reasons, and he's still stuck.
2nd edit: It occurred to me I criticized other's advice to Blayne as unnuanced without offering any of my own. So: you should make plans to move out as quickly as possible without sacrificing your education. Ask for help locally: at school, at your church if you go, anybody who knows your situation and might help. Deal with the domestic violence as a family now before it gets worse. Cut way back on the video games, it's pure escapism at this point.
Well, mine is not exactly teeming with nuance either. Good luck Blayne!
[ October 08, 2007, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Blayne, anytime you live with another person (parents, friends, significant other), certain personal sacrifices need to be made in order to keep the peace. In this particular case, it seems like you are making fewer sacrifices than the people you are living with, your parents. Unless you are willing to either move out or contribute more to your shared living condition, you need to accept the fact that you need to make certain sacrifices, especially since you probably need your parents much more than they need you in the house. And up to this point, they have sacrificed much more for you than you have for them.
In regards to your dad punching you, if you are anything like me (and most kids), you know exactly what it takes (or the words to say) to hurt your parents or make them lose their temper. While your dad should never have punched you, if you chose your words in order to get a particular reaction, then I wouldn't say you were completely innocent either.
Posted by guinevererobin (Member # 10753) on :
I think your dad was a jackass to hit you. I hope you are able to move in with a friend, and willing to give up gaming or take a 2nd part time job to do so.
I was finanically independant at 18. I didn't have a car (I took the inter-campus shuttle, took the train, made friends with folks who had cars). I didn't have a cellphone. I didn't have some things that my peers took for granted, and I had worked hard/gotten lucky (full scholarship to college + room and board paid).
and I want my kids out of the house and independant at 18 someday too, because I was really proud of myself, and it greatly simplified things with my parents. I went home for summer break and such, and they bought me luxury things like new clothes and train tickets home (and eventually a cell phone when I was making enough money to pay the monthly bills), but they were things I could do without and there was always the "I can leave" option when I came home. We have a very good relationship. I highly recommend getting as far away from your parents as quickly as possible, whatever sacrifices that means making, so that they can see you as an adult, and so that you can have the pride in yourself of being one. Good luck!
Posted by TheBlueShadow (Member # 9718) on :
quote:and I want my kids out of the house and independant at 18 someday too, because I was really proud of myself, and it greatly simplified things with my parents.
quote:but they were things I could do without and there was always the "I can leave" option when I came home. We have a very good relationship. I highly recommend getting as far away from your parents as quickly as possible, whatever sacrifices that means making, so that they can see you as an adult, and so that you can have the pride in yourself of being one. Good luck!
Are you advising Blayne of this or everyone?
I don't think it has to be such a drastic measure for everyone.
I'm 19, I still live with my parents. I plan to until I finish college. They see me as an adult. I see myself as one.
An appropriate time to move out depends on the kid and the parents. If someone can't make the transition then moving out immediately would help. However, I don't see it as the only solution to becoming a functioning member of society.
Although, it does depend on having decent parents and being a responsible person. Unfortunately, it sounds as if Blayne's situation is bad on everyone's behalf and has passed any point of him being able to function within the household.
For those suggesting that he look for campus housing - it's probably a bit late for that. I know my school, at least, has a very long waiting list. So, unless he's already on it, it's probably not going to be an option.
Furthermore, if he really did hit you, you should have called the police.
Posted by guinevererobin (Member # 10753) on :
quote:Are you advising Blayne of this or everyone?
I'm advising Blayne, because he obviously has some real family issues and needs the distance.
But yeah, I think it's a good thing to gain financial independance as soon as possible. Families are different, and kids' situations are different, but in my experience it was very rewarding to be out on my own. My friends who did the same thing, working and taking out loans to be independant, tell me they felt the same way. The parent/child dynamic has to undergo certain changes at some point, and becoming independant greatly speeds that change - especially if your parents have issues with it in the first place.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm 22 and am living in a house my father owns while I attend grad school. I do have a job, but I use that money for day-to-day expenses, not tuition. I don't consider my education any less worthwhile or my experience any less rewarding, and I don't think that I have anything less to be proud of than someone who cuts all financial ties with family at 18. I think that saying everyone needs to be out the door and independent at 18 is....well, rather offensive.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think that I have anything less to be proud of than someone who cuts all financial ties with family at 18.
Seriously? You think that being financially independent at 18, something that you haven't done, is not something to be proud of at all?
I didn't do that either, and I do think that people who do that have something to be proud of. Something that I don't have.
I feel the same way about serving honorably in the military and giving birth naturally -- they aren't things that I think that everybody should do, but they are things to be proud of.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I said that I don't think I have anything less to be proud of. In other words, I am not less of a person than someone who becomes financially independent at 18. Nor am I less of a person than someone who serves in the military or gives birth.
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: edit: in response to El JT de Spang: I didn't see any advice to ignore in your last post. I would ignore overly simplistic advice also.
That's cause there wasn't any. You don't have to pay very close attention to Hatrack to know that Blayne could build his own house with printouts of advice from Hatrackers that he's ignored over the last 3 years.
If you think that he ignores advice because it's overly simplistic then perhaps you'd be best off sitting this one out.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I had no choice but to flounder for a while. My grandmother ended up in a eldery apartment complex, then a home for the elderly. I had no place to live and through luck got my own apartment.
Living with either of my parents wasn't an option and it was quite frustrating to live with my father back in 2001. Never again.
Posted by TheBlueShadow (Member # 9718) on :
quote:I said that I don't think I have anything less to be proud of. In other words, I am not less of a person than someone who becomes financially independent at 18. Nor am I less of a person than someone who serves in the military or gives birth.
Agreed.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm having trouble imagining how anybody could disagree with that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think that saying everyone needs to be out the door and independent at 18 is....well, rather offensive.
Who is saying that? I'm not saying that.
I am, however, saying that if an adult is going to be crowding up to the government/parental teat, so to speak, they should be willing to tolerate some conditions.
Simply put, everything after you're 18 and out of high school is, in my opinion, a gift.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree. And if you aren't willing to put up with the strings attached to a gift, you shouldn't accept the gift.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I'd recommend to most people to stay at home till they finish college if they can, it's easier and cheaper. I'm currently 22 (as of today ) and I'm staying at home going to college. I plan to continue this until I can get on my feet with a job and have enough assets that I can support myself. I hope to complete this by the time I get my associates and I plan to transfer. Sometimes though it's not the case, for example Blayne's position.
Blayne, from what I've read it seems that you're in a very abusive and negative situation. Maybe I'm reading too deep into this but it seems like your father might have a drinking problem, if that is the case, you should get out of harms way, and also try and seek to resolve the situation.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Happy Birthday MEC! Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I have said this before and I am sure it will stoke the flames but here it goes: If my kid does not want to get out of the house by the time he is 18, I have not done my job right.
And I mean this in a good way. If he wants to do things, we have told him he can do them when he has his own place. He should not WANT to come back home to live with Mom and Dad.
When I changed colleges half way through my sophmore year, I moved back into my parents house. All of us wanted me out. They wanted me out, I wanted out. And I get along great with my parents and was not a trouble child. But I wanted my freedom and they wanted thiers. I went to school full time and worked a part time job to afford my place and my other expenses.
If your kids see you as more than a last case scenario, IMHO, you have not done it right.
msquared
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I completely agree with msquared. There is something odd if the kid doesn't want to get away from his parents enough to move.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You honestly think there's something wrong with your child if he/she isn't ready to cut all financial ties with you at 18? I'm trying to find a way in which this is NOT offensive.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you can't find a way it's not offensive, you're not trying very hard at all.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'd be interested to hear an example scenario, Rakeesh.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
And I did not say cut all financial ties. I said move out of the house.
My parents still paid for college, or at least they did until I realized I was wasting thier money and my time. Then I got a full time job and paid for everything myself. Then I got married and had a kid. Three years later I was working full time and going to school part time and raising my new born son.
If the purpose of parenting is to raise children to be self suficient grownups who are to be productive members of society, then why would they want to live at home, baring some medical condition? Why would I want them at home? My children are not the center of my life. My wife is.
Why do you associate all of this with money? Lots of people work and go to school. I don't OWE him anything past his 18th birthday. Not saying he isn't going to get it, but don't come around with some sense of entitlement.
When I lived at home for that 5-6 months I paid them rent, I did my own clothes, I would have cooked but my Mom is very particular about who is in her kitchen. I lived by their rules. I was 19 and understood that in thier house I was, at that age, a long term guest. I wanted a place where I could watch TV until all hours of the night, I could listen to my music when I wanted to, as loud as I wanted to. A place to call my own. Dress how I wanted to dress. I could not call their house my own.
Do not confuse what I and the kid should want with what might happen in an emergency. But he should not expect that he will live at home while he goes to school or after he graduates, or at least not for more than a few weeks at most. As long as we both know it is a transition, I am ok with it.
And in my opinion, any one who is not raising their kid to get to this mental place is doing thier kid a disservice.
msquared
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I had not seen my dad for more than an hour at a time from the time I was 13 until I was 18, after a year of not seeing him at all.
So I was quite happy, although I did move out of my mom's house, to move in with my dad, and re-establish some kind of relationship.
furthermore, I had been in a, well, not-normal living situation, and needed to adjust before I got a job (I got a part-time job after a few months) or even considered school (I decided I didn't want to go, at least not right then.) There was no way I would have functioned living with someone not a member of my family.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I am happy as long as people *try* to be self-sufficient productive members of society. The problem seems to be that my generation is too nihilistic.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Well. It's fine if kids live with their parents. As long as they don't stay in the shower too long!
*points at ad below*
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Woah! Considering the ad is random, it is a pretty big coincidence that I look down and that is what it is, and I have never seen it before.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Google ads are not random, they are based on content of the webpage.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I've lived with my parents until I was 26, even though I had a full time job for the last 3 years of it. My mum wanted me to stay with them, and of course it was financially a better option for me that living on myself. Hard as it might be for any Western people to accept, I didn't even contribute to household expenses. I did lend my parents business money, but they are supposed to give it back some time
That said, I also think that Blayne should move out.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I did the old-timie girl thing and lived at home until I moved in with my boyfriend. (Yes, technically the truely old-time way would have involved a wedding. But in the olden days kids didn't come with baggage from their parents' divorces, either. We're working on it.)
I paid $100 rent, my car insurance, and any long distance calls I made. I did my own laundry and cleaned my room and bathroom. God I miss those days when that was all I had to do. Our apartment isn't that much bigger. Two extra rooms shouldn't add that much work.
If there's a good relationship at the base of it and the parents and child can respect each other, I don't see a problem with living at home. I have a friend who's nearly 30 years old and moved home when his dad got sick to help take care of the farm. No one thinks any less of him for it. Now, the friend who lives at home, has mommy clean up after him, cook for him, do his laundry, and still whines about how rough he has it...that's a different story. That's not healthy.
Blayne, if you're doing school full time, can you see about dorm expenses getting added to your grants/scholarships/loans? I loved the dorm at college for the brief time I went. I could walk to all my classes or take the bus. And we only forgot what time it was and had the music too loud too late the one time. There were a few little things that happened, but they were funny. Somebody ketchuped the stairwell one time. A gal set off the fire alarm by hanging a wire hanger on the sprinkler. Goofy stuff. Nothing like in the movies.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was financially dependent on my dad until I was 24, but I moved out at 18. My brothers didn't, and the deal was that they had free board as long as they were in school. If they stopped school, then they had to pay rent.
I think Blayne should move out immediately, but if it were a better situation or if Blayne sounded like he was working toward something, then it might be different.
Mostly, it sounds like an utterly miserable living situation for everyone involved. That's when it's time to leave.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:And in my opinion, any one who is not raising their kid to get to this mental place is doing thier kid a disservice.
I'm pretty sure all parents want their children to get to that mental place. It's just that 18 is a pretty arbitrary number.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
camus
I am not so sure abou that. I look around me, at my son's peers. I see parents who do not hold their kids responsible for their actions, do not make them work for what they want, make like easy for them. I see kids who think that work at a place like McDonald's is too good for them.
When my youngest came home with a mid term report card with a D in math, I did not call the teacher and complain about his grade. I asked my son why he had such a bad grade. I did not whine and bitch to the teacher/ principal about how he did, I told my son that his TV time was cut off until the grade came up.
msquared
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Man, I was begging my parents to let me move out of the house at 16. I had to wait until college, and even then they made me live in a dorm for the first semester. I was probably financially dependent until about 20, as long as I was in school. Once I realized school wasn't for me I started refusing any money they offered, to the point of not having food when I couldn't work. I've also promised to pay back ~3k that they wasted on my schooling. This is almost certainly not the smartest way to go about things, but hey, stubborn, self-rightious pride makes a guy do silly things.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
My cousin has been pampered by his parents for ages. He took seven years to graduate form college in marketing - with his parents paying for everything the whole time. He works sporadically now, and his parents still pay for everything. He's moved out, but they pay his rent. My aunt works two jobs to pay for everything, and doesn't save much.
Now, she knows this isn't right. She knows something should be done, but she doesn't have the heart to cut them off. She longs for her 30-year-old son to be more independent, but his dad is fine with paying for him and she doesn't have the heart for that fight.
I think getting cut off would be the best thing in the world for him. I also think he would be dirt poor for a while, because he has a crappy resume and a lousy sense of entitlement. Still, better all around. And my aunt knows it. It's hard to do that, though, especially alone.
Also, she does it because the opposite happened to her. When she was 18, her parents divorced. Her mother didn't have the money to continue paying her tuition, and her father stopped because his new wife didn't want to. My sweet aunt went to college from a stable home with them paying for it and came home to a father who told her she couldn't stay there for the summer because the new wife didn't want her, and to a mother who was struggling to pay for her own life now and didn't have much to spare for my aunt. My aunt finished college at all because her boyfriend, now husband, paid for her tuition.
I KNOW that was horrible for her. I ache for her a little, because I know how much that particular two years of hell has shaped her life. She swore she'd never get divorced, no matter what, and she'd never leave her kids feeling so orphaned and homeless as she felt.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yes. If someone is 24 and doesn't move out and doesn't have the ability, there should be a good reason. Good reasons certainly exist.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
MS, I highly doubt that the parents you are observing truly want their children to suck at life.
I think having children that are capable of being independent at the age of 18 is a pretty good goal for parents to have, not a standard with which to judge a parent's desire for his children to be successful at life.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by kojabu:
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:And in my opinion, any one who is not raising their kid to get to this mental place is doing thier kid a disservice.
I'm pretty sure all parents want their children to get to that mental place. It's just that 18 is a pretty arbitrary number.
Agreed. My sister who is 24 still lives at home, but there are a large number of reasons why that's the case. I'm going to assume that most of the statements being made in this thread are only in reference to those who have the ability to do so.
It is assumption being made, and it's good to recognize it's a big assumption.
For example, a young person with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder may well not be able to move out and live on his or her own. In many cases, such a person has severely limited executive functioning of the brain -- so while the person may look and act much like anyone else to the casual observer, the ability to plan, control impulses, and organize him- or herself just isn't there.
Such a person often isn't able to live on his or her own, yet given the typical history of a mother of a child with FASD (often -- though not always -- sexual and physical abuse) and a child with FASD (often a challenging child to raise, much more likely to be physically abused), for the young person to stay at home may not be safe or healthy.
We make a big assumption when we assume that all young people can and should be able to live on their own. In some cases, they have been brought into the world with challenges not of their own making which may severely limit their options.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I lived at home for a year after graduation at my parent's request. They needed the financial help of my paying rent while I was there.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I said that there might be exceptions. Medical reasons I can understand. That probably affects about 2-5% of the population.
Camus, they may or may not want their kids to fail, I don't know. I just see the results. I see the kids get a job and quit the first day becuase the boss got upset they took a three hour lunch break. And the parent backs the kid up.
If the parents are actively preventing the child from learing what he/she needs to survive in the world, then yes, they are setting them up for failure.
If you are living at home and paying rent and such, I can give some leeway for. At least you are taking some financial responsibility for your life.
msquared
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
msquared, I don't think that those parents WANT their kids to fail. And not all parents who continue to financially support their children after 18 are coddling them in every possible way or keeping them from learning important life lessons or whatever else it is you think that they are missing out on. I don't think I'm a less capable human being because my parents support me while I'm in school. There are plenty of other Hatrackers here whose parents support/have supported them while they are in school, and they are intelligent, well-adjusted, responsible people.
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: I said that there might be exceptions. Medical reasons I can understand. That probably affects about 2-5% of the population.
If that number is true (I think it's actually higher, but we agree in principle), that means that of about the 30 or so young people posting here fairly regularly, it's likely that this would hold for at least one of them. We probably wouldn't know which one(s), given that many problems like FASD are not clearly diagnosed, and (regardless) that mental health challenges aren't very likely to be shared. [with notable exceptions, of course, but this tends to be uncommon, actually]
I don't disagree that having young people develop their own lives and take on adult responsibilities when the time comes is a good thing. I'm just wary of coming down hard on any given individual, knowing what I may not know, you know? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'd be interested to hear an example scenario, Rakeesh.
A scenario in which thinking there is something wrong or odd with a child who does not want to move out from their parent's home? Easy.
Consider the possibility that the parents feel that this is a deficiency of a relatively minor degree, like sloppiness or not excusing one's self after burping. I can think something is wrong without you getting offended over that, can I?
If I can't, exactly who has the problem here? Not me, I submit.
Another scenario: parent might think it is wrong or at least non-ideal that their child does not hunger to be entirely self-sufficient as quickly as possible. They don't hate their child, nor are they unwilling to assist until the child does feel that way, but still (and here's the big part) consider their job of rearing children incomplete.
And that, no matter how much anyone complains or argues about it, is what it comes down to. You're still being 'reared'* if your parents are taking care of you, as simple as that. If you get out of the house, run into some horrible luck and need to come back for awhile, that's a bit different. That's just running into some awful luck and needing the help of your family.
The truth is that as long as you are being reared by your parents then no, in fact, you're not as much of an adult as someone who is not. Being 'capable' by itself is worth squat.
*This is not some horrible, awful character flaw. 18 is, after all, an arbitrary line and since there are human beings involved, some people will be ready sooner (much, much sooner), and some later (much, much later). Unless you're living in a war zone or something, total self-sufficiency is not of paramount importance when you're 18. You can be an intelligent, capable, well-adjusted person without having total self-sufficiency.
What you can't have without it, though, is the claim to being a self-sufficient adult, as in charge of your own destiny as anyone can claim to be. All you've got is a claim to 'capability', and if you're going to make claims to capability, don't be surprised when someone asks, "Well why aren't you, then?"
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Correct. It is the 20 year old living at home, not in school, unemployed telling his parents "I am a grown up. You can't tell me what to do." Those parents have failed. And their last failure is not putting him out on the street.
msquared
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
With appropriate caveats about capabilities, I'm sure.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I was ready to move away from my parents at 16. I could have even moved in with a friend and supported myself. However my parents couldn't handle it, and weren't ready to let go. And because they couldn't handle it, I never brought it up, because I *wasn't* 18 yet so I had to get them to sign the work permits. They were threatening to refuse to sign the work permits as it was because they felt I was already too independent from them.
I called their bluff at 17 after a summer away on an internship when I had a good cushion of money in the bank. My dad at the dinner table came out with this whole "if you don't obey our rules you can leave" bit, because I was bickering with my brother. I said fine I will, and my mother hit the roof... and then again the not being 18 came back to bite me because they knew I still needed them to sign the work permits, and held it over me.
Since I had a full scholarship, the only thing they consistently paid for through my college years was my car insurance. And, we all knew that I could get a job and pay for that on my own if I had to, so they couldn't use that as a manipulation tool, particularly when I paid for most of the car myself.
I also had to throw a tantrum so they wouldn't count me on their income taxes as a dependent, after I was in college. I went home for one summer during which I went to school and worked full-time tutoring too and that summer was so miserable at home I never went back to live again.
In my case it must have been something in me being contrary, although it wasn't a conventional "rebellion" for sure. I wasn't going out and deliberately doing things they told me not to do. Because they tried so hard to control my life, I went about being independent in a responsible adult manner, with as little "rebellion" as possible, because I wanted to be an adult.
It still didn't go over well, but I did the best I could at the time.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also, in my case, now that I'm approaching a decade of hindsight, I realize that I made independence (and having a house of my own) so a part of my identity, that I really didn't know what to do once I achieved those goals, and since I've attained those goals, I've had to begin a process of figuring out who I am, all over again, because my identity was so caught up in actually being independent from my parents.
Posted by guinevererobin (Member # 10753) on :
quote:I said that I don't think I have anything less to be proud of. In other words, I am not less of a person than someone who becomes financially independent at 18. Nor am I less of a person than someone who serves in the military or gives birth
I don't think I ever said or implied otherwise...
However, I am proud of myself for having worked from the time I was 13 at getting a scholarship, and for becoming financially independant at 18. my friends had a similar experience. Families are different and have different situations - my parents could not pay for my tuition, and I was ready to live on my own. I was very happy. If you have parents who are able and happy to support you, and you're happy, then very well. That's obviously not the situation in Blayne's case, and it isn't the case for a lot of people.
I agree with the one poster that said anything after 18 is a gift, though - parents definitely don't owe their kids anything beyond that, although it's nice to continue to help them if you can.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I agree with the one poster that said anything after 18 is a gift, though - parents definitely don't owe their kids anything beyond that
Why? What's so magical about that specific date, as opposed to the day before or the day after?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I don't think I'm a less capable human being because my parents support me while I'm in school.
Are you capable of making it on your own? Maybe you are, but you can't know that.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Particularly when most kids turn 18 while they are still seniors in high school. I would think that the September after high school graduation would be a more logical "move out" date.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:And in my opinion, any one who is not raising their kid to get to this mental place is doing thier kid a disservice.
I'm pretty sure all parents want their children to get to that mental place. It's just that 18 is a pretty arbitrary number.
I'm not singling out this post for any special reason, other than that it is similar to a number of posts here that really generalise quite ruthlessly from American parenting culture to "all parents" or "anyone".
For example, in many cultures families expect their children to have much closer ties to their parents, living together after reaching the age of majority, sometimes even after getting married. In some cultures, children are expected to take care of their parents.
quote: Staying in school longer and difficulty finding a stable, full-time job are historical reasons behind a trend that has been on the upswing for the last two decades. But experts believe the most recent rise has been in large part fuelled by shifting family values -- both traditional and liberal.
On the one hand, newcomers to Canada often expect their children to remain in the family home until they marry, said Marc Molgat, a sociology professor at the University of Ottawa. But on the other, he said, baby boomers often have a relationship with their adolescent and adult children that is more akin to friendship compared to past generations.
...
Darlene Wang, a 31-year-old Toronto investment advisor and entrepreneur, said both family values and a hard-nosed business sense have kept her living in her parents home all these years.
"I'm Chinese and it's really cultural for us to stay at home until we are ready to be married and then we literally leave our family's home to go to our new home," said Ms. Wang who is engaged to be married in 2008.
She has put her earnings from her successful career in finance toward the purchase of several income properties, her own business ventures and investments.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Oh the women's movement will love to hear that. "I am going to live with my family until I, or they, find someone to take care of me." Many of those cultures also have arranged marriages, is that how we want it to go?
dkw, you are a voice of reason when I am on my soap box. I agree, the shift should come after the senior year. My oldest will turn 18 in Oct. of his senior year. I have no plans on kicking him out until may at the earliest, maybe even June.
msquared
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I lived with my father until I got married. I'm sure others here did the same.
I don't think belittling people for that is a wise choice.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
KQ I did not think I was belittling any one here. I was just making an observation as to the cultural thing mentioned in the link above.
My wife did the same. I just don't think it should be the norm or expected that a woman should stay with her parents until she gets married. My wife and I waited for 4 years to get married so that she could finish her degree at a school that was 900 miles away. We went months with out seeing each other. She had summer jobs when she was here on break. She had a job within months of graduating, one she still has.
But part of me thinks it might have been better for her to live by herself, just as herself, for 6 months or a year.
msquared
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You got married at 18, right? Maybe 19?
There's a big difference between staying at home until getting married at when you're still 18 at the time and living at home for ten years until you get married at 28.
The whole idea of needing to be taken care of when you are a capable adult and have been for years is a little shameful, I think.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think there is a difference between an adult *choosing* to live with one's folks (with their consent) and an adolescent that isn't capable of living elsewhere, staying with their folks so that it really isn't a "choice" in the same manner.
The latter may be in for a bit more criticism than the former due to lack of maturity, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the former.
In fact I would venture that at the point where it becomes a "choice" is where one actually becomes an adult.
AJ
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I got married when I was 20.
But if I had gotten married at 28, I might or might not have moved out. It would have depended on circumstances. I don't see it as "needing to be taken care of", but some of us do have a strong desire to live with family.
If my family had become unlivable I might have fulfilled my need to not live alone by finding roommates who could become good enough friends to fulfill a pseudo-familial role. (We're "adopters" in my family. We make friends that we consider family for life.)
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
AJ: I agree. The quoted story mentions that she chose to, and she invested the money she saved and cultivated a business. There's a big difference between that and living in the basement spending your money on video games.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Specifically, I'm thinking of financial independence. I'm not talking about living with roommates vs. living alone, but about paying your own rent. If you live with roommates, presumably you're paying your part of the rent and utilities.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's true.
Some of us had parents who would not accept rent.
So saving your money and using it for a socially acceptable, future-thinking purpose is probably a good alternative, in my opinion.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
My dad made my brother pay rent when he wasn't in school, and then my dad put it all in a savings account and gave it back to him when he got home from his mission to use for tuition at school. The gravy train was cut off when we graduate from college or when we got married. Presumably we are full-fledged adults at that point and can take care of ourselves. If we can't, time to learn.
Basically, the idea was to prevent staying at home being the easy option - not allowing us to take the easy way out and have our parents pay the bills.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And I don't think that's bad-- just that it's not necessarily bad either for parents to not charge children rent, as long as by doing so they are not enabling children delaying adulthood and maturity or enabling an emotionally and/or financially crippling habit (say, an addiction to gambling or drinking or crack.)
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
That's what I am talking about, the easy way out.
My brother is going through this with his 20 year old daughter. She complains how he has never been poor. He says "Right, I always had a job, even a part time one while in school." She thinks he is being mean becuase she dropped out of school, will not hold down a job, smokes and drinks and then will not let her stay rent free in an apartment building he owns. She can not be depended on to help around the house but has time to drive 6 hours each way to see her boyfriend.
(Just a note, this girl is not his bio kid. She is his wife's daughter from before they were married.)
msquared
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
While I certainly think I, having been completely financially independent since 19 (sorry, not 18, I guess my parents screwed up!) was more prepared to handle a variety of financial situations than someone who, say, went to college on their parents' dime, I don't think that qualifies me as more adult than they are. More capable, probably - in some capacities. But I don't see how a person whose parents pay for school & living expenses for four years after high school is inherently less of an adult than someone who leaves at 18 and puts themselves through it.
It seems like such a silly way to define adulthood.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:just that it's not necessarily bad either for parents to not charge children rent, as long as by doing so they are not enabling children delaying adulthood and maturity
I think that by definition, adult children are delaying maturity when they do not have to be financially responsible for themselves.
School is different - going to school full-time is time-consuming and financially draining, and I think paying for board while someone is going to school is entirely reasonable.
For an adult kid who is NOT going to school full-time, if they are still financially dependent on their parents, there should be a very, very good reason.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Define "financially responsible."
Paying for your own phone, internet, car insurance, food, car if you have one, and saving your money toward a future wedding, house payment, business, etc. (basically what your dad did for your brother)-- how is that not mature?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Room and board.
If someone else is feeding you and putting a roof over your head, you're not responsible for yourself yet.
Phone, car, internet - those are extras. Incredibly ubiquitous extras, but still extras. Paying for your own extras while someone else pays for the basics means you're still dependent.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And if you're feeding yourself, and the money that would be rent goes toward a savings account, I still don't see the difference.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think that would come under the very, very good reason kq.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:It seems like such a silly way to define adulthood.
agreed.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Basically paying for your own place, either renting or owning.
erosomniac, if someone is in school full time I view that as a full time job. But even then I would think that my kid would want to live on campus or away from home. Get exposed to new things, grow beyond what he knew as a child. Grow up even more. Challange your beliefs. Expand your view on life. Basically, if your parents are paying for college, that is your job. If they have a sense of entitlement that "Hey you owe me a college degree, not matter what I do" then they are not mature.
msquared
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Again, my emphasis is on "choice" as the way to define adulthood. If you *could* pay room and board live on your own and you and your parents mutually work out an arrangement where you don't, it is one thing.
If you are seemingly incapable of doing so, then I'm more inclined towards not calling you an "adult".
AJ
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:If someone else is feeding you and putting a roof over your head, you're not responsible for yourself yet.
So a person that moves directly from a parent's home into a spouse's home is not personally responsible yet, even if they have successful and independent children and grandchildren?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: Oh the women's movement will love to hear that. "I am going to live with my family until I, or they, find someone to take care of me." Many of those cultures also have arranged marriages, is that how we want it to go?
Hey, way to generalise and assume again.
I wasn't necessarily promoting that way of living. I was more annoyed with the factual error that I quoted of "all parents" thinking one particular way. They quite clearly do not, the phenomenon of kids being able to move out at 18 is a rather distinct consequence of living in a country with vast cheap expanses of land and a very individualistic outlook. Attitudes in Asia or even Europe are quite different. The attitude of their parents is even more mixed, even in more Western countries such as Italy.
Be wary of generalising from the US to the rest of the world using phrases like "all parents" or "everyone".
As a side note: Yeah, it might be nice if everyone moved out at 18, but it would also be nice if everyone could live the way people in North America do with an average ecological footprint of 9.6gha per person versus 1.6 gha per person in China. Nevermind, that the environment would probably go up in smoke in a decade if (magically) everyone in China and India could suddenly live the way we do. The fact that not everyone thinks, nor wants to think the way we do might be a blessing in disguise.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Again, my emphasis is on "choice" as the way to define adulthood. If you *could* pay room and board live on your own and you and your parents mutually work out an arrangement where you don't, it is one thing.
If you are seemingly incapable of doing so, then I'm more inclined towards not calling you an "adult".
AJ
I would tend to agree with that.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Get exposed to new things, grow beyond what he knew as a child. Grow up even more. Challange your beliefs. Expand your view on life.
I don't see why a person needs to be financially independent before he can begin doing these things.
quote:If they have a sense of entitlement that "Hey you owe me a college degree, not matter what I do" then they are not mature.
While I agree that this feeling of entitlement indicates a lack of maturity, it's important to note that not all people that live at home or receive financial aid from parents have this sense of entitlement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yeah, it might be nice if everyone moved out at 18, but it would also be nice if everyone could live the way people in North America do with an average ecological footprint of 9.6gha per person versus 1.6 gha per person in China.
*snort* Give them time, Mucus. What stops people in China from having an ecological footprint like that in the USA is not their thinking, you can be sure.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Mucus
I never said all. And what was I assuming?
However, can you argue with the fact that the cultural view given there flies in the face of what the woman's movement has been all about? In this one case she stays because she wants to but in how many of these cultural situations is it forced on the woman?
AJ is s smart lady. I agree with her position as well. If the kid could support themself, but have come to an agreement with the parents about staying at home, then I do not have as much of a problem.
But you all know the kids who have no plans on leaving home. They don't work becuase Mom and Dad take care of everything. They want to have a party at Mom and Dad's house. They make enough money to keep them in cigs and beer and that is it. Those are the people I am talking about. And there may not be anyone like that on this site.
Or there may be.
msquared
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: Mucus
I never said all. And what was I assuming?
However, can you argue with the fact that the cultural view given there flies in the face of what the woman's movement has been all about? In this one case she stays because she wants to but in how many of these cultural situations is it forced on the woman?
AJ is s smart lady. I agree with her position as well. If the kid could support themself, but have come to an agreement with the parents about staying at home, then I do not have as much of a problem.
But you all know the kids who have no plans on leaving home. They don't work becuase Mom and Dad take care of everything. They want to have a party at Mom and Dad's house. They make enough money to keep them in cigs and beer and that is it. Those are the people I am talking about. And there may not be anyone like that on this site.
Or there may be.
msquared
This would have been much more useful to say in the first place, rather than sweeping generalities about whether or not people who are financially dependent at 18 qualify as adults.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yup. China's doing their darndest to bring their per-capita ecological footprint up to our levels.
Of course, they don't call it that. They call it standard of living.
But really, it's the same thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:All you've got is a claim to 'capability', and if you're going to make claims to capability, don't be surprised when someone asks, "Well why aren't you, then?"
90% of the people I know who are willingly staying with their parents into their mid twenties are doing so because it frees them up from expenses and makes life more fun and productive.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: On one hand, I want to applaud you for pointing out that I am as yet too optimistic about human nature and that I should adjust my cynicism downwards, at least on environmental issues
On the other hand, my quoted story of Darlene Wang demonstrates that there is at least some cultural difference that translates into living at home (and presumably, a smaller ecological footprint than the average) rather than immediately moving out when able, even when the ability to move out clearly exists.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Productive for who? So they can buy toys? The newest X-Box game? The most up to date cell phone?
Those are the 90% I am talking about then?
msquared
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: Productive for who? So they can buy toys? The newest X-Box game? The most up to date cell phone?
Those are the 90% I am talking about then?
msquared
Property? A car? Travel?
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: disparing remarks about my sex life is well out of bounds of the juridistion of a parent.
You should've punched him back in the face. It seems like that's what your father secretly wanted, in order to gauge your manhood.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by pH: I don't think I'm a less capable human being because my parents support me while I'm in school.
Are you capable of making it on your own? Maybe you are, but you can't know that.
Can't know that why, exactly? Because I choose to focus on school right now? I have a job. I have a college degree. I just think that it's important for me to focus on school and on saving money, and my parents agree. In fact, it was their idea. I don't know what your issue is with me personally, mph, but I think you need to let it go.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by pH: I don't think I'm a less capable human being because my parents support me while I'm in school.
Are you capable of making it on your own? Maybe you are, but you can't know that.
Can't know that why, exactly? Because I choose to focus on school right now? I have a job. I have a college degree. I just think that it's important for me to focus on school and on saving money, and my parents agree. In fact, it was their idea. I don't know what your issue is with me personally, mph, but I think you need to let it go.
You cannot know that you're capable of doing that because you've never done it.
Likewise, I don't know how I'd handle the death of a parent, since I've never done anything like that.
I never said or implied that you shouldn't be focusing on school right now. I don't know you or your situation well enough to have any opinion.
I wasn't financially independent at your age either.
I'm not attacking you. I don't have anything against you personally, and it's unfair for you to say that I do. You are the one who brought your personal situation into this discussion. You are the one that made claims about it, comparing your situation to others. I disagree with some of those claims. It's not fair to use yourself as a comparison, and then when others disagree with you, claim that they're the ones making it personal.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It was already made personal by those making blanket statements along the lines of "all children who are not financially independent at 18 are a disappointment."
-pH
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
pH, you are reading more into it than was said.
This has come up before. I know it's something you are sensitive about. No one is attacking you personally, and it isn't fair to try to shut down the discussion by declaring it is all about you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm not the one who said that, and I don't agree with it.
You made some specific claims about the comparison of your situation with other situations. I don't think it's unfair for me to say that I disagree.
Anyway, I'm sorry that I made you feel attacked. That was not my intention.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:You cannot know that you're capable of doing that because you've never done it.
But one can be reasonably certain of that capability without ever having done it, based on relevant experiences, demonstrated previous responsibility, etc. etc.
I've never driven a Ford F-150, but I'm certain I could do it, based on having driven other cars & trucks. I've never eaten a blackberry, but I know I could do it, having eaten many other things. I've never graduated from college, but I know I could do it, based on my success with classes I've taken, time management skills, intelligence, etc.
That aside, pH probably reacted badly because this phrasing:
quote:Are you capable of making it on your own? Maybe you are, but you can't know that.
is pretty insulting and caustic, whether you meant it to be or not.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'm not the one who said that, and I don't agree with it.
You made some specific claims about the comparison of your situation with other situations. I don't think it's unfair for me to say that I disagree.
Anyway, I'm sorry that I made you feel attacked. That was not my intention.
But I'm not the only one who cited personal examples. Several others have in this thread, and for some reason you chose to take issue with me.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(eros, you've seriously never eaten a blackberry? Don't you live in WA?)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: (eros, you've seriously never eaten a blackberry? Don't you live in WA?)
Seriously, and yes. I'm not a big fan of fruit.
(I still like Heinz the best though, so I'm still cool, right? Right?)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Aren't blackberries prickly?
-pH
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: (eros, you've seriously never eaten a blackberry? Don't you live in WA?)
Seriously, and yes. I'm not a big fan of fruit.
Do I remember that you don't like vegetables either, or am I thinking of someone else?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Can't know that why, exactly? Because I choose to focus on school right now? I have a job. I have a college degree. I just think that it's important for me to focus on school and on saving money, and my parents agree. In fact, it was their idea. I don't know what your issue is with me personally, mph, but I think you need to let it go.
*snort* You brought you into this conversation, pH. As usual on this particular issue. As for issues with you, there was that whole not dating poor people thing.
You've got a job, and a college degree, and are saving money and going to school. Good for you. I mean that sincerely. What you've also got is a bunch of free money given to you, even though you've got a job and a college degree.
You can call it offensive all you like, but that's what it comes down to: you're getting lots of free money. So what if you're capable of doing without it? Capability alone is worthless. All the capability in the world never got one thing done, ever.
The fact is that you-or anyone-who gets lots of money for free isn't as mature as someone who is entirely self-reliant for their own living. That's all there is to it. It's not some gigantic character flaw. 'Not as mature' does not equal 'immature' necessarily, and maturity by itself is neither a virtue nor a flaw.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: (eros, you've seriously never eaten a blackberry? Don't you live in WA?)
Seriously, and yes. I'm not a big fan of fruit.
Do I remember that you don't like vegetables either, or am I thinking of someone else?
Someone else - I like vegetables! Some, anyway. The first person to suggest that cauliflower is actually an edible substance is getting my virtual foot in their rear.
(Edit: I think this is my most favorite derail.)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Aren't blackberries prickly?
-pH
Yes.... if by prickly you mean delicious.
(They do have little seed-thingies that can get stuck in your teeth - as does their jam - and the bushes sure are prickly, but it's worth it.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: (eros, you've seriously never eaten a blackberry? Don't you live in WA?)
Seriously, and yes. I'm not a big fan of fruit.
(I still like Heinz the best though, so I'm still cool, right? Right?)
I suppose. But would you try a blackberry pie if I baked you one, fresh? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Aren't blackberries prickly?
The plants are. The berries aren't.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Can't know that why, exactly? Because I choose to focus on school right now? I have a job. I have a college degree. I just think that it's important for me to focus on school and on saving money, and my parents agree. In fact, it was their idea. I don't know what your issue is with me personally, mph, but I think you need to let it go.
*snort* You brought you into this conversation, pH. As usual on this particular issue. As for issues with you, there was that whole not dating poor people thing.
You've got a job, and a college degree, and are saving money and going to school. Good for you. I mean that sincerely. What you've also got is a bunch of free money given to you, even though you've got a job and a college degree.
You can call it offensive all you like, but that's what it comes down to: you're getting lots of free money. So what if you're capable of doing without it? Capability alone is worthless. All the capability in the world never got one thing done, ever.
The fact is that you-or anyone-who gets lots of money for free isn't as mature as someone who is entirely self-reliant for their own living. That's all there is to it. It's not some gigantic character flaw. 'Not as mature' does not equal 'immature' necessarily, and maturity by itself is neither a virtue nor a flaw.
Now THIS is completely uncalled for and over the top. Again, I'm not the only one here who's brought personal examples into the thread. There's no need for you to single me out, Rakeesh.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why exactly is that statement insulting and caustic, erosmniac?
As for driving a -150, and eating a blackberry, those comparisons are just ridiculous. But as for the college comparison, though...
Well, let's suppose you haven't graduated college. Let's say you're in your junior year. Would you say you're as good at graduating from college as someone who has already done so? Or would you have to guess?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I suppose. But would you try a blackberry pie if I baked you one, fresh?
That depends. Is that an offer?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You're singling yourself out, pH. You are not the focus of the entire conversation and were not a focus at all until you made yourself one.
*resists saying something about how that's not very mature*
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE]The fact is that you-or anyone-who gets lots of money for free isn't as mature as someone who is entirely self-reliant for their own living.
Would you argue that the average citizen of a first world country is less mature than the average citizen of a third world country?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Again, read the previous pages. I am not the only one who's offered up personal examples. I AM the only one who's being dogpiled at this point - yes, I consider the three of you to be dogpiling me.
And saying *resists saying something about how that's not very mature* is not exactly mature. Nor is it resisting saying something, since you are in fact typing it out.
Edit: And thank you for your apology, mph. It is accepted. I'm sorry that I read too much into what you were saying.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I suppose. But would you try a blackberry pie if I baked you one, fresh?
That depends. Is that an offer?
Sure. You come down to see the new baby next year and I'll bake you a blackberry pie. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let me reiterate: you brought yourself into this, pH. Not me. It's not like I set up an Internet forum sting operation, whispered, "Hey, pH, come over here, wouldya?" and then sprung this on you or anything.
Hell, unlike some other conversations on this subject, you brought yourself and your situation into a conversation specifically about whether situations similar to yours are good or not, and then say, "Don't single me out, though. It's offensive if you point the finger at me."
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Let me reiterate: you brought yourself into this, pH. Not me. It's not like I set up an Internet forum sting operation, whispered, "Hey, pH, come over here, wouldya?" and then sprung this on you or anything.
Hell, unlike some other conversations on this subject, you brought yourself and your situation into a conversation specifically about whether situations similar to yours are good or not, and then say, "Don't single me out, though. It's offensive if you point the finger at me."
And again, I say that I am not the only one who brought his or her personal situation into this. So why are you deciding to jump all over me AND make reference to past hurtful statements you have made?
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Would you argue that the average citizen of a first world country is less mature than the average citizen of a third world country?
As a matter of fact, I'd be tempted to say something like that, yes. Generally speaking it takes more self-reliance, toughness, etc., to succeed in the third world than it does in the first world.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why exactly is that statement insulting and caustic, erosmniac?
It sounds snide and condescending. Now, I know mph didn't mean it that way, because I've seen reactions to things he's said before and he just...doesn't. But that's the way it read off the page to me, and how I imagine it read to pH.
quote:As for driving a -150, and eating a blackberry, those comparisons are just ridiculous.
I don't think so. I think they're entirely relevant.
quote:But as for the college comparison, though...
Well, let's suppose you haven't graduated college. Let's say you're in your junior year. Would you say you're as good at graduating from college as someone who has already done so? Or would you have to guess?
That depends on the person, but in my own case, absolutely.
Edit: Kqueen, deal!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is what happens every time this comes up, whether or not (like this time) you bring it up, pH. Someone gets critical, and they're 'jumping all over you'. Now it only takes three to dogpile, no less.
For the record, despite your continual pull of the focus back towards yourself, I'm also talking with Noemon and erosmniac about this subject as well.
And as for not criticizing someone else's personal situation? I criticized Blayne's, didn't I? Or was that not enough for you? Must everyone who is even remotely critical of you on this topic carry a scorecard and put a check next to EVERYONE'S name before they come to you, else they're 'dogpiling'?
You're in this conversation because you brought yourself in.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I agree, and not just because I'm 23 and still live at home. In my own defense, I'm still in school, work, pay my share of the bills, and am trying to be debt free by the end of the year, so I'm not just freeloading (not to say that Blayne is, though his gaming budget certainly deserves a hit).
quote:I don't think it has to be such a drastic measure for everyone.
I'm 19, I still live with my parents. I plan to until I finish college. They see me as an adult. I see myself as one.
An appropriate time to move out depends on the kid and the parents. If someone can't make the transition then moving out immediately would help. However, I don't see it as the only solution to becoming a functioning member of society.
quote: I'm currently 22 (as of today [Wink] ) and I'm staying at home going to college. I plan to continue this until I can get on my feet with a job and have enough assets that I can support myself. I hope to complete this by the time I get my associates and I plan to transfer. Sometimes though it's not the case, for example Blayne's position.
quote:I've lived with my parents until I was 26, even though I had a full time job for the last 3 years of it. My mum wanted me to stay with them, and of course it was financially a better option for me that living on myself. Hard as it might be for any Western people to accept, I didn't even contribute to household expenses. [Wink] I did lend my parents business money, but they are supposed to give it back some time [Razz]
quote:I did the old-timie girl thing and lived at home until I moved in with my boyfriend.
quote:I was financially dependent on my dad until I was 24, but I moved out at 18. My brothers didn't, and the deal was that they had free board as long as they were in school. If they stopped school, then they had to pay rent.
Why have none of these statements been criticized as harshly as you have criticized me? You've been nasty to me, specifically. So don't claim that I'm the one singling myself out to be criticized.
-pH
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
This is not all about you, pH. It's barely about you at all. Stop the histrionics and stop trying to pull all the focus onto yourself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't think so. I think they're entirely relevant.
No they're not. Eating a blackberry: pick up fruit, insert fruit into mouth, chew, swallow. Eating a blackberry: accomplished. The -150 comparison is a bit less outlandish, but would be more legitimate if you'd said motorcycle.
quote:That depends on the person, but in my own case, absolutely.
You haven't graduated college yet, though. You're just guessing. It's absurd to say you're as good at someone else at something you've never done before and they have, and expect to be taken as though you're stating a fact.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:The first person to suggest that cauliflower is actually an edible substance is getting my virtual foot in their rear.
What about broccoflower? I love it. But mostly because the flowers form perfect little spirals.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Well, I just popped into this conversation, and Rakeesh, I'm going to have to disagree with your point that
quote:The fact is that you-or anyone-who gets lots of money for free isn't as mature as someone who is entirely self-reliant for their own living. That's all there is to it.
I'd really like to know what you're basing that off of. I know many many many people who are much more immature in their uses of money, in their priorities, in their relationships, in ... well, pretty much all around the board, who are financially independent. I'm in college right now so I interact with these people on a day to day basis. I also interact with people who are still dependent on their parents (like me to a certain degree. I'm taking out Stafford loans that my parents will repay) and while not all of them are as mature, a lot of them are more mature than those dependent.
To give you a little personal testimony, maybe you remember when I left for the Appalachian Trail. I raised the money to outfit myself. Everything that went into that venture, whether it be monetary or just time, I put in myself with no help. It was very important that I do so. After spending a month in more extreme circumstances than most people can lay claim to, completely independent, I decided to go home. To go back to being dependent. There is extreme value in being supported by your family, financially or otherwise. You experience things and mature in ways that financially independent people know nothing about. So .... to put it bluntly, I think you're wrong. I also think you should drop the conversation because it's not doing anybody any good, but I can't back that thought up.
As to the initial topic, of which I've only read the first post, Blayne, move out. The experience of getting punched in the face is not one of those gratifying, maturing experiences I was talking about. You need to get in a healthy environment, and if in your home, dependent on your parents is not that environment, you need to fix it. Heck, go start or join a commune. Buy a tent and live in the nearest campground. Crash with some friends, even if you have to walk there. Just don't sit around and do nothing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So don't claim that I'm the one singling myself out to be criticized.
You're not singling yourself out to be criticized. You're holding your own circumstances up for scrutiny, and inviting it, by your own words. Now I know you'd prefer to have all the scrutiny be favorable, but that's not your call.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: This is not all about you, pH. It's barely about you at all. Stop the histrionics and stop trying to pull all the focus onto yourself.
Histrionics? To what, exactly, are you referring? I think it's entirely reasonable for me to question why Rakeesh is personally attacking me when I am not the only one who has used personal examples in this thread.
-pH
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Would you argue that the average citizen of a first world country is less mature than the average citizen of a third world country?
Ha! Who wouldn't?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So don't claim that I'm the one singling myself out to be criticized.
You're not singling yourself out to be criticized. You're holding your own circumstances up for scrutiny, and inviting it, by your own words. Now I know you'd prefer to have all the scrutiny be favorable, but that's not your call.
But you are only scrutinizing my circumstances. I don't see you making offensive posts directed toward any of the posters quoted above. I think it IS my call to say that you're being a bully in this instance.
-pH
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
At this point, you're being the bully by insisting on the conversation all being about you. Let it go.
For the histrionics, I'm referring to the 5+ posts listing the supposed sins against you and demanding a personal apology.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
PH: I didn't comment on any of those quotes because they didn't make claims I disagree with.
You did, or appeared to.
That's why I responded to you and not them.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Generally speaking it takes more self-reliance, toughness, etc., to succeed in the third world than it does in the first world.
Both "succeed" and "mature" can be defined in many different ways. To suggest that more of "x" makes a person more mature or more successful is to assume that everyone shares your standard of maturity. Whether "x" is college, financial independence, money, or Ford F-150 driving experience, the idea that more of it determines maturity levels for everyone is a bit ridiculous.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I don't think so. I think they're entirely relevant.
No they're not. Eating a blackberry: pick up fruit, insert fruit into mouth, chew, swallow. Eating a blackberry: accomplished. The -150 comparison is a bit less outlandish, but would be more legitimate if you'd said motorcycle.
Exactly. I'm aware of the requisite components for success in eating a blackberry or driving an F-150 or graduating from college, have demonstrated all of them repeatedly in the past, and am therefore certain (i.e. I know) I can do it.
quote:
quote:That depends on the person, but in my own case, absolutely.
You haven't graduated college yet, though. You're just guessing. It's absurd to say you're as good at someone else at something you've never done before and they have, and expect to be taken as though you're stating a fact.
See above.
Edit: It's also important to note that we haven't been talking about these things on a scale of how well they can be done, but whether they can be done at all. Hence, there's no "as good as" component involved; it's an I/O question.
To suggest that I am as good at making furniture as a man who's done it for twenty years when I've never done it at all, based on the idea that I know how to shape wood and attach the pieces together, for example, would be absurd.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: At this point, you're being the bully by insisting on the conversation all being about you. Let it go.
For the histrionics, I'm referring to the 5+ posts listing the supposed sins against you and demanding a personal apology.
Erm. I would like for Rakeesh to leave me alone. I would like that he not single me out for his nasty criticisms. I find that reasonable.
mph, I was not referring to you in my previous post. I was only referring to Rakeesh.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There is extreme value in being supported by your family, financially or otherwise.
Yes, there is. I've never claimed otherwise. All I'm asserting is that that support is there. Someone who needs (or gets) their family's help to survive is not a bad person. They're just not as self-sufficient and mature, in such things, as those who don't, that's all.
I don't see why this is such a contentious thing. I'm not as good at taking care of my yard as my neighbor is, if to achieve the same result I hire some landscapers to come do some of the work. I may very well have the potential to be as good at that particular skillset as he is, but in day-to-day reality I am not.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I see your point when dealing with specifics, but do you think it can be generalized to include "living" as a whole?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The summer I turned 19, I decided to live on my own, without parental help, going to school full time, working part time, and preparing for a mission. I thought I was capable of doing all that.
It turned out that I wasn't, partially due to a struggle with depression. My parents bailed me out, and it wasn't a big deal.
Before I tried, I didn't know whether I was capable of that or not.
I'm not ashamed that I wasn't capable of living and going to school on my own at that point.
If I had been capable of that, however, it would be something to be proud of.
Posted by Pelagius (Member # 10965) on :
Blayne Bradley isn't this Blayne Bradley, is he?
quote:You know, I thought about it and decided I should come clean, but it's hard to actually write it out. Know what I mean?
Well, here goes nothing.
Blayne Bradley is actually an alternate ID of mine. On Sakeriver too. I was using it just for kicks, you know, setting up an antagonism and seeing how things played out, and then Mike said how he didn't want any alts, and I felt like I had to keep up the illusion so nobody would find out. And it's really gotten out of control since then. I find myself arguing with myself even when I'm nowhere near the computer, and telling myself to drop dead, or that I'm stupid, whatever. It's gotten to the point where it's almost like there is a separate entity inside of me called "Blayne Bradley" now.
Primal Curve, on that page, was joking.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The summer I turned 19, I decided to live on my own, without parental help, going to school full time, working part time, and preparing for a mission. I thought I was capable of doing all that.
It turned out that I wasn't, partially due to a struggle with depression. My parents bailed me out, and it wasn't a big deal.
Before I tried, I didn't know whether I was capable of that or not.
I'm not ashamed that I wasn't capable of living and going to school on my own at that point.
If I had been capable of that, however, it would be something to be proud of.
Did you take a break from college to do your mission, or did you wait until after you finished? Just curious...I thought that the former was more common.
-pH
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I like rivka's avatar on that page...the tesseract.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That is a joke thread. It's on a forum where lots of members have mod powers and edit each other's posts to say things that the original poster would never say.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Um, if you look closer at that page, you'll see that just about every statement is over-the-top ridiculous.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, please. Now I'm a bully? Right. Well, it didn't take as long as I thought it would before you started name-calling people who dared to criticize you.
-------
quote:Exactly. I'm aware of the requisite components for success in eating a blackberry or driving an F-150 or graduating from college, have demonstrated all of them repeatedly in the past, and am therefore certain (i.e. I know) I can do it.
Again we come back to 'potential'. Potential doesn't do anything, ever. I could, if I wanted to, hike the Appalachian Trail with the same degree of success as mentioned above. I have not done so. Wouldn't it be presumptuous and silly of me to then say, "I'm just as good at hiking that trail as he is!"? Of course it would be.
Because potential doesn't hike trails, eat blackberries, pay bills, or ride motorcycles. It affords the possibility of doing so, no more, no less.
If I hired a porter to carry some of my gear on the trail, would I be fair to be upset with someone who actually hiked their own gear the entire way and claimed to be better at hiking than me? Of course not! At best I could say, "I coulda been better, I just didn't want to that time." And I may very well be speaking the total truth there.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Again we come back to 'potential'. Potential doesn't do anything, ever. I could, if I wanted to, hike the Appalachian Trail with the same degree of success as mentioned above. I have not done so. Wouldn't it be presumptuous and silly of me to then say, "I'm just as good at hiking that trail as he is!"? Of course it would be.
Of course. Reread my last post for what I have to say on "as good as."
It wouldn't be ridiculous at all to say "we can both hike the Appalachian Trail." Whether you've actually done it or not doesn't figure in.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: [QUOTE]Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: [qb] Did you take a break from college to do your mission, or did you wait until after you finished? Just curious...I thought that the former was more common.
I went to school for a full calendar year (3 semesters) and then went on a mission. After my mission, I went back to school.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I went to school for a full calendar year (3 semesters) and then went on a mission. After my mission, I went back to school.
If you'd be willing, I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say, if anything, about the contrast of school pre- and post-mission.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I went on my mission before college. I'm quite sure that if I had done the year of college before mission thing, that I wouldn't have graduated with the GPA that I did and might not have been admitted to the 4-year university that I was (I went to two years of community college and transferred).
This is not to say that that choice is right for all (and I turned 19 the November after I graduated from High School so it was more of a viable option for me), but rather to say that, for me, the contrast was huge. I was much more focused, disciplined and socially and intellectually mature post-mission and that led to a pretty decent academic career.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I was a much, much better student after my mission than before my mission. I went after I'd been in school for three years already, but I could still tell the difference.
It was a maturity thing. Work no longer felt like a sacrfice from the good things in life - it felt like a way to achieve and gain and earn the good things in life.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pre-mission, I didn't know what I was doing. More of my energy was spent at having fun, being social, and not being beholden to anybody for the first time in my life. I got OK grades, but the majority of what I took was 100-level introduction courses, trying to figure out what I wanted to do with my education and career. I didn't know what I wanted to study, as long as it wasn't engineering.
After my mission, I came back and declared a major in Mechanical Engineering. I was much more diligent with my schoolwork, and got exceptional grades, enough even to re-qualify for the insanely stingy requirements for BYU's basic full tuition scholarship.
That fist semester, my diligence caught the attention of one of my professors, and he gave me a job as a TA, which paid almost double what I had ever been paid before. I worked part or more time from then on, and went to school full time almost non-stop until I finished the coursework for my masters degree.
I was still extremely social, but my social life almost always took a back seat to my academic career, instead of the other way around as it had been before my mission.
Before my mission, I was pretty much an immature high school student taking classes at collge and having fun living away from home.
After my mission, I took my schooling seriously, had goals, and did what was necessary to accomplish them. I still had fun, but that was no longer the purpose of going to school.
I don't really know what you were looking for, eros. Does this answer your questions?
(BTW, I almost always see your name as "ersomaniac" in my brain.)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Zalmoxis & Javert: Thanks. I asked because although I'm not Mormon, I've taken a lot of time off because I didn't enjoy the academic part of college while I was there. I've been working for 4 years since then, and I've been thinking about going back to school. It's reassuring to hear that your outlook on education changed; it's what I'm hoping will happen to me if/when I start taking classes again.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't really know what you were looking for, eros. Does this answer your questions?
Yeah, that helps a lot (see previous post). Thank you!
quote:(BTW, I almost always see your name as "ersomaniac" in my brain.)
Most people do - I see "erso" as the abbreviation a lot more often than "eros."
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelagius: Blayne Bradley isn't this Blayne Bradley, is he?
quote:You know, I thought about it and decided I should come clean, but it's hard to actually write it out. Know what I mean?
Well, here goes nothing.
Blayne Bradley is actually an alternate ID of mine. On Sakeriver too. I was using it just for kicks, you know, setting up an antagonism and seeing how things played out, and then Mike said how he didn't want any alts, and I felt like I had to keep up the illusion so nobody would find out. And it's really gotten out of control since then. I find myself arguing with myself even when I'm nowhere near the computer, and telling myself to drop dead, or that I'm stupid, whatever. It's gotten to the point where it's almost like there is a separate entity inside of me called "Blayne Bradley" now.
Yeah, that's not really my writing style. It's clear and well-written. I tend to ramble and not really come to a point.
It was modded by someone. Heaven knows if I can remember what I originally wrote. It was probably a poop joke or something.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Something else I didn't mention: a lot of those changes started happening the summer that I started trying to pay for my education, which was before my mission. After my mission, I completely paid for my own schooling.
My mission had a large effect, but I think that so did paying my own way.
We tend to value more those things that we sacrifice for. When my folks were paying for it, I didn't value my schooling as much, and didn't get as much out of it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Something else I didn't mention: a lot of those changes started happening the summer that I started trying to pay for my education, which was before my mission. After my mission, I completely paid for my own schooling.
My mission had a large effect, but I think that so did paying my own way.
We tend to value more those things that we sacrifice for. When my folks were paying for it, I didn't value my schooling as much, and didn't get as much out of it.
I can see how that'd be the case. If/when I go back to school, I'd likely be paying for it myself (although I might be buying my first home instead--guh, what a choice to make).
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Would you argue that the average citizen of a first world country is less mature than the average citizen of a third world country?
As a matter of fact, I'd be tempted to say something like that, yes. Generally speaking it takes more self-reliance, toughness, etc., to succeed in the third world than it does in the first world.
That's really interesting. My first response to that was to say that I disagreed; that people in third world countries simply gained different skill sets than people in first world countries, and that the difference between them wasn't something that could be measured in terms of maturity at all. After thinking about it, though, I'm not so sure. The people that I've known who grew up in third world conditions have all possessed a certain ability to exploit the opportunities available to them that is fairly impressive. On the other hand, all of the people I know who grew up in third world countries are almost by definition going to be like that; they're the ones who had the resourcefulness and tenacity to extricate themselves from the circumstances they've found themselves in.
Back on the other side, looking at the families I know who have immigrated from third world countries, the children who were old enough to be able to be said to have grown up in third world conditions have that resourcefulness, whereas the ones who were very, very young when their families came over definitely don't.
In any case, I suppose that there's only so much to be gained by trying to extrapolate from the people I know whether or not this is the case; I'm basically drawing on ancecdotal evidence in doing so.
I guess that a starting place for figuring out whether or not this is the case would be to define maturity.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
For what it's worth, my dad loves hiring immigrants, because he finds that those who come to America as adults tend to be responsible, innovative, mature employees.
They work really hard to make the shop immigrant-friendly. They take steps to make sure the Muslims can keep their dietary laws in the kitchen, and they've scheduled break times so the Vietnamese can eat fish and rice (which smells very, very strong) without offending the noses of/inciting objections from the other employees. For those that want to learn English, the shop will pay for classes.
This is all because, in the owners experience, those from third world countries make fabulous employees.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Yes, there is. I've never claimed otherwise. All I'm asserting is that that support is there. Someone who needs (or gets) their family's help to survive is not a bad person. They're just not as self-sufficient and mature, in such things, as those who don't, that's all.
Rakeesh, I don't think you can blanketly state that those who are not 100% self-sufficient are less mature than those who are. You don't know what other experiences those people have had or the reasons why they are or are not self-sufficient. I'd also like to know how you're defining mature in these statements.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How about this? People who support themselves are more independent than people who rely on their parents to support them. Being independent is one component of self-sufficiency and self-sufficiency is one aspect of maturity.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It all depends on what maturity is, though. Is self-sufficiency an essential aspect of maturity? Can a person be mature if they are unable to take care of themselves without help from others?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
All general statements are flawed. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:People who support themselves are more independent than people who rely on their parents to support them. Being independent is one component of self-sufficiency and self-sufficiency is one aspect of maturity.
I think that's a pretty fair summary of the situation as long as people don't equate "rely on their parents" with "accept a financial gift from their parents."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: It all depends on what maturity is, though. Is self-sufficiency an essential aspect of maturity? Can a person be mature if they are unable to take care of themselves without help from others?
Your mom's mature.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: It all depends on what maturity is, though. Is self-sufficiency an essential aspect of maturity? Can a person be mature if they are unable to take care of themselves without help from others?
Now you're just arguing semantics.
*runs away*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: It all depends on what maturity is, though. Is self-sufficiency an essential aspect of maturity? Can a person be mature if they are unable to take care of themselves without help from others?
Sure. They could quite likely "make up" what they lack in self sufficiency by having an abundance of other components of maturity.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:People who support themselves are more independent than people who rely on their parents to support them. Being independent is one component of self-sufficiency and self-sufficiency is one aspect of maturity.
I think that's a pretty fair summary of the situation as long as people don't equate "rely on their parents" with "accept a financial gift from their parents."
If you receive regular financial gifts, you're almost guaranteed to rely on them unless you take steps to avoid it, such as putting the money away in a separate account so that it doesn't affect your spending at all.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
If you couldn't maintain your lifestyle without the money provided by your parents, then your lifestyle is still dependent on them, no matter what the money is called.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:If you receive regular financial gifts, you're almost guaranteed to rely on them unless you take steps to avoid it, such as putting the money away in a separate account so that it doesn't affect your spending at all.
I think as long as the financial gift is being applied towards something that you're both willing and able to give up at any moment, then I wouldn't view that as reliance. Although, yes, I do agree that regular financial gifts could very easily lead to reliance.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My husband and I are both grad students. We could take out student loans to make up for what we can't pay. I was completely willing to, filled out the paperwork and had decided that it was worth being in debt for the education. My father in law said us going into debt was silly when he had plenty of money just sitting around that he wanted us to have. I still consider my family independent and self reliant. We fill out all the student loan paperwork every year and if a lovely check doesn't arrive from family, then we would take out that debt.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: Oh the women's movement will love to hear that. "I am going to live with my family until I, or they, find someone to take care of me." Many of those cultures also have arranged marriages, is that how we want it to go?
The cultural bit about the children living in the parental home until marriage (probably depending on the cultural to some extent) is not just for women. It's also for men. My husband and his brother both lived in their parents home, and still do, despite both being married. It is a different culture, and it works. Well.
However, here (and in many places), the children are also expected to contribute to family finances, sometimes turning over significant chunks of their paycheques to the parents to pay for expenses.
And I'm not sure why arranged marriages were brought up. They tend to be just as successful as love marriages. Just as a side note.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
When Christy and I moved in together, her father responded by cutting her off from the college fund he'd taken out in her name. I'm still not sure that's legal, and we were furious about it at the time, but I understand why he did it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I paid for the first half on my college education, and my parents paid for the 2nd half. I was willing and happy to take out loans to pay for it, but my parents were willing and happy to pay for it. I thought that was a very nice gesture and was glad they could and would do that. I happily accepted, and the money I saved during college allowed me to buy my first house within six months of graduation.
If I'd wanted to go to grad school, my parents would've probably offered to pay for that. I wouldn't have let them, because I think that's too much to ask of them. I think the best reason to go to grad school is because of the much higher income potential that having a graduate degree offers. And so you should be willing to take the financial risk that accompanies that potential reward. Otherwise you end up with people floating through grad school on daddy's dime because they're not ready to join the real world.
I know about a dozen such people currently in grad school.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
It boggles my mind that there are parents who can pay for their children's schooling. Especially when you get to grad level. The thought of having so much money is incomprehensible. Man...
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
[sarcasm]Fight him for control of the house. You don't want to look like a sissy. If you win he moves out, and vice versa.[/sarcasm]
But seriously, fight him.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: No one is attacking you personally, and it isn't fair to try to shut down the discussion by declaring it is all about you.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: You're singling yourself out, pH. You are not the focus of the entire conversation and were not a focus at all until you made yourself one.
*resists saying something about how that's not very mature*
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: This is not all about you, pH. It's barely about you at all. Stop the histrionics and stop trying to pull all the focus onto yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: At this point, you're being the bully by insisting on the conversation all being about you. Let it go.
Kat, It seems to me that you were the one being immature here. And arrogant. And snooty. And condescending. And a bully. The only one making it all about ph was you - by saying it over, and over, and over again. Maybe you didn't realize you were doing this. Then again, maybe you did. I really hope it was unintentional, though, and I'm going to assume it was.
Either way, you owe her an apology.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*considers* Maybe for the *resists* comment. Just because Cicero does it, that doesn't mean it wasn't snarky. I take that one back.
For the rest, I was right. And rollanim, don't speak to me in that manner. You haven't earned the right and I'll let you know when you have. In the meantime, don't do it again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The only one making it all about ph was you...
Let's be fair here. pH made it all about her too.
Edit: Oh, and can we drop this bullying crap, please? Unless she's somehow incapable of defending herself against criticism, she's not being bullied, she's being criticized.
Claiming victimization doesn't make it true.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Roll, the ad hominems are inappropriate. Your choice to shout a pejorative label does not bring truth; it degrades the discussion and we deserve better than that.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
In what manner?
I have every right to come to the defense of anyone who I feel needs defending.
Also, I kindly ask that you not give me orders. Of course, I can't make you stop...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The only one making it all about ph was you...
Let's be fair here. pH made it all about her too.
Edit: Oh, and can we drop this bullying crap, please? Unless she's somehow incapable of defending herself against criticism, she's not being bullied, she's being criticized.
Claiming victimization doesn't make it true.
You admitted that you had a personal issue with me. You DID single me out, as I have pointed out several times. Your tone to me has been derisive and disrespectful because of some comment I made a very long time ago that you misinterpreted as "I'm too good to date poor people." I don't know where you're reading all this high-and-mighty stuff in my posts, but it's not there, no matter how much you wish it to be. And you have now dragged me back into the argument and singled me out yet again.
By the way, let me get this straight. If I defend myself, I'm making it all about myself...but if I don't defend myself when you single me out, then you ARE being a bully? I can't really win there, can I?
-pH
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"Unless she's somehow incapable of defending herself against criticism, she's not being bullied, she's being criticized."
The capability (or lack thereof) of defending yourself has nothing to do with whether or not a criticism of you is in any way insulting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your manner is insulting and your intrepretation was both biased and mistaken.
Mostly, I object to your use of personal insults. If you can't present an argument and must resort to flinging feces, then you are not defending anyone so much as degrading the discussion with your crap. Keep it to yourself.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Oh my, the irony.
I presented my point. I provided proof. I did not insult you. Every word I used can be accurately and definitionally applied to your own attitude. I simply reflected your own judgment back on you so that you could see how insulting you were being - whether you intended it or not.
And now you are attempting to do the exact same thing to me that you were doing to ph - forcing a label of intent on me based on your misguided character judgment. The thing is, you're the one committing these sins that you accuse others of. You personally insulted. Your interpretations were biased and mistaken. You resorted to ad hominems and pejorative labels. And you declined to provide proof of those judgments.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
kat, you were rather doggedly trying to get ph to listen to you. i don't think you needed to make the point more than once -- pearce assuredly read the post, and any additional ones were just uncharitable.
i think people are drawing a rather arbitrary line between what constitutes immaturity and maturity. does someone gain maturity merely by supporting herself succesfully outside of her parents' home? does one lose maturity if she had once supported herself successfully. but for extenuating reasons needed to move back home?
this entire conversation has annoyed me in ways I can't fully articulate yet. I was living on my own (with a roommate) for two years, and after losing that roommate, had to move back home. I'm frankly boggled at the notion that for two years I was more mature, and now i've somehow regressed to a state of immaturity. or that had i never moved out, i would be essentially unchanged in those two years.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Hey Kira. I assume you guys had a safe trip back home?
I'm in complete agreement with you here, on all points. I don't understand how anyone can draw such definitive conclusions about the relationship between maturity and independence.
And then when these conclusions are questioned, they are redefined so broadly that there really was no point in the distinction to begin with.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
We did, thank you! It was really nice meeting you guys, even if we barely had any time to chat! We were so overwhelmed by all the awesome talks to see and people around us -- like true nerds, we were basically star-struck and giggly everytime Dan Dennett or Richard Dawkins walked by!
and i definitely agree with your last point.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The discussion concerning me is inappropriate and you are both mistaken.
For the maturity issue, no one is saying that maturity equals the only good or that immature equals bad. There is, however, something more independent about taking care of yourself without help from anyone else. There's something less independent and less individualistic about relying on other people for fincing a place to live, paying the bills, making the living decicions - all of that.
Those who have never done that and refuse to find out - refuse to leave the nest - do have things left to accomplish in their life that they haven't done yet.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Leonide
The question is not wether you moved back home. The question is what did you do once you got there? Did you pay rent? Were you trying to find another place and move out?
When I changed schools I lived at home for about 4-6 months. After about 3 months I was ready, as were my parents, to move out. I was going to school full time and finally found a part time job that paid enough that I could afford rent and food and gas and such. My parents still paid for college.
Again, it is not just the living at home. It is the desires of the people involved. Are you looking at Mom and Dad as a way to cover for you? Do you think "Cool, Mom can cook and do my laundry while Dad takes care of my car." Or do you say "What can I do to get back out there on my own." or "How can I help my parents out for their helping me out."
msquared
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:There's something less independent and less individualistic about relying on other people for fincing a place to live, paying the bills, making the living decicions - all of that.
I can agree with less independent, but that's about it. I think suggesting anything else, such as being less individualistic, is an unfair assumption based on incomplete information.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I was going to school full time and finally found a part time job that paid enough that I could afford rent and food and gas and such. My parents still paid for college.
Why do you feel that receiving financial aid from your parents while living on your own is better than paying for your own expenses while living with your parents?
quote:It is the desires of the people involved. Are you looking at Mom and Dad as a way to cover for you? Do you think "Cool, Mom can cook and do my laundry while Dad takes care of my car." Or do you say "What can I do to get back out there on my own." or "How can I help my parents out for their helping me out."
I think it's dangerous to make assumptions about other people's desires and then judge them based on those assumptions.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
What assumptions are being made there? There are questions to be asked of oneself.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Oh yes, there are definitely questions to ask oneself. But unless the child or the parents have explained their desires or situation, it's unfair to make generalizations about maturity, individuality, parental abilities, parental concern for their children (such as, those parents obviously want their children to grow up to be failures), personal capabilities, and quality or success in life.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Actions speak volumes. If the kid is unemployed, does not look for a job, gets a job but does not show up, hangs around with his buddies all the time, parties, is always borrowing money from Mom and Dad, then I can tell where he is coming from. And I can not respect him for that.
Camus, the difference is that it shows effort. It shows that someone is trying to make a change or at least help out the situation. Except in certain situations, it shows laziness.
I don't think I ever said that the parents want their kids to fail, but I think there might be some who do. I said that the parents had failed. You can try to do something and fail. Not everyone is a great parent or even a good parent.
msquared
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:then I can tell where he is coming from. And I can not respect him for that.
That's fine. But what you are doing is drawing (possibly accurate) conclusions about people who display certain attributes, and then projecting those conclusions in the form of generalizations onto other people who may happen to have some attributes in common.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Or sometimes- the kids are just stupid.
My brother hasn't had very steady jobs since he started working (he's 22 now, started working when he was 16) because he just cusses his managers out and gets ticked off a lot.
I don't do that. At all. I go to work, I do my job and I come home (and I've only been working now for 15 months or so). Does that mean that my parents failed? Or that he has?
And- he started working when he was 16, I started my first job when I was 18. Does that make me more of a failure than him because he got a job when he was two years younger than me?
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
It meanse they failed with him and got it right with you.
He had a job at 16 but was not able to keep it or any job for any real period of time? Then he failed. For the most part being able to keep a job is a sign of being grown up. Cussing out the boss at multiple places shows he has a problem.
msquared
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I'll disagree with that. Everything in life comes down to choices- we all make our own choices. He makes his, and I make mine. Our parents influence- but they CANNOT make us who we are- if we are a failure, it doesn't mean that our parents failed- it may be true, it may not be true. The only clear thing is that when a person fails, that sole person is the one who failed. Everything else is speculation.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I have to say, I do dislike holding parents responsible for the actions of adult children. They are certainly part of it, and I think in the case of my aunt and cousin they are doing him a severe disservice, but in general, once kids have become adults, then the credit or failure largely belongs with the individual.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
When he could not keep a job at 16 becuase of his mouth and his parents failed to correct that behavior, they failed him.
Now that he is an adults, it is his own failure. He can change it if he wants. But do your parents allow him to live at home rent free? Do they enable him?
msquared
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How old are your kids, msquared?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
pH,
Just to be clear, I didn't misinterpret your remark. Perhaps you didn't intend to say what you did.
quote:You DID single me out, as I have pointed out several times.
Sure did, because you decided to wade into the argument, and I am not a fan of your point of view on this at all.
quote:By the way, let me get this straight. If I defend myself, I'm making it all about myself...but if I don't defend myself when you single me out, then you ARE being a bully? I can't really win there, can I?
Well no, you weren't making it all about yourself by defending yourself. I'm not sure why you think I'm going to buy that claim, seeing as how I was there and can go back and check.
quote:I'm 22 and am living in a house my father owns while I attend grad school. I do have a job, but I use that money for day-to-day expenses, not tuition. I don't consider my education any less worthwhile or my experience any less rewarding, and I don't think that I have anything less to be proud of than someone who cuts all financial ties with family at 18. I think that saying everyone needs to be out the door and independent at 18 is....well, rather offensive.
I said that I don't think I have anything less to be proud of. In other words, I am not less of a person than someone who becomes financially independent at 18. Nor am I less of a person than someone who serves in the military or gives birth.
There are plenty of other Hatrackers here whose parents support/have supported them while they are in school, and they are intelligent, well-adjusted, responsible people.
I don't know what your issue is with me personally, mph, but I think you need to let it go.
So you see, you were the one who dragged your personal situation into this discussion. And the first thing you did after that was start making a bunch of false claims-even if it was done subtly-about what people who disagreed with you were saying. No one said you or anyone else was less intelligent for getting parental support in the form of lots of free money. But somehow, that item got added into the list of things you were talking about.
You were the first person to make it personal, by claiming that mph was badmouthing you.
That's how you were making it about you. Putting your personal situation into the middle of things, but then insisting people don't talk about it-or if they do, they're being unfair and dogpiling. Insisting other people have a problem with you simply for making a potentially critical question.
You haven't been defending yourself, you've been doing a lot of whining about how people are talking about the personal circumstances you brought into the conversation!
-----------------------------
rollaimn,
quote:The capability (or lack thereof) of defending yourself has nothing to do with whether or not a criticism of you is in any way insulting.
Of course it doesn't. Didn't you listen? I said it had to do (or not) with being bullied.
quote:I presented my point. I provided proof. I did not insult you. Every word I used can be accurately and definitionally applied to your own attitude. I simply reflected your own judgment back on you so that you could see how insulting you were being - whether you intended it or not.
You didn't provide proof of anything. All you did was snip some quotes and then label them a laundry list of bad things.
------------------
Leonide,
I don't understand why people get so upset if you hint they're (in some ways) less mature than other people. Maturity insults went by the wayside with me a long time ago as far as stingers go.
[quote[this entire conversation has annoyed me in ways I can't fully articulate yet. I was living on my own (with a roommate) for two years, and after losing that roommate, had to move back home. I'm frankly boggled at the notion that for two years I was more mature, and now i've somehow regressed to a state of immaturity. or that had i never moved out, i would be essentially unchanged in those two years. [/quote]
I believe that maturity is essentially responsibility and self-reliance. It's not a word that has anything to do with being a good or bad person or not. Some of the most awful people in the world are extremely responsible and self-reliant, and some of the best quite the opposite after all.
I'll state it plainly, though: someone who for a substantial length of time (I know that's vague) permits someone else to be responsible for the financial and material burdens of their own day-to-day life is not as mature, insofar as the self-sufficiency part of maturity goes, as someone who does not permit someone else to do that. Even gifts have consequences, both in giving and in receiving.
quote:I don't understand how anyone can draw such definitive conclusions about the relationship between maturity and independence.
I don't understand how you can't. What is maturity if it doesn't involve independence? Does it just mean you don't color on the walls or jump in rain puddles?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:someone who for a substantial length of time (I know that's vague) permits someone else to be responsible for the financial and material burdens of their own day-to-day life is not as mature, insofar as the self-sufficiency part of maturity goes, as someone who does not permit someone else to do that.
So, stay at home parents are immature now?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not remotely. To be strictly material about it, they're giving a very expensive and important set of services for a long-term duration.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: All I'm asserting is that that support is there. Someone who needs (or gets) their family's help to survive is not a bad person. They're just not as self-sufficient and mature, in such things, as those who don't, that's all.
There is nothing about someone receiving financial support from their family that inherently makes them less mature. In fact there are plenty of situations in which it is less mature to not take advantage of family support.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And yet, someone else is responsible for the financial and material burdens of their own day-to-day life.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, Mr. Squicky. And that someone else is also letting someone else be responsible for a lion's share of the day-to-day time and effort of child-rearing, another enormous set of responsibilities.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Mr Squicky, if you met my mother you would see exactly how immuature a stay at home parent *may* become given the right conditions. I'm not saying that all stay at home parents do become so and hopefully most don't, but it *can* happen.
Now she's happy in her bubble life, and my dad is fine that she lives in a bubble. But reality doesn't necessarily live in the same sphere as my mother's bubble. Her ideas aren't challenged against true reality in the same way as they would be if she was an equal wage earner, and out in the workforce daily. Even as a child I ended up "parenting" her and protecting her more emotionally than she ever did for me.
AJ
P.S. I would characterize my mother's immaturity as the "naieve" variety of immaturity, rather than "selfish" immaturity. Although there are some components of selfishness to the former, if I had to choose between the two I would the former is preferable, and less permanently soul-scarring, than truly self-centered immaturity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Mr Squicky, if you met my mother you would see exactly how immuature a stay at home parent *may* become given the right conditions. I'm not saying that all stay at home parents do become so and hopefully most don't, but it *can* happen.
I'm not sure why you addressed this to me. Did I say something that disagrees with this notion?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I don't understand why people get so upset if you hint they're (in some ways) less mature than other people.
It is because we are using different definitions of maturity. Your definition is, imho, quite useless; a person that does less self-reliant things is less self-reliant than someone that does more self-reliant things. Your definition adds nothing to the statement because it means the exact same thing as the word you're trying to use it to explain. The rest of us are not treating it as a synonym.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Rollanim,
Do you know what it means to construct an argument? You do not present examples and let the examples speak for themselves.
Examples do not speak for themselves. They can interpreted in many different ways. If you wish for a specific intrepretation of the examples to be accepted, you have to present an argument.
A laundry list of pejoratives is not an argument.
You have done many things in this thread, but none of them was providing proof of anything. This principle applies to academic papers, cases, et. al. as well: if you assume that examples point to a specific conclusion without providing support for or even articulating that conclusion, you have proven nothing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And that someone else is also letting someone else be responsible for a lion's share of the day-to-day time and effort of child-rearing, another enormous set of responsibilities.
Remarkable. It is almost like depending on other people can actually be a more mature way of living than insisting on independent self-sufficiency and that your stated criteria of relying on someone else's financial and material support isn't necesarily a great metric for measuring maturity.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It is because we are using different definitions of maturity. Your definition is, imho, quite useless; a person that does less self-reliant things is less self-reliant than someone that does more self-reliant things. Your definition adds nothing to the statement because it means the exact same thing as the word you're trying to use it to explain. The rest of us are not treating it as a synonym.
My definition includes self-reliance and independence, and yes I've been focusing on those for some strange reason in this discussion.
Your defintion apparently does not include these things at all. And mine is the useless defintion?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:And that someone else is also letting someone else be responsible for a lion's share of the day-to-day time and effort of child-rearing, another enormous set of responsibilities.
Ah, so neither of them are mature because they allow someone else to take care of their responsibilities.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm not sure why you addressed this to me. Did I say something that disagrees with this notion?
Not necessarily but your question, to my perspective appeared to be answered with what was supposed to be a rhetorical "No". (I'm guessing you didn't mean it that way from your follow up) when to me, the answer is, "Well, sometimes, yes.... but not all the time."
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:My definition includes self-reliance and independence
No, my definition includes those things. Your definition limits it to those things.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Ah, so both of them are not mature because they allow someone else to take care of their responsibilities.
It's fun to be so often (deliberately?) misunderstood.
First of all, when I'm saying anything, I'm saying "not as", not simply, "not". If you've been paying attention, that would be abundantly clear by now.
And aside from that, your logic is nonsense: one party taking on a big bunch of responsibilities and yielding a different big bunch of responsibilities is what might be called a trade.
quote:No, my definition includes those things. Your definition limits it to those things.
*snort* Do you need me for this conversation? Because now you're telling me what my own definitions are.
Naturally for this conversation I'm focusing on the parts of the word that this conversation is dealing with!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Families: immaturity at its best!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Banna, People are able to be immature in nearly all situations. Rakeesh set up a categorical metric for immaturity. I showed people who fit into that category that cannot reasonably be said to be immature as a whole.
It is an important point that the ability to be in healthy, interdependent relationships is actually one of the higher demonstrations of maturity, such that insisting on independent self-sufficiency can actually be a mark of immaturity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh,
quote:I'm saying "not as", not simply, "not".
I see a mother or father who decides to depend on their spouse for financial and material support in order to stay home to take care of their kids as likely being more mature than one who insists that they need to have a job in order to maintain their self-sufficiency.
Being in situations where you need other people can be a sign of high maturity. For sure, being unable to allow yourself to be in situations where you need and/or depend on others is a sign of immaturity.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok, makes sense... I didn't understand where you were going.
I do think in, much of the under-30 crowd in this country, however, that independent self-sufficiency *can be* a useful general indicator of maturity.
I guess maturity is about learning how to choose to deploy one's resources (whatever they are) wisely for the maximum good.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Because now you're telling me what my own definitions are.
No, that's based on when you specifically said, "insofar as the self-sufficiency part of maturity goes." You were clearly restricting your usage of the word maturity to the self-sufficiency part of it, which is obviously not the same as maturity itself. So what's the point of using the word maturity at all when merely saying self-sufficiency will accomplish the same thing?
Edit: Actually, you did restrict your defintion to "essentially responsibility and self-reliance."
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Has anyone said that a stay-at-home spouse, especially the primary care giver, is necessarily immature because of the lack of a formal paycheck?
I didn't see that, and I saw the opposite articulated quite clearly.
You seem to be rebutting an argument no one has made.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I do think in, much of the under-30 crowd in this country, however, that independent self-sufficiency *can be* a useful general indicator of maturity.
As a general rule of thumb, yes. I'm objecting to it's use as a categorical statement. Ultimately, maturity is far too situational to be captured in absolute judgements such as that.
Also, it appears to me that there is a common idea in our culture that being an adult or mature means not needing anyone and that it should be an ultimate goal to not be beholden to anyone. I think this is a really terrible, destructive idea tied in with a lot of other disfunctional ideas our culture has about groups and individuals.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think that again the "capability" to be self sufficient is a key. And that there is the key element of choice involved, especially in spousal relationships, with divided responsibilities.
However, when a relationship becomes unhealthily co-dependent, be it spousal, or parent-child maturity deteriorates also.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
So... if being independent and self-reliant makes you more mature, does that mean marriage itself is a big step towards immaturity?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Families: immaturity at its best!
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Tres, you're missing a "from parents" in there.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think that self-sufficiency and independence are not and should not be part of the definition of maturity.
Lack of effort toward self-sufficiency and independence can however be a symptom of immaturity.
And I think that's an important distinction.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think that again the "capability" to be self sufficient is a key.
Just throwing out a situation here. Let's say that you ahve a 24 year old who is a trust fund kid. It is set up so that they will never need to work to have all the money they need to live confortably.
In this situation, I could see it as an admirable, mature decision for them to nonetheless develop marketable skills that, where they not guaranteed sufficient support, could still sustain them. However, I could also see them acknowledging their safety blanket and using their unconstrained position to engage in beneficial activities that would be very unlikely to yield much money. They wouldn't really develop the ability to be self-sufficient absent their trust fund, but I don't know that this would necessarily be an immature decision or way to live.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Mr S.
My kids are 16 (in two days) and 12. Both boys.
Maybe the gender has something to do with it.
msquared
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It seems to me that mature adults accept a great degree of dependence on other people - they have spouses, children, friends, employers who they rely upon fundamentally in order to live happily. And isn't the adult who proudly refuses to ask for directions being childish, rather than mature?
It seems to me that if there is a relationship between self-reliance and maturity, it is far more complicated than just saying "more self-reliant" = "more mature".
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Y'know. I think maturity has a lot to do with being able to perform less than pleasant tasks out of duty and responsibility for both oneself and others.
It is the shirking of this general concept of "duty" (or not having the concept in the first place... which may tie in to squicky's point of not needing anybody as a destrcutive idea), that is the real path of immaturity.
But, perhaps there is no real societal idea of "duty" anymore, which is why "maturity" then becomes so nebulously defined. I've been watching Ken Burns' WWII documentary, and duty was definitely one area that was far more clearly defined in that culture at that time.
And yeah a lot of society since has been reactionary perhaps to an overdeveloped sense of duty from that generation, and it is bit of a sine curve as humanity swings back and forth at different directions at different times.
AJ
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] pH,
Just to be clear, I didn't misinterpret your remark. Perhaps you didn't intend to say what you did.
quote:You DID single me out, as I have pointed out several times.
Sure did, because you decided to wade into the argument, and I am not a fan of your point of view on this at all.
quote:By the way, let me get this straight. If I defend myself, I'm making it all about myself...but if I don't defend myself when you single me out, then you ARE being a bully? I can't really win there, can I?
Well no, you weren't making it all about yourself by defending yourself. I'm not sure why you think I'm going to buy that claim, seeing as how I was there and can go back and check.
quote:I'm 22 and am living in a house my father owns while I attend grad school. I do have a job, but I use that money for day-to-day expenses, not tuition. I don't consider my education any less worthwhile or my experience any less rewarding, and I don't think that I have anything less to be proud of than someone who cuts all financial ties with family at 18. I think that saying everyone needs to be out the door and independent at 18 is....well, rather offensive.
I said that I don't think I have anything less to be proud of. In other words, I am not less of a person than someone who becomes financially independent at 18. Nor am I less of a person than someone who serves in the military or gives birth.
There are plenty of other Hatrackers here whose parents support/have supported them while they are in school, and they are intelligent, well-adjusted, responsible people.
I don't know what your issue is with me personally, mph, but I think you need to let it go.
So you see, you were the one who dragged your personal situation into this discussion. And the first thing you did after that was start making a bunch of false claims-even if it was done subtly-about what people who disagreed with you were saying. No one said you or anyone else was less intelligent for getting parental support in the form of lots of free money. But somehow, that item got added into the list of things you were talking about.
That's how you were making it about you. Putting your personal situation into the middle of things, but then insisting people don't talk about it-or if they do, they're being unfair and dogpiling. Insisting other people have a problem with you simply for making a potentially critical question.
You haven't been defending yourself, you've been doing a lot of whining about how people are talking about the personal circumstances you brought into the conversation!
For the nth time, I am not the only one who has cited a personal example in this thread. I don't know why you're behaving as though I am. I am the one that you singled out to criticize, despite the fact that there are plenty of other people here who have cited similar personal examples. I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but somehow it just doesn't seem to be getting into your head. Or perhaps you just don't want to admit what you're doing.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Maybe the gender has something to do with it.
Your posts suddenly make sense to me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I think that again the "capability" to be self sufficient is a key.
Just throwing out a situation here. Let's say that you ahve a 24 year old who is a trust fund kid. It is set up so that they will never need to work to have all the money they need to live confortably.
In this situation, I could see it as an admirable, mature decision for them to nonetheless develop marketable skills that, where they not guaranteed sufficient support, could still sustain them. However, I could also see them acknowledging their safety blanket and using their unconstrained position to engage in beneficial activities that would be very unlikely to yield much money. They wouldn't really develop the ability to be self-sufficient absent their trust fund, but I don't know that this would necessarily be an immature decision or way to live.
I think my last post on duty does play into it. I also believe that engaging in beneficial activities that would be unlikely to yield much money would *probably* develop and excercise many of the same mental "maturity muscles" (if you'll pardon the phrase) that if they suddenly *should* lose their money they would be capable of becoming self-sufficient with less floundering after the shock, than living more selfishly would.
AJ
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Is that all it took?
I also mean that the gender of the child might have something to do with expectations. Sons are expected to go out in the world and show that they can support a woman, or at least in olden times that was how it went. What father would want his daughter to marry someone who could not support her?
msquared
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: Is that all it took?
I also mean that the gender of the child might have something to do with expectations. Sons are expected to go out in the world and show that they can support a woman, or at least in olden times that was how it went. What father would want his daughter to marry someone who could not support her?
msquared
Oh, I know what you meant. It just clarified for me that you're a sexist, and putting your posts in context makes them much easier to understand.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
"Duty" is a terribly interesting word/concept for me, especially as how it related to maturity. Unfortunately, I'm currently out of time for a sufficient explanation of why.
[ October 10, 2007, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Heh heh heh. Duty.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:It's fun to be so often (deliberately?) misunderstood.
According to you, the individuals in a marriage are not self-reliant or self-sufficient because one doesn't provide for his own finances and the other doesn't take care of all of his responsibilities. Therefore, "insofar as the self-sufficiency part of maturity goes", neither are mature.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Are you even reading the same words? That is completely off from everything he said, and he actually spoke quite specifically saying the exact opposite.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
erosomniac
Name calling? I never said I agreed with the expectations, just that cultural expectations might have something to do with it.
And I would disagree with the expectations. I would hope I would hold a daughter to the same expectations I would a son. Since I am not likely to have any more kids, the point is moot.
I don't think I am a sexist. My wife does not think I am a sexist. What about my comments makes you think I am a sexist? Did any comment before I said "maybe gender has something to do with it" sound sexist?
msquared
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:and he actually spoke quite specifically saying the exact opposite.
Could you demonstrate where? It seems that a sizeable number of people aren't reading this the same way you are.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:That is completely off from everything he said
How is it off? Are people in a marriage self-sufficient? I'm pretty sure that they are, by definition, not self-sufficient. Therefore, using his scope of maturity, the self-sufficient part, they cannot be said to have that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Squicky -- you directly asked Rakeesh if he thought that stay-at-home parents are immature. His response was "Not remotely."
He has clearly and explicitly said that he doesn't think that stay-at-home parents are immature. Camus keeps insisting that he thinks they are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm kind of curious how many people who're offended by the association of maturity with financial independence are not currently financially independent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:According to you, the individuals in a marriage are not self-reliant or self-sufficient because one doesn't provide for his own finances and the other doesn't take care of all of his responsibilities. Therefore, "insofar as the self-sufficiency part of maturity goes", neither are mature.
Even though I'm pretty darn sure it was obvious, let me make myself perfectly clear: in a family where one parent stays home to tend to the home and family and the other parent goes out to earn money to pay for that work, there is an exchange of responsibilities, each very big.
One of those responsibilities is that of earning the money to get the things needed to live. The other responsibility is that of being a capable and present parent to watch over children and rear them.
OK? This is so obvious I'm having a difficult time believing I'm not being willfully misunderstood here. Both parents are starting at 0 in terms of maturity, responsibility, self-sufficiency, all of these subjective words (but some, it seems, think only my definition is subjective). One parent does not stay home and take care of their children. So that parent is now at, let's say, -100. But that parent does go out into the world to earn money to support a family, to support people beyond that parent's own needs. So, back to 0.
The same goes for the other parent as well. It's an exchange. Assuming they're good parents, neither of them would be doing either thing (either not earning a living, or not staying with their children), unless they had a partner they trusted implicitly to help them share overall responsibility.
This is not a difficult thing to grasp, camus. Not even a little bit. I think my meaning is now and has been very clear.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: erosomniac
Name calling? I never said I agreed with the expectations, just that cultural expectations might have something to do with it.
You spoke of cultural expectations in reference to your own children, and you were the one who brought this entire issue up in the first place.
quote:And I would disagree with the expectations.
Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
quote:I don't think I am a sexist. My wife does not think I am a sexist. What about my comments makes you think I am a sexist? Did any comment before I said "maybe gender has something to do with it" sound sexist?
I don't care whether you or your wife think you're a sexist; it's irrelevant. Your own words call you a sexist, over and over and over again. And in case that wasn't enough, you ended with this gem:
quote:What father would want his daughter to marry someone who could not support her?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, He categorized anyone who
quote:for a substantial length of time (I know that's vague) permits someone else to be responsible for the financial and material burdens of their own day-to-day life is not as mature, insofar as the self-sufficiency part of maturity goes, as someone who does not permit someone else to do that.
When asked about a group that fits this characterization, he said no, but has not withdrawn or ammended that characterization.
I'm pretty sure that camus is going off of what Rakeesh said in what I quoted above, which, as I said, he hasn't altered or withdrawn.
---
edit: I don't agree with how camus is addressing this, but it's not like he is at the opposite of what Rakeesh said.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Self sufficiency would, in my opinion, be one aspect of maturity.
In a marriage (or other similar partnership) where you are relying on someone else and someone else is relying on you, you are not self sufficient.
But other aspects of maturity - responsibility for others, dependability, putting the needs of the family before your own - for example would be enhanced.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, Could you reconcile that with your statement about financial and material dependence? They seem to be directly at odds.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
He explained about the sharing of responsibilities. He has, in fact, explained why the group you mentioned does not fit within that characterization.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could you show where?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You mean besides his last post?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I genuinely don't see how. Perhaps it's in my own belief that these things can be 'traded', since they have value. One person takes on a surplus of responsibility and is to some degree financially dependent for doing so. I'm only saying that that person is immature if you look at only the second part of that statement.
The person is doing a lot more in one area, and necessarily doing less in another. Suggesting that that returns things to a neutral state does not seem to be at odds to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Thank you for taking up my side of things in this, kat, but I don't mind discussing it with Mr. Squicky.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
erosomniac
Why did you only cut and paste the one sentence, taking it out of context?
Here is the quote "I also mean that the gender of the child might have something to do with expectations. Sons are expected to go out in the world and show that they can support a woman, or at least in olden times that was how it went. What father would want his daughter to marry someone who could not support her?"
I was talking about cultural expectations in the "old" days, you know like the 1950's or so and before. I was not talking about my beliefs in that statement, I was talking about cultural expectations.
Your blanket statement tells more about your hang ups then mine. You then say "Your own words call you a sexist, over and over and over again." What statements over and over again? This was the first time I brought up gender in almost 7 pages. I talk about my experiences growing up and with my son becuase those are all I have.
I reject you claim that I am a sexist. Asking a question does not make one a sexist. Especially in this context.
msquared
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You agree that stay at home parents
quote:[permit] someone else to be responsible for the financial and material burdens of their own day-to-day life
, correct? If so, I'm not sure how they get out of the second part, where you said that people do this are
quote:not as mature, insofar as the self-sufficiency part of maturity goes, as someone who does not permit someone else to do that.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: erosomniac
Why did you only cut and paste the one sentence, taking it out of context?
Here is the quote "I also mean that the gender of the child might have something to do with expectations. Sons are expected to go out in the world and show that they can support a woman, or at least in olden times that was how it went. What father would want his daughter to marry someone who could not support her?"
I was talking about cultural expectations in the "old" days, you know like the 1950's or so and before. I was not talking about my beliefs in that statement, I was talking about cultural expectations.
You can claim that the last line was spoken as a hypothetical, but I don't believe it for a second. And seriously, if you don't see how talking about "the gender of the child might have something to do with expectations" when all you've talked about is your own expectations and children, nothing I can say is going to highlight it for you.
quote:Your blanket statement tells more about your hang ups then mine. You then say "Your own words call you a sexist, over and over and over again." What statements over and over again? This was the first time I brought up gender in almost 7 pages. I talk about my experiences growing up and with my son becuase those are all I have.
I reject you claim that I am a sexist. Asking a question does not make one a sexist. Especially in this context.
Comedy gold.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
eros, I think you may want to take a step back. I don't think you're being fair to msquared and I think you may be crossing the lines of what should be acceptible.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: eros, I think you may want to take a step back. I don't think you're being fair to msquared and I think you may be crossing the lines of what should be acceptible.
Are you serious?
*looks around the thread*
No, really, are you serious?
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Are you trying to be obtuse? I had not brought up gender as a possible difference on how society might view the independence of boys versus girls until that post. All of my posts had been about my son and myself since that is my experience? I am a sexist becuase that is all the experince I have?
You see, you are now assigning motives to me that I do not have. I have not done that to you. I have been polite. I have not called you any names. I have not ridiculed what you have said, unlike your "Comedy gold" comment. It seems like you are turning to personal attacks for some reason.
Do you disagree that in the "old times" that fathers did not think that way? When men were supposed to ask the father for permission to marry the daughter before they ever asked the lady? When the question the father asked was "How do you plan on supporting my daughther?"
So in a case like this you find it more likely that I am a sexist instead of the chance that I just worded my statement poorly? No asking for clarification, just jump to conclusions?
msquared
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Oh, lucky for all of us that the sheriff is hear!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree with MrSquicky.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Remarkable. It is almost like depending on other people can actually be a more mature way of living than insisting on independent self-sufficiency and that your stated criteria of relying on someone else's financial and material support isn't necesarily a great metric for measuring maturity.
Yaaaaaaaay. It's great because it's true.
The idea that 'Someone who needs or gets their family's help to survive is just not as self-sufficient and mature as a person who does not' is just .. well, it's fundamentally dumb. It ignores the disparity of circumstances that a person can face (and the fact that these circumstances are not equally allowing of financial independance between all people), it ignores the fact that financial independance doesn't necessarily include more maturity, and it implies that structures like shared-responsibility marriages and closer-knit families are inherently 'less mature' than families that bunt their kids out the door at 18 on principle.
Also as an aside, man this place has a lot of cyclical personality feuds.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
kojabu
I think he means from parents.
msquared
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm kind of curious how many people who're offended by the association of maturity with financial independence are not currently financially independent.
I am not financially independent and I am not offended. I figure this is a good generalization, but doesn't apply to me.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: Are you trying to be obtuse? I had not brought up gender as a possible difference on how society might view the independence of boys versus girls until that post. All of my posts had been about my son and myself since that is my experience? I am a sexist becuase that is all the experince I have?
You see, you are now assigning motives to me that I do not have. I have not done that to you. I have been polite. I have not called you any names. I have not ridiculed what you have said, unlike your "Comedy gold" comment. It seems like you are turning to personal attacks for some reason.
Do you disagree that in the "old times" that fathers did not think that way? When men were supposed to ask the father for permission to marry the daughter before they ever asked the lady? When the question the father asked was "How do you plan on supporting my daughther?"
So in a case like this you find it more likely that I am a sexist instead of the chance that I just worded my statement poorly? No asking for clarification, just jump to conclusions?
msquared
You're either selectively reading or not reading my response at all and, if you seriously think you've been polite in this thread, likely operating in a different universe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So in a case like this you find it more likely that I am a sexist instead of the chance that I just worded my statement poorly? No asking for clarification, just jump to conclusions?
Um to be fair you were just outright saying things like "What father would want his daughter to marry someone who could not support her?" and it's sorta a leap to say that someone like erosomniac is actively in the wrong to fit them in with a rather persisting pattern that more than implies that you tie gender into disparate expectations of how people should be judged in accomplishments.
If you were going for hypotheticals maybe it's time to change your tact? Maybe go for 'actually' polite?
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
How have I not been polite? Have I called any one a name? Have I called thier belief wrong or stupid? I have read your resonses "Your are a sexist." "Comedy gold." They are not hard to figure out and seem pretty self explanitory.
Explain how I have been rude, please? Was I rude before you called me a "Sexist". If so, again, please show me where?
I disagree with your position and you disagree with mine. Fine, is that a problem?
msquared
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Hmm...I think the thread has completely degenerated. There are three different conversations going on, and all of them consist of name-calling and defending from name-calling and getting offended by imagined slights and being irritated by what looks like someone's deliberate offendedness and the topic is completely gone.
If it were a blog, the comments would be closed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Samprimary, would you at least agree with this part?
quote:Someone who needs or gets their family's help to survive is just not as self-sufficient as someone who doesn't.
Taking out the "mature" part, it would seem to be self evident.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Of course. The key issue I have is the inherent tie-in to 'maturity.' Taking it out makes it an entirely different statement, so ..
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Remarkable. It is almost like depending on other people can actually be a more mature way of living than insisting on independent self-sufficiency and that your stated criteria of relying on someone else's financial and material support isn't necesarily a great metric for measuring maturity.
Yaaaaaaaay. It's great because it's true.
The idea that 'Someone who needs or gets their family's help to survive is just not as self-sufficient and mature as a person who does not' is just .. well, it's fundamentally dumb. It ignores the disparity of circumstances that a person can face (and the fact that these circumstances are not equally allowing of financial independance between all people), it ignores the fact that financial independance doesn't necessarily include more maturity, and it implies that structures like shared-responsibility marriages and closer-knit families are inherently 'less mature' than families that bunt their kids out the door at 18 on principle.
Also as an aside, man this place has a lot of cyclical personality feuds.
I agree. People are all different, and their families, cultures and individual circumstances are all different, to a degree that a general definition of maturity is impossible and just leads to thread-thrashing. Someone press the reset button.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: How have I not been polite? Have I called any one a name?
Immature - over and over and over again. Edit: oh, and you called my parents failures! Does that one count, too?
quote:Have I called thier belief wrong or stupid?
Over and over again!
quote:I have read your resonses "Your are a sexist." "Comedy gold." They are not hard to figure out and seem pretty self explanitory.
quote:Explain how I have been rude, please? Was I rude before you called me a "Sexist". If so, again, please show me where?
Do you really want me to quote practically every single one of your posts in this thread?
quote:I disagree with your position and you disagree with mine. Fine, is that a problem?
Nope!
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The responsibilities of a child in his/her parents' home are rarely equal to or even approach the responsibilities of a co-parent who has children depend on him/her.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Ok here is a difference.
You called me a sexist. I never called you, personally, anything.
You are taking general comments about a topic and personalizing them.
I say "Kids who live at home after high school and sponge off Mom and Dad are immature" and for some reason you think I am talking about you?
Do you not see a big difference between what you said and what I have been saying.
And yes, I would like you to quote me. Show me where I was rude to a particular member on the level of what you were to me.
Show me where I said "Your belief is stupid/wrong."
msquared
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The responsibilities of a child in his/her parents' home are rarely equal to or even approach the responsibilities of a co-parent who has children depend on him/her.
Yet: it is not impossible that they could match or exceed these responsibilities. I could even use anecdote to show that.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Uh, yeah. That's why I said rarely.
The presense of an exception does not invalidate the general statement, which is generally true: the responsibilities of a child in their parents home rarely (occasionally, but very rarely) approach or equal the responsibilities of a parent in a home with children.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: Ok here is a difference.
You called me a sexist. I never called you, personally, anything.
You are taking general comments about a topic and personalizing them.
I say "Kids who live at home after high school and sponge off Mom and Dad are immature"
No, that's not what you said, at all. That's part of what you later tried to clarify your meaning to.
quote: and for some reason you think I am talking about you?
Do you not see a big difference between what you said and what I have been saying.
Yeah, you're right. There's a vast, immeasurable difference between you saying "You're stupid" and "All people fitting X characteristic are stupid." I shouldn't be offended by the latter. Clearly if you say something like "all Asian people are stupid," you aren't insulting any specific Asian person! No way! What's next? "All Mormons are cultists" isn't an insult to any individual Mormon? Try that one next; I want to watch the reaction.
quote:And yes, I would like you to quote me. Show me where I was rude to a particular member on the level of what you were to me.
I'm sorry, but if you don't have the energy to go back and read your own posts, what right do you have to expect me to go and do your work for you? I don't need to back up my claim; I think you're a sexist, period, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else that that's the case--not even you. If you're genuinely interested in figuring it out, I've already given you instructions.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Ok I am writing you off. You make a claim, say it is all over the place and then will not support it. You do need to back up your claim but I am not going to push it because I know you can't.
I have gone back and read my posts. I disagree that I was rude but obviously will never convince you of that.
As to the generalizations, without that we are unable to have general discussions.
Let me go back to my primary statement.
By the time kids graduate from high school, they should want to get out of the house as much as the parents should want them out of the house.
I stand by this. I think it is healthier, all things considered and knowing that there will be exceptions, for kids to get out on their own and grow away from the parents. Make mistakes, small ones hopefully. Learn what it means to be grown up and responsible. Learn all the sacrifices your parents made for you and are still making for you.
msquared
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Actually, you do need to back up your claim. At least, that's typically the way it works. The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof on them.
So it's not really fair to go, "You're sexist! Prove it? Nah."
Not that I particularly have an opinion on whether or not the accusation is correct.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Uh, yeah. That's why I said rarely
I know we're moving around the same point. My post wasn't a contradiction or anything. It's just me pointing out helpful additional stuff in regards to my main point.
quote:and for some reason you think I am talking about you?
.. um, you sort of, uh .. are, when you are making statements of judgement against groups/examples that necessarily include/represent them, it's a judgement of them. And you have actually done that.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Actually, you do need to back up your claim. At least, that's typically the way it works. The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof on them.
Typically, yes, but like I said: I have no interest in proving I'm right. I know I am, and it doesn't matter to me at all whether anyone else, including msquared, believes it - just that he knows I think it.
Edit: and further, I have provided proof. His unwillingness to go and look at it is not my problem, any more than it would be my problem were I citing a reference off this site and he refused to click the link.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
If you fall into the category I am talking about then I plead guilty. If you are a twenty something who is still living at home having Mom cook and do your laundry while you sit around the house all day and play video games, yes I am talking about you.
But if you pay rent, work full time or part time, go to school, or any other very good reasons for the exception, then no, I am not talking about you.
msquared
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
msquared, You started out talking about a much broader category than that. You seem to have narrowed it by dribs and drabs, but I can very easily see people thinking that you are still sort of holding to your original statements.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
msquared has been consistent the entire time.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I have been consistent in my view but have accepted other people protestation that I might have been too broad in my initial statement.
I still think it is the parents duty to raise the kids so that when the time comes, and in our culture that is normally after high school graduation and/or the 18th birthday, the kid should want to move out on his/her own. They should want to take that first step to independence away from the family. And the family, meaning the parents, should also want this.
msquared
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I have been consistent in my view but have accepted other people protestation that I might have been too broad in my initial statement.
I appreciate that. I agree much more with your current statement than the initial broad generalization. Although, I still don't quite understand why you feel that receiving financial aid from your parents while living on your own is better than paying for your own expenses while living with your parents?
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
It isn't always except when living on your own you are more responsible for your own place and your own personal upkeep.
I would much rather see someone have their parents pay for school while the kid learned how to cook, clean, do laundry, sew etc. Except, the kid should already know how to do all this stuff.
Maybe more life experince. Realizing that Mom and Dad will not be there to cover for you, standing over top of you telling you to clean your room.
msquared
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Ok, that makes sense. I still disagree about some of these issues, but I think I mostly agree with your overall explanation. At the very least, I don't find your clarified view to be offensive, just, um, different than mine.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:I have been consistent in my view but have accepted other people protestation that I might have been too broad in my initial statement.
I appreciate that. I agree much more with your current statement than the initial broad generalization. Although, I still don't quite understand why you feel that receiving financial aid from your parents while living on your own is better than paying for your own expenses while living with your parents?
Possibly, from my point of view, is that the former is a step toward being self sufficient (assuming that the financial aid is for school) while the latter isn't? Does paying expenses include rent?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Does paying expenses include rent?
Ok, here's my experience. I lived with my parents for two years of my college life. I worked full time while also attending college full time. I paid for my college, and other expenses, such as car, phone, internet, and even food. The only thing I did not pay for was rent and utilities. When I finally did move out, I still managed to be able to cook, clean, do laundry, the occassional sewing of a missing button, etc. (which I was also doing when I lived with my parents), so I don't think my parents did me a disservice by allowing this arrangement, and I don't really think I have missed out on any essential life experiences. I certainly do not think that my parents failed me in any way.
However, I can understand how a parent with different objectives may feel differently. I can also see how such an arrangement could potentially lead to self-reliancy issues for a child.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I lived at home during summer breaks from school. I didn't need to live at home. I had scholarships, and I had a summer job, so I probably could have been completely independent (and for the most part, when I was at school, I was). I liked staying at home and being with my family, though. I don't see a problem with that.
I also don't see my current situation as particularly immature. I'm staying with my parents for the semester while I work on recovering from a health problem. I don't see myself as less mature right now than when I was living in another state, far away from my parents. That situation may have required more maturity, but I didn't suddenly lose all that experience and ability just because I moved back home.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*chuckling*
My mom had a fool-proof come-home-to-live system for adult children.
Any of the five of us was welcome to live in the travel trailer in the backyard. No running water. No working bathroom. It did have lights and heat.
None of us tried that for very long.
*grin*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Now, I think there is potentially something wrong with a family where a (physically, emotionally, mentally capable) child is not doing his/her own laundry, basic mending, cleaning, and preparing at least half of his/her own meals by the time he/she is a teenager, as well as assisting in upkeep of communal parts of the home and preparation of family meals on a regular basis. I think that's part of my disconnect with a few posts here-- I assume that most people are pretty much caring for themselves and their living space by the time they are an adult whether that living space is shared with parents, roommates, or no one.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Now, I think there is potentially something wrong with a family where a (physically, emotionally, mentally capable) child is not doing his/her own laundry, basic mending, cleaning, and preparing at least half of his/her own meals by the time he/she is a teenager, as well as assisting in upkeep of communal parts of the home and preparation of family meals on a regular basis. I think that's part of my disconnect with a few posts here-- I assume that most people are pretty much caring for themselves and their living space by the time they are an adult whether that living space is shared with parents, roommates, or no one.
Of the kids I knew in high school, I can think of maybe 5 that lived to this standard.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I'm in high school and I can't think of any that meet ketchupqueen's standards. I only have two real chores in my house. (1) Load/unload the dishwasher (2) Put away my clothes.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
When I was in high school I did my own laundry (by the time I was 10, actually), cleaned my room, helped clean other parts of the house, prepared most of my own meals, however I did not mend nor did I prepare family meals. The reason for that is because I am horrible at sewing, and made it very visible, and my parents rarely prepared "communal meals" either. We all ate at different times, more often than not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I did my own laundry and basic mending and cleaning and preparing (e.g., buying, cause I couldn't cook worth crap) and yeah assisting in 'upkeep' when I was 15 years old but this is because I was a SPACE ALIEN who did not even remotely resemble normal teenagers, who do not do ANY of these things (and of course indignantly assert their right to being given cars in the process)
Then by the time I was 18 this strangely reverted. We had a maid, we didn't even clean our own communal spaces anymore. I let other people cook for me! My room degenerated into a nest of clothes. Doing laundry? Peh. Don't make me laugh.
The moral of the story is that you better hope your kid is a slacker as a teenager because otherwise they'll blind you with fake progress and then they'll turn out 'mature' like me!
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
This has been a very interesting thread.
I'm 33, married, with a baby on the way, and still gladly and gratefully accept gifts and money from my parents, and to a greater extent, my in-laws. (Sometimes fairly substantial gifts.) My husband is an only child and they'd rather see him enjoy the money now instead of after they're gone. I'm perfectly happy with this situation, and so are they.
I'll happily accept being less self-sufficient (or being less mature, whatever people want to call it) in return for these benefits.
In fact, I've had this discussion with a close friend many times. We own our own homes, pay our own bills, etc. etc., but we also know that in the case of a true financial crisis, our parents would help us out. (Rescue us. Bail us out. Whatever.) So we're not really self-sufficient in the way that some people have to be. And I'm not only OK with that, I'm DELIGHTED about it. I'm very fortunate.
And in return, I also expect to do the same for my children. In the other direction, my husband and I expect and intend to do what it takes to care for our parents as they get older--just like my parents are doing for their parents, just as my in-laws did for theirs.
So, to answer TomDavidson's much earlier question: I'm mostly financially independent, but not totally. I know that the safety net is there, and in the meantime, my parents and in-laws sometimes buy me things/ give me money for things I couldn't otherwise afford. I don't find the definition offensive. Doesn't bother me a bit.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm actually surprised more kids don't live like that.
That's the way it was in my house, and all my friends' houses growing up. My husband did all of that except assisting with the cooking of family meals (his mom was kinda weird about her kids cooking for the family.) His friends were the same way.
Perhaps it depends on the kind of community you grow up in?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Now, I think there is potentially something wrong with a family where a (physically, emotionally, mentally capable) child is not doing his/her own laundry, basic mending, cleaning, and preparing at least half of his/her own meals by the time he/she is a teenager, as well as assisting in upkeep of communal parts of the home and preparation of family meals on a regular basis. I think that's part of my disconnect with a few posts here-- I assume that most people are pretty much caring for themselves and their living space by the time they are an adult whether that living space is shared with parents, roommates, or no one.
Whereas I find it absolutely bizzare that any member of a household would be doing their own laundry separate from the family laundry. And why would anyone be preparing at least half of their own meals separate from the family?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Now, I think there is potentially something wrong with a family where a (physically, emotionally, mentally capable) child is not doing his/her own laundry, basic mending, cleaning, and preparing at least half of his/her own meals by the time he/she is a teenager, as well as assisting in upkeep of communal parts of the home and preparation of family meals on a regular basis. I think that's part of my disconnect with a few posts here-- I assume that most people are pretty much caring for themselves and their living space by the time they are an adult whether that living space is shared with parents, roommates, or no one.
Whereas I find it absolutely bizzare that any member of a household would be doing their own laundry separate from the family laundry. And why would anyone be preparing at least half of their own meals separate from the family?
When my boys were teens, I had them do their laundry separately -- partly as training, partly to reduce my own load, partly because their stuff was gross . They learned fast that if they wanted something done Monday morning, well, they not only had to remember to do it, but they had to remember that they weren't the only ones that might need stuff done. They collaborated in those circumstances readily. It was all good!
The meals, I figured breakfasts and lunches were being talked about more than family meals -- and times when a teen got back later than dinner, etc. (Even then I guess leftovers would be, well, left over.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, that might not apply if family meals three times a day were the standard. But in families (like those in my area) where breakfast was usually eaten alone and lunches were packed and taken to school, teens were expected to be able to get their own breakfast, pack their own lunches, and get their own snacks. Dinner was the meal eaten as a family.
And family laundry? We each generated enough for about one load of whites, one load of colors a week. We did our own. I did know friends' families that collected it all together; the teens in those families were expected to do at least 2 loads a week. My mom, my brother and I all took turns washing all the sheets and towels, etc.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ah. We sorted the colors into much more detailed divisions. And ate school lunches in junior high and high school. And cereal for breakfast, which I suppose counts as "preparing" a meal, although I wasn't thinking of it that way.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Until we moved to Hawaii, our laundry was more or less communal, mainly because of the way it had been set up from the time my children were small. Once we moved here, we all started doing our own laundry.
As far as meals, when we were all together as a family, each of my 4 oldest children (ages about 10 & up) had an assigned night to plan, prepare and clean up dinner. I helped quite a bit with the 10 & 12 year olds, but my teenagers were certainly expected to prepare the meal on their own. They usually got the nights I had classes (when I was in school). I always made breakfasts (never cold cereal... I've never been able to stomach that stuff), they had school lunch most of the time, and on weekends everyone made their own lunches for the most part.
Now that it's just me and my youngest daughter, things are much less structured, but she prepares dinner once or twice a week usually and does all of her own laundry.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:What father would want his daughter to marry someone who could not support her?
This is not necessarily a sexist statement. In fact, If I had a daughter I would probably not be happy if she married someone who could not support her. I would be fine, though, if she and her spouse* chose an arrangement in which she supports the family financially.
* Note the gender-neutral term. Wouldn't want to be accused of heterosexism. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Do any of the people here who actually did receive or are receiving financial assistance from their parents think that this has harmed them in the long run?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do any of the people here who actually did receive or are receiving financial assistance from their parents think that this has harmed them in the long run?
I don't mean to imply anything by this, but: why do you think they would necessarily be able to tell?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't necessarily. But for instance, if you wanted to know if sending your kids to a certain school would help them, you'd most want to ask people who went to that school, no? They may not know for sure what the true effect was on them and they may not know for sure how they would have turned out otherwise, but if they all seem to be happy with the school they were sent to, even afterwards, I think you are hard pressed to be too angry at the parents for sending them there.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I feel bad for you, Blayne. I don't think any parent has the right to punch his or her kid except in self-defense (and vice versa). I'm not commenting on the rest of your situation.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
In The Millionaire Next Door, the researchers discovered that adult children who recieved financial help from parents were considerably less like to ever gather wealth (as in savings, not yachts and furs) of their own or ever achieve financial independence.
The more help and the more regular the help ("gifts" that are akin to bonuses every year), the less likely the adult children were to become financially stable on their own.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:the researchers discovered that adult children who recieved financial help from parents were considerably less like to ever gather wealth (as in savings, not yachts and furs) of their own or ever achieve financial independence.
While I don't necessarily doubt that this is often times true, I do wonder about the other factors that may or may not have been considered in this simplified [edit] relationship.
Edited out "cause and effect" since it really isn't stated as such.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The seemed pretty thorough. There are lots of resources out there.
Google "economic outpatient care".
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Ok, I'm looking at some of that now. My initial guess, though, is that the problem isn't as much the bailouts as it is the parents failing to teach their children about money, budgeting and investing in the first place. The bailouts are just an extension (or perhaps symptom) of the initial problem.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Sure, that makes sense. It isn't supported by the research, though.
THat wasn't the relationship that was found. The variable that made the difference was whether or not the handouts existed, not whether or not money and investing and budgenting was discussed in the home.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Well, if the children had been taught financial responsibility to begin with, they may not have needed the bailouts in the first place. Thus, it's possible the bailouts are perpetuating an existing parental problem, not the source of the problem.
That is why the authors say, "Don't talk about your wealth or promise to leave a large inheritance" instead of "Don't leave your adult children a large inheritance because then they will no longer be able to be financially independent."
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It wasn't only bailouts. It was handouts. It money from parents not directly applied to costs of higher education.
Money from parents to adult children, especially at regular intervals, make it considerably less likely the adult children ever achieve financial indpendence or wealth.
In other words, it doesn't matter how much you talk to your kids about living within their means if you simultaneously supply with them with a way they don't have to. The actions speak louder than the words.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:In other words, it doesn't matter how much you talk to your kids about living within their means if you simultaneously supply with them with a way they don't have to.
And I'm not completely convinced of that. Of course, I haven't read the book, so I really can't comment any further on the subject without knowing what the book actually says.
quote:Money from parents to adult children, especially at regular intervals, make it considerably less likely the adult children ever achieve financial indpendence or wealth.
I do agree with this, though.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I have to say, the book is pretty convincing. You should check it out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It really is. I recommend it as well.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I assume that means significant financial gifts. A check for $25-100 every birthday isn't going to jepordize anyone's financial independence is it?
Also, did the study look at all at what happened when/if the gifts were stopped? Because someone who received a significant financial gift every year until their parents died and then inherited a pile of money would never be financially independant, by definition. But that says nothing about whether they have the skills to support themselves or could have lived quite happily without the gifts. (Or was it saying that people in that situation don't properly manage the money that they do earn+receive, save for retirement, etc.?)
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh, I think Christmas presents of a $100 doesn't count as "economic outpatient care."
Christmas presents of $1000 might. $10,000, definitely.
quote:(Or was it saying that people in that situation don't properly manage the money that they do earn+receive, save for retirement, etc.?)
quote:In The Millionaire Next Door (my review), authors Thomas Stanley and William Danko devote two entire chapters — 69 pages! — to “economic outpatient care”, the substantial financial gifts some parents give their adult children (and grandchildren). Their research indicates that “the more dollars adult children receive, the fewer they accumulate, while those who are given fewer dollars accumulate more”.
The authors note that some forms of economic outpatient care, including subsidizing an education and funding business ventures, have a strong positive influence on the recipients. (They teach the children “how to fish”.) But most financial assistance simply creates a cycle of dependence:
What is the effect of cash gifts that are knowingly ear-marked for consumption and the propping up of a certain lifestyle? We find that the giving of such gifts is the single most significant factor that explains lack of productivity among the adult children of the affluent.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It sounds like these authors are possibly switching correlation with causation, based on how you've described the research. Isn't it just as possible that the reverse is true: that not knowing how to save money properly causes people to more often ask their parents for money?
Also, the suggestion that "the giving of such gifts is the single most significant factor that explains lack of productivity" is not supported by the study. Productivity is how much you produce, not how much you save. The study is looking at how much they accumulate wealth. You can produce just as much or more and yet still accumulate less wealth if you are also consuming more. Although they talk about "productivity" it seems like the authors' problem is really about overconsumption, not underproduction.
[ October 11, 2007, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Again, very interesting. I definitely stepped back and evaluated our savings habits in light of this. (That is--we do receive what I consider substantial gifts from our in-laws, although they certainly aren't in the $10k/ year range.)
And then I remembered that they have changed how they give us gifts. They used to give us a check and say, "Use this to buy XXXX item that needs to be replaced in your house." But we would sock it into savings, shop around (sometimes for years...it really did take us 2 years to pick out and buy a new sofa), usually get the 6-months-same-as-cash deal, and pay for the item out of our income. Now they tell us to go BUY whatever it is, and they'll send us a check. :)The savings habits we learned from them frustrate them when they want to give us a gift.
So in my individual and anecdotal experience, these kinds of gifts haven't overcome the basic financial values my husband and I learned from our families growing up: save save save save save.
It could possibly be the difference between being the offspring of middle-class families who are now well-off because of careful saving, and being the children of the truly affluent. But I also haven't read the book.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Tres: Have you read the book? It's clear that isn't what they are doing.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
No, I just read what you've provided. How is it clear that that isn't the case in their research?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
They describe their methods.
Which I don't remember the methods - however, I know it wasn't that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It could possibly be the difference between being the offspring of middle-class families who are now well-off because of careful saving, and being the children of the truly affluent. But I also haven't read the book.
It addresses that issue in the book.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I know there have been times in the past I was more "dependent" financially on my mom and sister than I should have been (especially when I was first a single parent, and my kids were pre-school). Although, as a teen, I did move out of the home at 17 and live totally independent for awhile, albeit leaning heavily on savings I'd accumulated up to then (which didn't last long - I learned a LOT about how expensive it is to live alone).
However, now my mom is retired and financially dependent on me. Somehow that makes me feel vindicated (is that the right word) for the times I needed to lean on her. Now it's my turn.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:It addresses that issue in the book.
So what does it say? *interested*
(If you have time. Yes, I can go read the book myself but I'm not going to have a chance this afternoon. )
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I've been reading this thread and it's been very interesting.
Does anyone else know a young couple that has had everything provided to them by their parents? I've known a couple of them, and while I'm sure it's not the same for every couple out there, it's been shocking to see their behavior and compare it to their financial situation. One couple in particular has been married for five years (they were married when they were both twenty) and they have never had to save to buy a thing. Instead of encouraging them to save their money, both sets of their parents have insisted on furnishing everything they ask for, including their furniture and new cars. (The old cars were in good condition.) The man's father gave the son access to his mutual fund earlier than planned in order to allow the son to pay for his college tuition, and he bought him a new computer as well. The woman's parents even pay the couple's cell phone bill. As a result, most of the couple's money goes to vacations, video games, and guitars. As far as I know, the man never finished his first semester of school.
All of that could just be attributed to very loving and generous parents. But the behavior of the couple is very odd. Neither of their personalities has matured beyond the high school level. It's difficult for me not to correlate the behavior of the two with their complete dependence on their families. But I'll admit that there have been times that I was extremely jealous of their nicely furnished home and new cars. Maybe it's colored my view. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I've never known a couple like that. But I agree, that's rather shocking and appalling.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think what you are providing for and why is important. That article pointed out that paying for education and business start ups has a different result then just gifts. So, while my father in law pays for a lot of our stuff right now, we know it is for our education, not enjoyment. Before my husband went back to school, when we complained about not being able to afford a bed (we slept on an air mattress on the floor), he laughed and talked about the joys of being young.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
We slept on an air mattress for two years. Actually, we had one twin air mattress and one super-hard foam "mattress" that we squished next to each other. We took turns using the air mattress.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and I'm staying at home going to college. I plan to continue this until I can get on my feet with a job and have enough assets that I can support myself. I hope to complete this by the time I get my associates and I plan to transfer. Sometimes though it's not the case, for example Blayne's position.![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
I assume you guys had a safe trip back home?![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)