I just saw this film last night, and I found it so ridiculous!
The plot is that a black man and a white woman fall in love and want to get married, and their families have to deal with their attitudes about interracial marriage.
Through most of the movie, the main problem anyone has is the black/white thing.
More importantly though, everyone in favor of the marriage acts like the *only* reason anyone could not give their blessing would be because they were racist, or romantically dead inside.
However there were several major, big-time problems with the proposed marriage:
1. They only met 10 days ago. 10 days on vacation in Hawaii, a whirlwind romance, and they now want to get married. Not only that, they want to get married in another week's time.
2. They arrive in San Francisco and tell her family. They have one day to get to know their future son-in-law, John, then he will fly to Geneva, and their daughter, Joanna, will leave a week later to get married, in Geneva.
3. Joanna believes her parents will have no problem with the marriage, but indicates she's going to do it regardless of what they say.
4. John, however, privately tells her parents, without her knowledge, that he doesn't want any problems in his life so that if they don't give them a full blessing with no reservations, he won't marry her.
5. John is 37, she is 23. He is 14 years older than her. He has been married before and had a son; they were both killed in a car crash.
6. They later decide that Joanna will fly with him to Geneva that night, instead of waiting a week.
7. John's father expresses his disapproval and John responds with a speech which includes this: "You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs!"
Now, I don't care that they are an interracial couple. Actually I kinda like to see interracial couples, just because the contrasting skin tones make for a nice aesthetic.
So from a 2009, not-raised-to-care-about-race perspective, the racial issue was a complete non-issue.
Putting myself in the father's place, I would have zero problem with my daughter marrying a person of another race. I wouldn't even have the initial shock/surprise that everyone seemed to have.
However, I would totally have objected to the marriage!
It's ridiculous to make a lifelong commitment after 10 days. There's just no reason to. What's the rush? Seriously, why does it have to go so quick? And to only get to meet the guy for a few hours... I could *never* give my blessing for my daughter to marry a man I'd only met for a such a short time.
Then there's the fact of the age difference. I'm 8 years older than my wife and while dating it didn't seem to matter but it actually does, sometimes. Not necessarily a lot, and not necessarily enough to be against a marriage, but it *could* be relevant, and 14 years is likely to be even more relevant.
Of special concern is the fact that John is giving an ultimatum to the parents that Joanna doesn't even know about! And they know she doesn't know... that he's doing this behind her back, saying he'll not marry her if they don't approve because he doesn't want that problem in his life... to me that would indicate he didn't love her that much or was too selfish to be worth marrying. I'd definitely object on that ground if no other.
I was horrified at the way John talked to his father. Obviously Joanna's parents weren't there for that. Sure, John's father had racial problems, but have some patience, he'd only know for about an HOUR that his son was marrying a white girl. And even if he didn't have any problems with white people, he had a point that it was going to be a big deal to a lot of people. At that time, it was illegal in several states (though thankfully overturned by the Loving case before the movie actually hit theatres).
Give the man some time to adjust. If he's a good man, he'll come around and give his blessing, but it'd ridiculous to expect that in an hour or two. Again, the rush of the marriage (for no good reason from the pov of the parents) ends up putting completely unnecessary pressure on the parents.
(By the way, after John's horrifically disrespectful speech to his father, his father never utters a single word for the remainder of the film.)
It's also pretty selfish to get married in another country when you know your parents would really like to have a nice wedding and such that they are other friends/relatives could attend, without a pretty good reason. A wedding ceremony is a part of the community. They did at least belatedly invite the parents to fly to Geneva for the wedding.
The worst part of the film for me was that all these completely valid reasons to object to the wedding were either not addressed at all or only given lip service, and those in favor of the marriage had nothing but pity or contempt for those who weren't, painting them as bigots or being against love or something.
At the end, Spencer Tracy's character Matt gives a big speech which ends with approving of the marriage. We, the audience, are obviously supposed to have been on the side of the "young" lovers all along and therefore to be happy about this.
To me, it just seemed sad that Matt was so bullied by everyone and distracted by irrelevancies that he lost track of the many and major reasons to object.
I don't care what the guy looks like, if my 23-year old daughter comes home from vacation for a few hours and informs me she's leaving that night to fly to Geneva and marry a man she's known for 10 days, I will object. I don't care if he's got the cure for cancer in his pocket, there is no reason to do it that quickly!
Unless you simply don't care how other people feel. In which case, why are you even asking for a blessing in the first place?
Now, from a 2009 perspective it wouldn't make sense to object on the grounds of race. How about in 1967? What if you, yourself, had no problem with a mixed-race marriage, but knew that 100 million people in the country did, and they'd face a lot of persecution for it? Might you object to spare them that?
For a "we've known each other 10 days" relationship, definitely. Joanna might have been raised not to care about race, but that's easy when you're in the majority race. We really have no idea how she'll react when she and her husband go to a predominantly black location and she ends up on the receiving end of racism and hate.
She's probably never experienced that and probably thinks it's only an issue for John, not her. Or she might weather the persecution just fine, but the point is we don't know, and there's no way they do either, yet. Joanna displays remarkable naivete throughout the film so I have little doubt it's never occurred to her.
If they both know the score, and know it'll be an issue they have to deal with, and want to get married anyway because they love each so much, then fine. But they didn't have time to have reached that level of thought.
Of course, "I don't have a problem with race, I'm just worried about how you'll be treated by other people" is frequently just code for actually having a problem with race. But it doesn't have to be... I think, under certain circumstances in history, it'd be right to voice misgivings because of that.
When I was 17, I asked my dad what he'd think if I were to marry someone of another race. He said he wouldn't care but he wouldn't advise it because of society's problem. But that wasn't code, because even just a few years down the road society had changed, and when I was in a long-term-relationship with a girl from another race, he didn't have any problem with it at all. I think I only caught flack from "society" one time in the form of some random guy on the street, and that was it.
At least in the social circles I move in, it's a non-issue today. I was hoping this film would be a good exploration of 60's racial issues, since I wasn't around then. Instead, the racial issues were mentioned but not really discussed, and the myriad of reasons the marriage was a bad idea, at least at that time, were glossed over.
In all, I was very disappointed. It must go to show how deeply racial perceptions were at play in 1967 so that people were so focused on the racial issue that they didn't pay attention to everything else.
And, it did have one of the all-time best film scenes ever, when Katherine Hepburn's character fires her assistant for being a racist busybody that calls her daughter stupid:
"Now I have some instructions for you. I want you to go straight back to the gallery - Start your motor - When you get to the gallery tell Jennifer that she will be looking after things temporarily, she's to give me a ring if there's anything she can't deal with herself. Then go into the office, and make out a check, for "cash," for the sum of $5,000. Then carefully, but carefully Hilary, remove absolutely everything that might subsequently remind me that you had ever been there, including that yellow thing with the blue bulbs which you have such an affection for. Then take the check, for $5,000, which I feel you deserve, and get - permanently - lost. It's not that I don't want to know you - although I don't - it's just that I'm afraid we're not really the sort of people that you can afford to be associated with."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You are obviously romantically dead inside.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
Don't take this the wrong way (because I actually mean it in a good one), but I didn't even have to read your entire post to agree with you based on your seven points alone. The other reason I didn't read the whole thing is that I'm sick and my head feels like it's going to explode anyway, but that's neither here nor there.
I agree that there seem to be HUGE issues that have everything to do with making unwise and imprudent decisions and not a lick about racism.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
That's okay, I know it's long, but I had to vent.
And Porter, that's true, but doesn't invalidate my post.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
This is clearly a movie that doesn't translate well after 40 years. You do need to consider that racial prejudices aren't the only thing that have changed in that period of time. Women were on the average 20 when they married in the 1960s, now the average marrying age for women is aver 25. I haven't found any statistics on it, but based on my associates in that age group it seems that it was far more common in the 1950s and 60s for women to marry an older man. It certainly wasn't uncommon for a widower to marry a woman who was much younger. It also seems that courtships and engagements were significantly shorter (though 10 days would have been very short even then). Its worth noting that living together before marriage was highly unusual and quite scandalous at that time.
At any rate, all those things that bother us today, would likely have been somewhat less bothersome 40 years ago while the racial issues that would have been highly controversial at the time are today much less significant.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You make interesting points. I agree it's a bad idea to get married after knowing each other for 10 days. Marriage is hard work.
But, Sidney Portier's character made some good points when he responded to his father saying he worked all those years for him. He said something along the lines of, "That's what you're supposed to do!" I agree totally.
But yes, I don't think I'd approve of a future daughter marrying an older man she'd only known for days.
But if it were me... Since I am a mature adult I can do what I want.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What The Rabbit said. A whirlwind courtship was much more common. This is especially true in the movies - lots of movies have weddings or at least proposals after fewer than ten days.
And to be honest, I can't watch that last big speech by Spencer Tracy without tearing up. I'm tearing up even thinking about it.
The movie isn't about the young couple - they provide the conflict, but it isn't about them; it is about the Tracy and Hepburn characters.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
And about Tracy and Hepburn. That was their last time on film together, after a 25 year romance. He died a few weeks later. I always feel like when he gives that speech, he's talking to her, and not her character.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hence the crying. And he does it while remaining perfectly in character. Art.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I agree Spencer Tracy did a magnificent job with his part.
As for whirlwind romances, I don't think 10-day romances were acceptable back then. Anyone who was actually an adult in the 60's care to weigh in?
Yes, whirlwind romances are more common in the movies... but out of place in this one. I said to my wife, "unless they spent their 10 days in Hawaii on a dangerous adventure for lost native gold or something and fought pirates, then it's too soon."
In other words, with an adventure movie we let slide the fact that the people involved are spending most of their time adventuring and aren't really courting properly. But that's because the romance isn't the focus.
This movie asks us to take a look at whether a marriage should be objected to or not... very different.
And about the Hepburn character... while I loved how she fired her assistant, I thought it was dreadful how she told her husband she wouldn't be on his side if he objected... even though he'd have been *right* to object. She was going off pure emotion and he was right: it wasn't in the best interests of their daughter.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:But, Sidney Portier's character made some good points when he responded to his father saying he worked all those years for him. He said something along the lines of, "That's what you're supposed to do!" I agree totally.
But it's kids' job to be properly grateful.
I have a daughter. I work hard for her, and I agree, it's my job. I made her, I'm responsible for her, it's not magnanimous for me to take care of her, it's just my job. However that doesn't mean she shouldn't be grateful.
And that takes a sharp turn when they come of age... when a child is 18 they can get a job and support themselves. If they want to go to college then medical school, Harvard no less, and I work extra hours or do without some basic things to provide that, that's really above-and-beyond what they have any right to expect, so they can jolly well be EXTRA grateful for that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that you may be judging the characters actions by what you think they should do or what you would do not necessarily what their characters would do.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Well then, you must see the Ashton Kutcher/Bernie Mac pseudo-re-make, Guess Who.
Maybe those two quality actors will make the story easier to bear.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:I think that you may be judging the characters actions by what you think they should do or what you would do not necessarily what their characters would do.
The movie has a message. I think their message is flawed. In tvtropes parlance, this is called a Broken Aesop.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote: A whirlwind courtship was much more common. This is especially true in the movies - lots of movies have weddings or at least proposals after fewer than ten days.
In fact the further back you go for movies the shorter the courtship seems to get. I was watching an old Alfred Hitchcock last night, "The Farmers Wife". The girl helps the guy propose to 5 other women and then accepts his proposal and marries him all within a weeks time. Thats the way it's done in the movies.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think you are flawed in your reasoning. No offense, but how old are you now? I am not trying to say a person who is young (I have no idea how old you are, BTW) can't relate to this, but this is a great movie for a reason. It is very hard for a younger person to relate to some of these issues now than it was to relate to them 40 years ago.
Race IS what the movie was about. All of the other issues existed, but RACE was a terribly volatile issue then, even more so than now, and interracial marriages were a HUGE deal. Not for any other reason than race.
This movie was wonderful, and I think it holds up just fine.
The fact of the matter it that all of those OTHER issues were real issues, but RACE was the real reason they objected.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:But, Sidney Portier's character made some good points when he responded to his father saying he worked all those years for him. He said something along the lines of, "That's what you're supposed to do!" I agree totally.
But it's kids' job to be properly grateful.
I have a daughter. I work hard for her, and I agree, it's my job. I made her, I'm responsible for her, it's not magnanimous for me to take care of her, it's just my job. However that doesn't mean she shouldn't be grateful.
And that takes a sharp turn when they come of age... when a child is 18 they can get a job and support themselves. If they want to go to college then medical school, Harvard no less, and I work extra hours or do without some basic things to provide that, that's really above-and-beyond what they have any right to expect, so they can jolly well be EXTRA grateful for that.
But what do you mean by being properly grateful? Kids don't ask to be born. Their parents bring them into existence usually with a burst of pleasure. It's the parents job to care of them, that's just the responsible thing to do.
But in the case of adoption, should parents adopt JUST to have a child be grateful for being adopted? Because that is slightly, mildly warped. Nature and the world depends on taking care of each other and expecting little except the joy of being with another person.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I was expecting David Tennant.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Kids don't ask to be born. Their parents bring them into existence usually with a burst of pleasure. It's the parents job to care of them, that's just the responsible thing to do."
Are you against abortion? If you are not than this little rant is inconsistent and shows its all about politics and not love of children. In today's world I might even use (half-joking like Cosby),"you ungrateful kid. Your lucky I didn't decide to have you aborted."
With attitudes like yours, Synesthesia, no wonder the United States has become full of perpetual adolescence. We hide away the old folks like useless baggage waiting for them to die. Be glad you don't live (when your young) in China or Japan where the roles are reversed when parents reach a certain age.
I agree parenthood is a responsibility, but I have a life as much as that kid does. I am an individual as much as that kid is. Frankly, if that kid doesn't have a sense of respect and thankfulness for what I have done for them in keeping them alive by the time they graduate from high school then they are on their own. That goes for if they get pregnant or cause someone to get pregnant. That is a sign they think of themselves as adults and therefore I will start, legally as possible, cutting parent ties.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
By the way, I think the movie had great acting, but a ham fisted story. It should have been set in the South. Now that would have been wild and more realistic. Maybe it is the times I live, but I felt it was set in a place and with people who would have supported the marriage almost from the get-go in relation to race. I felt the economic differences would have been much more of an issue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure, because the South is more appropriate for ham-fisted and unsubtle storytelling, considering Southerners are just racist stereotypes and all instead of real people.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
In this case Katharina, in that time period I would actually have to say yes. Historical presidence has shown that would be, for many Southerners, a reality. I do laugh at the ham-fisted part of that line. It begs the question if ham-fisted and unsubtle story telling is ever any good. Then again this is Hollywood. The answer seems to be yes since those terms apply to 99 percent of movies..
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:By the way, I think the movie had great acting, but a ham fisted story. It should have been set in the South. Now that would have been wild and more realistic. Maybe it is the times I live, but I felt it was set in a place and with people who would have supported the marriage almost from the get-go in relation to race. I felt the economic differences would have been much more of an issue.
Nah! This was a time period in which northerners felt very self righteous about condemning southern racism, while they harbored many serious racist feelings themselves -- a strong bias against interracial marriage was one of them. It was set in exactly the right place. Even in the '70s and 80s, people who didn't consider themselves in the least bit racist, favored integration in schools and affirmative action would openly express disapproval of interracial marriages.
I think this movie raised a very important question, and one that is still relevant today. I think everyone (at least all adults) have some racial prejudices. Its part of the way the human brain works categorizing things. For the most part, those racial prejudices operate a subconscious level where we are barely aware of them. But what happens when a situation suddenly brings those prejudices to the forefront and we are forced to face them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What The Rabbit said. The film is about the racism of people who don't think that they have racial prejudice. That is the point.
ETA: Gentleman's Agreement is sort of like that. It wouldn't be interesting if set in 1930s Germany.
It is easy to look at obvious racism in other people. These films were about confronting it in ourselves when we don't think we have it.
[ March 26, 2009, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:By the way, I think the movie had great acting, but a ham fisted story. It should have been set in the South. Now that would have been wild and more realistic. Maybe it is the times I live, but I felt it was set in a place and with people who would have supported the marriage almost from the get-go in relation to race. I felt the economic differences would have been much more of an issue.
Nah! This was a time period in which northerners felt very self righteous about condemning southern racism, while they harbored many serious racist feelings themselves -- a strong bias against interracial marriage was one of them. It was set in exactly the right place. Even in the '70s and 80s, people who didn't consider themselves in the least bit racist, favored integration in schools and affirmative action would openly express disapproval of interracial marriages.
I think this movie raised a very important question, and one that is still relevant today. I think everyone (at least all adults) have some racial prejudices. Its part of the way the human brain works categorizing things. For the most part, those racial prejudices operate a subconscious level where we are barely aware of them. But what happens when a situation suddenly brings those prejudices to the forefront and we are forced to face them.
This Rabbit speaks the truth.
I've gotten into many conversations with my grandmother who doesn't believe in segregation, thinks racism is horrible, but also thinks interracial marriages are a bad idea. She looks completely discombobulated when you accuse her of being racist, like she can't believe it and yet it's there just the same.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Kids don't ask to be born. Their parents bring them into existence usually with a burst of pleasure. It's the parents job to care of them, that's just the responsible thing to do."
Are you against abortion? If you are not than this little rant is inconsistent and shows its all about politics and not love of children. In today's world I might even use (half-joking like Cosby),"you ungrateful kid. Your lucky I didn't decide to have you aborted."
With attitudes like yours, Synesthesia, no wonder the United States has become full of perpetual adolescence. We hide away the old folks like useless baggage waiting for them to die. Be glad you don't live (when your young) in China or Japan where the roles are reversed when parents reach a certain age.
I agree parenthood is a responsibility, but I have a life as much as that kid does. I am an individual as much as that kid is. Frankly, if that kid doesn't have a sense of respect and thankfulness for what I have done for them in keeping them alive by the time they graduate from high school then they are on their own. That goes for if they get pregnant or cause someone to get pregnant. That is a sign they think of themselves as adults and therefore I will start, legally as possible, cutting parent ties.
What are you talking about? Seriously you are talking mostly in generalizations which drives me insane. Where do you get that "the United States has become full of perceptual adolescents" It's like when people go on and on on anti-spanking articles about how kids are so much more violent now that spanking is looked down on. They don't even have statistics to support that claim!
And cutting parental ties is sort of harsh... Those lines don't ever go away. Kids even when they are 40 or 30 and no longer kids still need support. THAT sort of attitude, according to a book I read called Guyland (AHA! A source!) said that some young people get a lot of support before they are college aged but once they go to college their parents think, "They are on their own." but they still need guidance even then and they don't get that so that leads to a lot of irresponsible drinking and drifting. I don't feel like people should just have kids JUST to have someone to feel grateful for them for their care. Things are a bit deeper and more organic than that, and that's something that's missing.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Race IS what the movie was about. All of the other issues existed, but RACE was a terribly volatile issue then, even more so than now, and interracial marriages were a HUGE deal. Not for any other reason than race.
Yeah, I know race was a big deal then. But once they worked out their racial issues, they then supported the marriage... even though there were TONS of reasons to object that had nothing to do with race.
I mean, if a racist white dad has a girl marrying a black arsonist for example, and at first he is so concerned with race he doesn't even care about arson, but then he overcomes his racism, should he then support the marriage? That would be stupid. I mean, arson is a big deal.
I was expecting a film where the only reason to object would be race, so we'd all have to confront our feelings on the issue.
Instead, we were given a ton of other reasons to object. Maybe 1967 audiences were themselves so concerned with race they didn't notice. Since I'm not concerned with race, except in an intellectual/historical sense, I couldn't suspend my disbelief about that.
So I think the film is flawed because of that. It's a movie about anti-racism that only works if you're not already anti-racist.
quote:The fact of the matter it that all of those OTHER issues were real issues, but RACE was the real reason they objected.
I know that... I just think it was dumb. Not that they had racial issues, that's what the movie was supposed to be *about*, after all, but that they had NO issues with anything else!
quote:Kids don't ask to be born. Their parents bring them into existence usually with a burst of pleasure. It's the parents job to care of them, that's just the responsible thing to do.
Yeah... what's your point? I didn't say if the kids weren't grateful the parents got to stop taking care of them.
Doing things for others is a two-way street. A young person gives up their seat on the bus to an elderly person; the elderly person says thank you. Not "that's right, you *better* give up your seat, you young punk."
It's interesting that you apparently think people don't need to be thanked if something is an obligation. Do you thank your server at a restaurant for bringing your food? Why? It's just their job, they have to do it. Either you never say thanks, or you do but it's just an empty ritual?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: The movie has a message. I think their message is flawed. In tvtropes parlance, this is called a Broken Aesop.
NO!!! Not another link to...
* Four hours later... *
DAMN! Where'd the day go?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: [QUOTE]
Doing things for others is a two-way street. A young person gives up their seat on the bus to an elderly person; the elderly person says thank you. Not "that's right, you *better* give up your seat, you young punk."
It's interesting that you apparently think people don't need to be thanked if something is an obligation. Do you thank your server at a restaurant for bringing your food? Why? It's just their job, they have to do it. Either you never say thanks, or you do but it's just an empty ritual?
Where do you get that I don't think people should be thanked though? That is the polite thing to do. I don't know what is meant by a child has to be grateful to their parent though. What does that entail? Is the parent also grateful for the child's existence? Is it just a two way street or anytime the parent does something for the child is that a weight on the child's shoulder or is this just the way things ARE? You take care of that child, that child takes care of you when you're older. It's a symbiotic constantly looking out for each other when you can relationship? And if a parent didn't take care of their child or was barely there for them do they still have to feel obligated for existing? I like to think of these things in a holistic sort of way. You do the right thing because that's what makes the world better and stronger. Raising kids to be good solid people is just what has to happen. And they pay it forward by being good parents to their kids when they grow up because they had that foundation of love, trust and care.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tvtropes is a curse. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
On the "everyone's a little bit racist" topic that Rabbit brought up...
When they were filming Planet of the Apes (the first one) they found that when they broke for lunch, people wearing Chimp costumes would sit next to other Chimps and people wearing Orangutan costumes would sit next to other Orangutans.
Even in a monkey suit, people prefer people who look like them.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I wouldn't be caught dead near those filthy orangutans either!
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Where do you get that I don't think people should be thanked though?
Well I said kids are supposed to be grateful to their parents for providing for them, and you appeared to take issue.
Perhaps you thought I meant they should be grateful for existing? Because I didn't say, nor do I believe, that.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just wonder what being grateful entails. It conjures up images of a parent saying something like- "I did all of this for you, worked 80 hours a week, taught you how to ride a bike, sacrificed everything and you want to do WHAT with your life? Become an artist? I don't think so. You're going to be a doctor and LIKE it."
That's what that makes me think of. Plus it makes me think that it should be a two way street. I can't even wait to have kids and enjoy watching them grow up and being grateful that they FINALLY exist.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
"Gratitude, thankfulness, or appreciation is a positive emotion or attitude in acknowledgment of a benefit that one has received or will receive."
That's pretty much it. You seem to have a lot of extra baggage associated with the word.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I agree parenthood is a responsibility, but I have a life as much as that kid does. I am an individual as much as that kid is. Frankly, if that kid doesn't have a sense of respect and thankfulness for what I have done for them in keeping them alive by the time they graduate from high school then they are on their own. That goes for if they get pregnant or cause someone to get pregnant. That is a sign they think of themselves as adults and therefore I will start, legally as possible, cutting parent ties.
Because we all know that there's no better measure of a kid's maturity than their own opinion of themselves. If you're gonna cut "parent ties" with your kids once they start getting into their heads that they are adults, you'll be kicking them out by the time they are around 14.
And really, let's think this through for a sec Occasional. If your kid has an unwanted pregnancy that means: A. You have successfully prepared them for the world, imparted all your knowledge and wisdom upon them and they are ready to live their life as an independant person with no support from you! OR B. They have clearly made a horrible mistake and as their parent it is your responsibility to help them through what will probably be one of the most difficult periods of their life.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)