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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not remotely. To be strictly material about it, they're giving a very expensive and important set of services for a long-term duration.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, someone else is responsible for the financial and material burdens of their own day-to-day life.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So... if being independent and self-reliant makes you more mature, does that mean marriage itself is a big step towards immaturity?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
