HELP!

[CNA]

Shayne wrote:

If you speak your mind and are not passive and a pushover just because you live in your parents home and that you are to be a gracious guest because of this, you may very well find that they will have a bit more respect for you as an individual, your ideas, and so forth. When people are door mats, pushovers, subservients, and biting their tongue, there is very little respect for them. They can be easily controlled, manipulated, abused, and so forth. Speak your mind, Jeff.

Yeah, that was my point, that kids should be submissive, easily controlled, manipulated, abused, and subservient, and that parents should have little respect for them. I'm being sarcastic of course.

The thrust of what CNA is saying is horrible. A parent is financially and legally responsible for their kids. And the parents, at the point of a gun held by the State, will hold the parents responsible for the child's actions. What CNA is calling for is making the parents a slave to the child's whim--he can do what he wants to express that he's not a "door mat"--and the parent must bear the burden, fork over subsistence, and become the real "door mat".

Making the parents a slave to the child's whim, their being a burden and doormat, wow, this is what you got from it. Yikes. What I said is as simple as saying, hey, this is my voice, this is what I think, I have a right to be heard no matter what the rules are in the house. I am sure many times in your childhood you were able to express your views, your opinions. You're an individual with your own mind. Not the mind of the family as a whole. There isn't the Smith family as a whole. There are individuals that comprise the Smith family. Individuals that have their own minds and opinions and have a right to express it.

This is what happens when you ignore the true relationships in reality: in reality the child is, in fact, dependent on the parent, and therefore the child properly should recognize this fact, be grateful for being supported, and abide by the rules of the house. If the parents are unjust, then they'll get their due in the long run when their kids refuse to visit them as adults, but the child has no right to violate the house rules while the parent pays the bills.

Oy, once again, Shayne, you don't know the full story. You could have easily said, CNA or Angie, can you clarify this a bit more rather than jumping the gun. Yes, the child is dependent on the parent up to a certain age and the child should recognize this. But when do you draw the line when it becomes abusive and no longer tolerable? Such as my case in dropping out of highschool 3 times to support my father, a man capable of working, giving up my future in order to support him and keep the "family" going no matter what. Do I keep supporting him in the name of the family and abiding by the house rules, family rules, after years of physical abuse not only from him but my sister as well and all of their parasitic ways? I don't think so.

I grew up poor. Got a job at 15, paid my own bills, even paid house bills, paid for my school clothes, toilettries, food, and so on. Eventually dropped out of high school to take up a full time job to support the "family," paid for bills that were not mine, paid for rent. Every cent I made went to my father. I rarely saw a penny of my hard earned money. This was expected because family sticks together through thick and thin no matter what. All my money went to him, even though he kept telling me that we weren't going to make it and needed more money. Putting even more pressure on me to come up with money. I even walked around in shoes that had holes in them because I couldn't afford a new pair. The parents have no right to violate the rights of an individual within the home if they are paying the bills or not and vice versa. The parent should provide a suitable environment for the child to grow up in. The home should be free where the individuals can express their likes and dislikes, their opinions and views, convictions, and so forth.

Of course, CNA will interpret this as saying that the parents can do anything short of illegal abuse and that should be fine. Which of course I am not saying. Parents should be good parents. But when they are not perfect, that doesn't give the child a right to violate the fundamental and implicit terms of the relationship. It's wrong for a child to demand support while slapping his supporters in the face.

Explain to me why my parents up above who obvioulsy are not perfect and that I didn't have the right to violate what was happening to me and the fundemental and implicit terms of the parent/child relationship? Oh, hell no. According to your terms, I should have stayed there and kept my mouth shut and put up with the abuse. That I was supposed to act according to what my family wanted, what my parents wanted. Not what I wanted but what they wanted. That it was more important to keep the "family" going rather than keeping myself going and living and surviving free and happy.

Making the parents a slave to the child's whim, their being a burden and doormat, wow, this is what you got from it. Yikes. What I said is as simple as saying, hey, this is my voice, this is what I think, I have a right to be heard no matter what the rules are in the house. I am sure many times in your childhood you were able to express your views, your opinions. You're an individual with your own mind, not the mind of the family as a whole. There isn't the Smith family as a whole. There are individuals that comprise the Smith family, each have their own right to freedom of choice, freedom to use their voice when they object to something, freedom from pain and destruction. T

Shayne, you missed the entire point of my post. It says, "Hey, I have a voice, I have a mind, I have an opinion. I have a right to be heard, even if it is a voice within the family, even if it means I object to what you are doing or what you are saying." If I or Jeff or anyone expresses their thoughts and opinions on a subject within the family context, it is not a demand of support me while I slap your face. It's as simple saying, hey, I have a mind, I have my own thoughts, I want to express them. Each individual in the family has a voice and should be heard. In my family, I encourage everyone to put their two cents in, be it negative or positive. They have a right to their opinion. In my family and relationships, communication is something that is valued highly. In my family, it's not the family as a collective. It's the individual people that comprise the family. I grew up in that mentality of the family as a group deal and I know firsthand what it breeds and that is a lot of pain and destruction.

Angie

P.S. The above of what I wrote about my family is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not looking for oh, poor, Angie, crap. Give me a freakin' break. Have been way past that for decades now. I wrote the above to give a better explanation.

[sjw]

According to your terms, I should have stayed there and kept my mouth shut and put up with the abuse.

Absolutely not. You paid the bills, so you should have been the one setting the rules. I don't think you're reading what I wrote very well.

Edited January 29, 2007 by sjw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just don't buy into this idea that Frank was too helpless to support himself. You seem to think he'd have been a bum on the streets without Rand, and I just don't buy it.

Laure,

Neither do I. Frank always worked until he didn't have to. I believe that he loved his wife deeply and stayed during the affair to be with her. There are other considerations and some are complex, but I believe the main reason was this.

Michael

[CNA]

According to your terms, I should have stayed there and kept my mouth shut and put up with the abuse.

Absolutely not. You paid the bills, so you should have been the one setting the rules. I don't think you're reading what I wrote very well.

Shayne,

Your post is as plain as day. You said this and bold is mine, " Parents should be good parents. But when they are not perfect, that doesn't give the child a right to violate the fundamental and implicit terms of the relationship.

Whether or not the parents are paying the bills or not, it doesn't give them the right to infringe on the rights of the individuals within the family be it kids or adults. If I wasn't paying the bills and they were still NOT perfect and abusive as I stated above, I had or anyone has the right to violate the fundemental and implicit terms of the relationship. They are conditions that are not tolerable. The parents should provide an environment that is conducive to life for all parties involved. Each individual has a right to their own thoughts, own opinions within the context of the family values and situations that present themselves within that context.

Of course, there are rules set within the household. If my son was 13 years old, he sure in the hell won't be staying out until 4 am and my being fully aware of it. Oh, no, that won't happen. Hell, that's what I did. I came and went whenever I wanted, stayed out for as long as I wanted even as early as the 8th grade. There was no structure at all in my home. You get teenagers under these conditions, oh, man, time for some serious partying and anything is game. Seriously WRONG. So of course, there should be rules set. But one of the rules in my home is not silencing a voice by force or what have you or saying since I am paying the bills, you can't express your thoughts and views type thing. Each individual is entitled to express it be it negative or positive. Communication is a big thing in my home as I am sure it is also in your home.

Angie

[sjw]

Whether or not the parents are paying the bills or not, it doesn't give them the right to infringe on the rights of the individuals within the family be it kids or adults.

...

Of course, there are rules set within the household. If my son was 13 years old, he sure in the hell won't be staying out until 4 am and my being fully aware of it. Oh, no, that won't happen.

The lines you are drawing about what a child should and should not submit to are completely arbitrary. I could just as well respond as you did to me and claim you are subjugating your 13-year-old blah blah blah by not letting him stay out as long as he wants.

On the one hand you want kids to be treated like adults. Yet if they were adults, and they were guests in someone's house, then they should live by the rules of the host or leave. So you regard kids as different, special, as more privileged as adults in that they can flout house rules and still stay there. This is the basic contradiction in your position.

[Victor Pross]

Whether or not the parents are paying the bills or not, it doesn't give them the right to infringe on the rights of the individuals within the family be it kids or adults.

...

Of course, there are rules set within the household. If my son was 13 years old, he sure in the hell won't be staying out until 4 am and my being fully aware of it. Oh, no, that won't happen.

The lines you are drawing about what a child should and should not submit to are completely arbitrary. I could just as well respond as you did to me and claim you are subjugating your 13-year-old blah blah blah by not letting him stay out as long as he wants.

On the one hand you want kids to be treated like adults. Yet if they were adults, and they were guests in someone's house, then they should live by the rules of the host or leave. So you regard kids as different, special, as more privileged as adults in that they can flout house rules and still stay there. This is the basic contradiction in your position.

Arbitrary? There is no rational distinction to be made between emotional abuse (“You are no good—you will amount to nothing, you little dirty bitch”) and discipline: “You are not to stay out past midnight.”

Edited January 29, 2007 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Whether or not the parents are paying the bills or not, it doesn't give them the right to infringe on the rights of the individuals within the family be it kids or adults.

...

Of course, there are rules set within the household. If my son was 13 years old, he sure in the hell won't be staying out until 4 am and my being fully aware of it. Oh, no, that won't happen.

The lines you are drawing about what a child should and should not submit to are completely arbitrary. I could just as well respond as you did to me and claim you are subjugating your 13-year-old blah blah blah by not letting him stay out as long as he wants.

On the one hand you want kids to be treated like adults. Yet if they were adults, and they were guests in someone's house, then they should live by the rules of the host or leave. So you regard kids as different, special, as more privileged as adults in that they can flout house rules and still stay there. This is the basic contradiction in your position.

Shayne,

You know, this is ridiculous and getting to the point of a waste of time for me as you are trying to claim that I am saying things that I am not. You know, you talked about rules so I gave an example of something that I was able to do when I was a child but my own child would not be able to do in my home. But you missed the entire point of my post and that is the silencing of a voice because it falls outside of the rules of the house because I am paying the bills or what have you. I've seen too many times in households as well as my own as a child and other kids where they think they're not being heard, that they don't have an opinion or that their opinion doesn't matter, they don't have thoughts, and that I or they should keep their mouth shut and not participate in conversations and so forth.

You are trying to now convey that I am saying that kids should be treated as an adult in ALL contexts which is ridiculous and obvious I am not. For me in my home, I will not silence the voice of my 13 year old son or my 16 year old son even if it is positive or negative. I want him to be able to think for himself. I want him to be able to come to me and be able to talk about anything and feel comfortable doing it. I don't want him to think, well, hell, since I don't pay the bills, I can't talk to my mom about this, something I may need advice in, something that I just need to talk to her about because I'm not happy, or she said something the other day that hurt my feelings or I want to talk about the house rules in more detail or I can't say this because my opinion doesn't matter and I may object to this or that or whatever. I highly value communication and I encourage communication in my home. Even in Jeff's post, it seems he has wonderful communication skills with his father and they are able to sit down and talk, to be comfortable enough with each other to talk but he does not have this with his mother unfortunately.

This is all that I am saying but you're trying to make it into more than that. Someone as young as 16 as Jeff is has a right to their voice, has a right to their opinion, even if that view or their thoughts opposes one or both of their parents, don't be afraid to speak up when you think something is wrong or that it will go against the views of a parent. Each individual within the family has a right to their own mind and own views, own thinking. I highly value the independent mind and the person that isn't afraid to speak up when they think something is wrong. Since I no longer have time for this thread, this will be my last post.

Angie

Edited January 29, 2007 by CNA

[sjw]

Angie, it's simple. You are just not reading. I am certainly not saying that parents shouldn't listen to their kids, teach them how to think on their own and be as independent as they are able, etc.

[Judith]

Jeff --

A lot of the advice you're getting is assuming that you're able to do things that most people your age would find impossible. I know that I would have found it impossible at your age.

I'll try to break down some of the assumptions, at least as I see it, in an attempt to make it clearer.

I found, in my own situation, that there was almost an invisible umbilical cord between my mother's emotions and my own. I think it's not uncommon for other people to feel that way, too. If the mother is upset, the child is upset. It's hard not to feel your stomach start to churn if your mother gets upset. Some mothers even hold it over their children's heads as a form of emotional blackmail: "You're making me upset: stop it!" I'm not saying that your mother is like that; I'm simply pointing it out as an example that this close connection between the mother's emotions and the child's emotions seems to exist.

It can be very difficult to remain calm when your mother is upset. It may be one of the most difficult things you ever learn. It took me into early middle age before I was able to do it. If you can master it now, you will be well ahead of things.

One of the most important things we need to learn about life in general is that we can choose how we respond to people. If they are anxious, we do not have to get anxious. If they are angry, we do not have to get angry. If they yell at us or insult us, we do not have to respond in kind. We can choose to remain calm and rational, no matter how they continue to act towards us. If they ask us a question, we are not obligated to answer it.

It can be ESPECIALLY hard to learn this lesson with respect to one's mother.

All of the advice you've been getting, regardless of what it was, assumes that you can do all of the above, and not get upset when your mother gets upset about Ayn Rand, Objectivism, atheism, or whatever. It's hard. It takes practice. You'll fail. Don't give up -- try again. In the end, your relationship with her will be better for it if you don't get sucked into a shouting match, or a senseless argument. But the down side is that it will leave you feeling like an adult, which is kind of a lonely feeling sometimes.

Again, best wishes.

Judith

[Rich Engle]

Judith gave the best advice of all so far... more in terms of an observation.

Nathaniel said something once to the effect of you can't control the behavior of others, but you certainly have the means to deal with your own behavior.

Hard lesson, especially with mom, like Judith says.

She's a smart cookie!

[reason.on]

Well, my mom and I talked a little bit on the way to my friend's house yesterday. She thought I was retreating from Christianity because I had a bad (hated everyone there, finally got pulled out after getting in a yelling match with the vice principle) experience at my old private school. She wanted me to understand that I should not reject Christianity because of the people. I made it clear to her that if I was looking to find a philosophy with perfect people I wouldn't look at Objectivism (sorry guys, youre so close too. Actually it's the randroids that are imperfect, we are the pinnacle of the human mind here ). In any case, she seems a lot better with it now, at least enough to where she won't be completely closed-minded and enough so that I can continue on in whatever direction I please without too much harassment.

Jeff,

Just a quick note to say that I am very happy to see that you and your mom were able to discuss things in what looks like a productive way. I think it is a very positive sign (and a mark of your maturity) that you've been able to go from describing your mom's behavior as a "war" to being able to articulate and understand her concerns in a rational way. It may seem trivial to you, but it is the difference between an adversarial relationship with things in general and a benevolent one. I admire the fact that even as a high-schooler you seem well rooted in the second way of living. It is a perspective that will guide you well in the years to come; remember that.

Whatever profound disagreements you and your mom may have in the future, it looks like you both respect one and other's individuality enough to be able to bear the differences and sustain a health relationship.

I hope you'll remember too that despite their significant differences, Christianity and Objectivism do share a common roots in "individualism" (no matter how far both official versions may have strayed...)

Something to mull over as you continue to explore the vast waters of thought...

Selfhood and Service. The Relation of Christian Personality to Wealth and Social Redemption

by David Beaton Review author: Lemuel Call Barnes

The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Apr., 1899), pp. 420-422

"Socialism is plausible, but Christianity is the exaltation of individualism. Christian individualism creates wealth. Individualistic wealth is essential to the production of great men. Society must be redeemed by rich personalities. Individualistic wealth serves the community by producing great educational institutions. Sinful conformity to the world 'is crossing the invisible line which separates the Christian virtue of self-improvement from the vice of self-seeking.' The philanthropic use of individual wealth in the spirit of Jesus and in the light of modern knowledge is the hope of the world."

RCR

Edited January 29, 2007 by R. Christian Ross