Dear Prudence

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

IncogNeato — Wed, 14 May 2008 20:24:34 GMT

glutton79:
IncogNeato:
glutton79:

I would agree that being a good parent requires a "certain level of income", but that doesn't mean that level is unreasonably high. We're not talking about designer clothes and mountain bikes and plasma tvs, we're talking about things like food and medical care.

Okay, but my point is still valid. There are plenty of parents who had suffient resources when the kids were born, but perhaps not later. Would we say most of the nation's parents during the Great Depression, for instance, were bad parents?

the problem is, just because it's not your fault doesn't mean you get a free pass. if you get laid off, and your kids don't have food to eat, you're not (at that moment) doing a good job of providing for them. presumably most parents would then do whatever they could to rectify the situation.

I guess it depends on how you're using the term "good parent"- personally, I don't think anyone's good at parenting 100% of the time, and just because you have trouble providing for your kids for awhile doesn't mean you're forever a "bad parent". but feeding and sheltering your kids is a parent's responsibility, and if you're not doing it- for whatever reason- you're not holding up your end of the bargain.

I'm not saying someone is not trying to provide for their children. I'm talking about someone who, due to circumstances legitimately beyond their control, is unable to do so, at least temporarily. To say that they are bad parents simply because of circumstances is irresponsible.

This is assuming, of course, that the parents had reasonable expectations of having the means to support the children and are making concerted efforts after the catastrophe to rectify the situation.

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

glutton79 — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:54:23 GMT

IncogNeato:
glutton79:

I would agree that being a good parent requires a "certain level of income", but that doesn't mean that level is unreasonably high. We're not talking about designer clothes and mountain bikes and plasma tvs, we're talking about things like food and medical care.
Okay, but my point is still valid. There are plenty of parents who had suffient resources when the kids were born, but perhaps not later. Would we say most of the nation's parents during the Great Depression, for instance, were bad parents?

the problem is, just because it's not your fault doesn't mean you get a free pass. if you get laid off, and your kids don't have food to eat, you're not (at that moment) doing a good job of providing for them. presumably most parents would then do whatever they could to rectify the situation.

I guess it depends on how you're using the term "good parent"- personally, I don't think anyone's good at parenting 100% of the time, and just because you have trouble providing for your kids for awhile doesn't mean you're forever a "bad parent". but feeding and sheltering your kids is a parent's responsibility, and if you're not doing it- for whatever reason- you're not holding up your end of the bargain.

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

IncogNeato — Wed, 14 May 2008 10:50:11 GMT

glutton79:

I would agree that being a good parent requires a "certain level of income", but that doesn't mean that level is unreasonably high. We're not talking about designer clothes and mountain bikes and plasma tvs, we're talking about things like food and medical care.

Okay, but my point is still valid. There are plenty of parents who had suffient resources when the kids were born, but perhaps not later. Would we say most of the nation's parents during the Great Depression, for instance, were bad parents?

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

glutton79 — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:55:28 GMT

IncogNeato:
karen4984:

of course the definition of good parenting assumes a level of certain level of income. taking out a mortgage requires a certain level of income,
So renters can't be good parents? What about parents who take out mortgages, and then are laid off or injured so they can't work, so they can't pay their loans?

I think she was comparing the responsibility of a mortgage with the responsibility of a child, not saying you need to own a home to be a good parent.

I would agree that being a good parent requires a "certain level of income", but that doesn't mean that level is unreasonably high. We're not talking about designer clothes and mountain bikes and plasma tvs, we're talking about things like food and medical care.

Re: um. no

Freki — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:25:19 GMT

I have to agree with karen. If a person can't afford to take care of themselves, i.e. no health insurance, renting a single room, no reliable steady employment, on food stamps, they should not be getting knocked up.

Choosing to have a baby when you don't have the resources to take care of him/her/it is irresponsible and a sign of bad parenting.

Waiting to have a child until you are fiscally stable is a sign of good parenting. I don't mean "until you own a house" or "until you can buy a Gucci diaper bag". I mean "until you can get Junior's fillings paid for" and "until you can afford to insure your car".

My mother could only afford thrift-store clothes, and that was fine with me. I still dress in Value Villiage chic. I never had cool electronic gear or the G.I. Joe I wanted, either, but that was ok. Even spending a summer living in a tent because we couldn't afford housing was allright. Going to bed hungry because Mom didn't get paid until the next day? Not so cool.

Freki

um. no

dumb_blonde — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:53:43 GMT

karen4984 wrote the following post at 05/13/2008 10:16 AM:

of course the definition of good parenting assumes a level of certain level of income.

Parenting is not about what you can buy for your kids. parenting is not about your kids designer clothes, parenting is not about buying everything the kid wants, it is not about how much money you spend on them.

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

IncogNeato — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:47:46 GMT

karen4984:

of course the definition of good parenting assumes a level of certain level of income. taking out a mortgage requires a certain level of income,

So renters can't be good parents? What about parents who take out mortgages, and then are laid off or injured so they can't work, so they can't pay their loans?

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

karen4984 — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:16:13 GMT

of course the definition of good parenting assumes a level of certain level of income. taking out a mortgage requires a certain level of income, as one obviously is going to have a fairly large expense to meet for something like thirty years, and we morally judge people who irresponsibly take out loans without the clear ability to meet their obligations. likewise, raising a child, which is never ANYTHING but voluntary with both adoption and abortion freely available options, obviously is going to entail some significant expenses for at least eighteen years or so, and likewise we are right to condemn those who choose to take on this responsibility without the wherewithal to live up to it.

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

PhysicsGirl — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:15:20 GMT

SusanM:
The parents put this child in circumstances where she is unable to have a full social life with her school peers unless they give her a ride.

Define full social life. She sees her peers at school five days a week. She has lunches, school activities and the like to hang out with them. What she desires is to attend a once a forthnight dinner/movie outting. I don't see that not attending this particular event means that she would not have a full social life.

SusanM:
To me, I see an obligation on the part of the parents to either 1) change those circumstances or 2) provide their child with a ride whenever possible.

Families aren't democracies. The parents picked where they live based on a number of things. I don't view picking a house so that the children have friends close by is an obligation like food, shelter and education are. By driving her to an activity which she wants to do, they are doing her a favor that she asked for.

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

quietwife — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:46:09 GMT

The definition of good parenting here just seems so narrow and immediate in it's considerations. It also frankly assumes a level of income and social class.

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

IncogNeato — Mon, 12 May 2008 13:22:12 GMT

quietwife:

Are poor parents who live in mobile homes bad parents? Are parents with lawn gnomes bad parents? Are parents who show some affection to each other bad parents? Or, most breathtaking in your example now this young person is a victim of parents who might have put him in a good school, have a nice home and drive him around inspite of his lack of appreciation for what they must think is his own good.

Last time hubby was in the emergency room, there was a 2-3 year old there being treated. i do NOT think the child was especially grateful for Mommy and Daddy letting strangers poke, prod, and ultimately cast him. However, had they not, they'd have been terrible parents, worthy of losing custody.

Good parenting is not always in the eyes of the child. Generosity is not always in the eyes of the recipients. I agree with Susan that a gift should not be held as a future bargaining chip, but there is nothing wrong with pointing out to a kid sometimes when the parent goes out of his/her way to help the kid. That how kids learn to express appreciation! If the parents acted like silent martyrs every time they did something inconvenient, unpleasant, expensive, especially soemthing they did not choose (like driving the kid across town), the kids would grow up to feel entitled, which everyone seems to consider a result of bad parenting!

When someone says "I am what am"...

regfife — Mon, 12 May 2008 02:17:00 GMT

...and insists on sticking to it, admittedly there's not a whole lot you can do (beyond continuing to be diplomatic and civil), but the person who says that is still being inconsiderate. The daughter said this about her mom's behavior:

"The problem is, my mom tries to act like a friend of ours. She talks too much and is repetitive and thinks she's really funny. She's also very loud."

Parents aren't the only ones who behave like this, and teens aren't the only ones who find such behavior irritating. The mistake the mom is making is not that she is acting like a mom (that would be just fine), she is trying to act like a buddy. I don't believe the mom actually is behaving "the way she is", she is trying instead to adopt a role in which she does not naturally fit in an attempt to be "cool". That's teenage-style behavior right there. The phrase "act your age" applies to grown-ups as much as it does children.

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

SusanM — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:19:09 GMT

PhysicsGirl:
If the mom was going out of her way to purposefully embarass her daughter, I would say that you have a point.

Well we at least have several Moms on the board who freely admit to going out of their way to embarass their children. So I have a point at least with them :)

But I'll agree with you, if Mom simply is who she is then the daughter has to just get over it. Heck, my Mom drove a 30 year old bread truck that smoked to high heavens when I was a teenager. If you can't die from embarrassment over that, I can't imagine you can from anything!

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

SusanM — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:16:23 GMT

See I'm not so sure that I would define asking for a ride as asking for a favor. The parents put this child in circumstances where she is unable to have a full social life with her school peers unless they give her a ride. To me, I see an obligation on the part of the parents to either 1) change those circumstances or 2) provide their child with a ride whenever possible. The child shouldn't have to ask for that any more than she should have to ask for three square meals a day. It is a given.

Feel free to disagree :)

Re: In defense of "Annoyed Youth"

PhysicsGirl — Sun, 11 May 2008 20:34:14 GMT

SusanM:
I think that is what is at the root of what is bugging me - this concept of indebtedness in return for an unasked for, unwanted favor.

But in the case of the LW, it isn't an unasked for favor. She specifically wants her mother to drive her so that she can spend time with her friends. She also wants to dictate exactly how her mom does this favor. That's just not how the way this sort of thing works. If I ask someone to give me a ride, but then I demand that they can't listen to country music, wear perfume or talk to me about politics, wouldn't everyone agree that my demands are rude and the person I was asking could simply not agree to do me a favor given those terms?