Eh, happy families are all alike; unhappy families are unhappy each in their own way.
Except at the next table in the restaurant.
But that wasn’t the gist of the OP.
Not just lording it in public. The OP denigrates people who, in the order she presents it, don’t argue (or at least who she doesn’t see argue), have well-behaved children, a clean house, introverted children, conservatively-dressed children (I always wear plain colored shirts, wonder what she would think about that?), coordinate clothes with each other (I agree, this is tacky, especially from the point of view of a twin, which I am, but what’s it to her?), etc.
Note-I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with having extroverted children, a messy house, etc., and no one should “look down their noses” at anyone for things like this. But the OP was Grade-A snobbery, a real “Anyone who disagrees with me is a conformist” attitude.
But that wasn’t the gist of the OP.
Not just lording it in public. The OP denigrates people who, in the order she presents it, don’t argue (or at least who she doesn’t see argue), have well-behaved children, a clean house, introverted children, conservatively-dressed children (I always wear plain colored shirts, wonder what she would think about that?), coordinate clothes with each other (I agree, this is tacky, especially from the point of view of a twin, which I am, but what’s it to her?), etc.
Note-I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with having extroverted children, a messy house, etc., and no one should “look down their noses” at anyone for things like this. But the OP was mostly snobbery, a real “Anyone who disagrees with me is a conformist” attitude.
Sorry about that.
Jack Batty posted*:
Seems to me there’s a major failure in communication goin’ on.
People don’t get to choose family. They’re the ultimate, born-to crapshoot. It’s the rare person who doesn’t want to believe, very badly, that their family pretty much provides a safe basis. Not perfect but at least workable. Those who don’t find the nurturance they need, for whatever reason, are cast adrift in unique
ways. The trouble is, people can starve or thrive for all kinds of unique reasons but nobody on the outside is qualified to judge, pro or con. I come from a horrendously dysfunctional family but that doesn’t mean that those more fortunate are shallow, gloating, etc. Life deals out enough shit without compounding the facture by measuring the starting place against others.
Look, reverse pride carries unique perils. It can hurt the most prideful worst because it’s too damned close to glorified victimhood. “I’m not them!” People don’t start out with same chances. Finding pride, strength and nurturanance in non-traditional sources doesn’t reflect on anybody, good or ill, but the individual. Some fortunate people are born into seemingly or actually happy families. Many aren’t. IMO what counts is what individuals make of what they’re given. Bitter “outsider” pride is just as corrosive as the smugest traditional sort. Neither is strength, just knee-jerk reaction.
Officially a pompous ass,
Veb
Dang monstro!!! I haven’t seen a post of yours yet that I disagree with, and this one strikes near and dear to my heart (though the matching outfits wouldn’t cut it).
I’ve spent long enough living a “non-conformist” lifestyle. I’ve worked in male dominated fields since I was 20 something, my marriage at 19 ended (amicably enough, but ended just the same). I was a struggling single mom for my daughter (who is now 23) and I had an “oopsie” pregnancy at the advance age of 30 going on 31 (my son is now 12).
I’m SICK of “non-conformity”. I’m 44 and WELL past ready for “stepford” life. I would like to have a quiet ordered SECURE life with a good man.
And I wouldn’t even mind cooking and cleaning for crying out loud. I agree with many of the other posters here that calling those with quiet little lives “smug” is doing the same “looking down the nose” attitude of which the OP accuses the “stepfords”.
I would just like to chime in with my personal experience regarding parental disagreements and fights. In my household my mother and father agreed to present a united front to the children. They would civilly (no cussing, shouting, or insults) discuss important issues behind closed doors and then tell us (the kids) “How it was gonna be”. To my knowledge they never reached an impasse and on the few issues they disagreed (I can remember only one) they always reached a compromise. Without shouting, name calling or any other such tomfoolery. I know that they disagreed on some issues (though I can only name the one), but my father always treated my mother with respect and she did the same to him. This is what I meant when I said (in the non-dysfunctional family thread) that they never “fought”.
Maureen, you implied that people have misconstrued your message. Fair enough. Please clarify the meaning of your original message.
I just don’t like the OP’s jazz about liking kids to be loud and dirty.
Maureen, where are you seeing these kids? At church? In restaurants? In passing, when you’re visiting their parents at their homes? If you’re seeing them in public or in company, you may be seeing only one side of them. They may simply have been raised to behave well in those settings. And isn’t that what Dopers like—kids who can modify their behavior around adults?
I think it’s pretty safe to assume that Maureen has abandoned this thread.
Actually, BNB , I check in once a day. I was a little surprised to see you here, what with you being so offended by everything I said.
Grimbreaker; Happy to. I did it once before, but here goes… I was recently at a BBQ. Perfect example. Upper middle class yuppie hood. Every home looked exactly the same. They were all painted the same color (stucco), there was an SUV in just about every drive. Also, basically the same color (champagne). Every child was dressed in much the same manner. At the function, I met several of those children, and most of them had very similar names (Ashley, Britney, etc.). Many of the mothers expected these small (between 7 & 10) not to speak loudly, not to run around (outside, mind you), not to laugh so loudly, basically to be children. At least, in my opinion. I do think it’s right to teach kids manners. I don’t think it’s right to ask them to sit quietly and be little robots.
Most of the women were dental hygeinists (NO, the woman who was hosting was not a dental hygeinist) who moved out to the valley with their lawyer/doctor/IT husbands and no longer worked. Their discussions varied widely from what clothes they just bought, to which esthetician they went to, to what their husbands just bought them/where they were going on vacation. They were not interested in world events (“What a depressing subject!”) the economy (“oh, it’ll sort itself out, my husband says so…”) or even sports (“I just don’t understand it. Those events are always so DIRTY!”), everything started with “My husband says…” and they really didn’t talk about anything other than themselves. Not one of them seemed to ever have had an original thought. I’m not sure they’re aware anything else exists. Basically, trophy wives. They all also wore pretty much the same thing. Sailing outfits with topsiders. Also, most of them were blond.
The men stayed completely apart, discussing the market, the economy, and what babes would be on the next Survivor. They also wore, interestingly enough, very similar clothing. Same haircuts.
I was bored out of my mind and couldn’t wait to leave.
This is what I mean by Stepford families.
I think a lot of issues are being hopelessly confused here.
Parenting styles and patterns of marital conflict resolution are one topic.
Conformity and non-conformity are another.
I don’t quite see how the two are tied together.
Why wouldn’t I be here? I wanted to hear your responses. Isn’t that how message boards work?
I also wanted to hear your response as to why you felt the need to call the people in the other thread smug. I don’t sense a smugness there at all. Maybe you’d like to point out a specific example?
I am also interested in your reponse in regards to this gem: “I just prefer people who admit they are different and are proud of those differences”. (bolding mine). Are you saying that people in that thread (and people like them) are liars?
Well Maureen, your story doesn’t paint a pretty picture. It certainly sounds like the people at that BBQ were one dimensional simulacra’s of real people. Or, perhaps, it just seemed that way at the time. Either way that was the reality of the situation as you experienced it.
A lot more (maybe most?) people reading this thread would have agreed with you if your OP had been similar in tone and content. However, you must agree that certain statements you’ve made could, at best, be considered ambiguous, and at worst, snobby and insulting.
Since you stated that this thread was, in part, a counterpoint to the “Non-dysfunctional” family thread, how do you feel about what was posted there?
Are the posters, IYO, trying to appear perfect?
Do you think that they really aren’t perfect, yet are trying to put on a “perfect” appearance?
Are they smug?
Are they conformists?
Are conformists (however you define the term) deserving of less respect?
Random mediations on conformity:
Conformity is very geographically- (and age-) based. So the dental-assistant yuppie BBQ people are (we will assume) conformists in their neighborhood. Would they still be conformists if they moved to, oh, a small Iowa town? Would they change their style to become more plaid-and-denim wearing? Would they listen to country music? (Apologies to Iowans if I am using bizarre stereotypes. I mean it with the greatest respect.) Or would they stubbornly continue to wear matching sweaters, thus becoming non-conformists?
A Southern Baptist might be considered a conformist in Georgia, but what if he lives in New York and works at an advertising agency and everyone else is busy wearing black and being ironic? What if the ironic, black-wearing New Yorker moves to Georgia? Is he still a conformist?
Would all of us be conformists if we just lived in the right place? What place might that be? What if everyone really wants an individual, quirky old house that fronts on a park, but as it happens there are only a few of those in town, and those of us who can’t afford them have to settle for the matching tract homes that we can pay for? Perhaps we are all longing for the same unobtainable things that we think only we want…
What if someone just happens to like being a dental assistant with an SUV? She would continue to be one even if she lived in Berkeley, but as it happens she lives near a lot of other SUV-owning dental assistants? And she’s wanted to name her first child Taylor since she was 6?
And, most importantly, are Buster Browns still manufactured?
BNB ; No, I won’t get into finger-pointing and name calling with you. I simply don’t see the point, except as fuel for you to continue to spray venom.
Grim ; first let me apologize for getting your name wrong last time. Sorry. Second; I think we’re going a bit far with the analysis thing, don’t you? It’s just a thread, dude…:rolleyes:
Genie ; yes, Buster Browns are still available, as are saddle shoes, more’s the pity.
Cranky ; HEY, CHICK!! How’s the car doing?
How exactly have I sprayed venom?
By standing up for people you called smug and (most probably) liars? By specifically asking you why you called them that?
That’s a laugh riot.
I also like how you are called to stand up for your words and now, ‘it’s just a thread, dude’?
Whatever, Maureen. I think you have made your point very clear.
But BNB, dear, it IS just a thread. I didn’t call anyone a liar, you are putting words in my mouth. And I have stood up for what I’ve said. I just don’t see the need to do so ad infinitum.
Really, I’m not quite how you’ve managed to maintain such a level of outraged self righteousness. Five days must be tiring. Try a happy thread. It will make you feel better.
:dubious:
Maureen,
It seemed to me that after your first few posts that your tone changed to include more of a “I’m being villified and my statements are being misrepresented”. I didn’t want to assume anything about what you really thought so I figured I would give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to explain your statements. Since you now decline to expand on your views I can’t help but think that the primary reason is that they will not paint you in a good light. Without further clarification I must agree with Bad News Baboon. Your intent is very clear indeed.
Grim ; I appreciate that you gave me the benefit of the doubt. But, truly, I feel that three times is adequate to convey my meaning. Mainly because some people will insist upon taking what I say, no matter what it may be, and finding SOMETHING insulting in it.
As for what you choose to believe, I have no control over that whatsoever. I did, however take your questions to be somewhat condescending and overly-analytical. I gave you an example of what I feel to be a “Stepford” environment. But for the record, I should say that while abuse=dysfunctional, dysfunctional does NOT equal abuse. People can be married 30 years, barely speak to each other, have no contact other than at meal times, have completely separate interests and know nothing about each other. That is NOT a functional family unit. Also, FTR, I believe that every family has some minor dysfunction.