This question popped into my head while I was reading this thread.
In the thread, whiterabbit was railing against her ex-fiance who called off their relationship after one meeting with her ex future mother-in-law, who appears to have taken a real serious dislike to whiterabbit.
The mother-in-law was a really bad person (sanitized for GD), no doubt about it.
The son, on the surface of the story, seems like he was a coward for not standing up to his mother and continuing with the engagement anyways. There were alot of replies from different posters about how they would never let their parents have any say in how they carry on their lives, and that anyone who does is a wuss.
Herein lies the topic for debate:
While it may true that there are some people who, at the age of 18, were given a hearty handshake by their parents and set off into the world never to meet or interact again except for major holidays and family events, there are others where this is not the case.
Many people have very close ties with their parents. Some never quite leave home. Some belong to matriarchal or patriarchal families. The parents continue to have influence on their children until they die. From my own experience, this type of thinking is predominant among immigrant families (such as my own) and generally shunned by people who come from families that have been in this country (I’m in the US by the way) for a very long time, though this type of thinking is by no means relegated to immigrants exclusively.
I have noticed in the thread I referenced earlier that there are many people who look down on these people as somehow mentally deficient:
Read the thread for other examples. Obviously it is not good for parents to have too much influence in matters of one’s life, but do you really think people who are still influenced by their parents are inherently stupid?
I’m not sure I see the debate, but I’m myopic, so.
Garden-variety influence, however…seems to me that people who love and respect one another, influence each other. I think part of the problem in that Pit thread was–aside from the sheer emotional unhealthiness of the situation–was people conflating “influence” with “control”. I don’t think the former’s the latter, except at the pathological extreme.
It’s an understandable conflation to make, but I think in many cases, when someone’s proclaiming how their family doesn’t influence them at all, they’re really saying they’re not controlled by them.
As for how much, hell, I dunno. What’s the scale? Weasel-answer, the amount which is healthy and normal for the family and relationships involved. I’m not sure a satisfactory non-weasel answer can be made.
Of course not, but when one decisions are entirely determined by what their parents at age 43… I mean think about it. This person if he was living in the wild in a hunter or gatherer society wouldn’t have a chance in hell.
It’s not mentally deficient or inherently stupid, it’s just… odd.
People who are CONTROLLED by their parents when they are adults? Yes, they are stupid.
Influenced? Not neccesarily.
It all depends on the family situation and how the person gets along with their parents. Some people really want to move out at 18 and never look back, and it works fine for them. WIth some people I know whose parents are domineering jerks, that’s probably best for them.
But others wait until their mid twenties to move out of the house. Some have to have time to scrape up the money and education to get out, and sometimes they have younger siblings they want to get to know before getting out on their own. I know one family that’s like that. They have a very nice victorian style house with a pool and horses. Everybody has pretty much moved out, but they visit frequently, two are still hanging around waiting to get through college even though they have the means to move out. I’d probably stick around for awhile if I had such a nice home environment also.
I do not think someone who is influenced by their parents is stupid.
However, there is a balance to be struck.
I may live my own life. Not all that I do will be exactly as mom and dad would like. I may choose to do things or not do things, based on what my parents would think.
But if it gets to a point where they “run my life” - that’s when it gets ridiculous. I guess the issue here is where that line is drawn. I would hope that most people have the strength to stand up to family when it is something they TRULY BELIEVE IS RIGHT. It may not be easy, but it would be the right thing to do.
There’s nothing wrong with following mom’s guidance, or wondering “what would dad do?” as long as you’re still free to do what you think is best. In the end, we all have our own lives to live, and (sadly, sometimes) our own mistakes to make.
I can agree that parental influence, rather than control, can be a good thing. As scout1222 said, however:
I think this strikes to the heart of the matter. When is it influence and when is it control? It seems like if it’s an unpopular decision, it is control, and when it is a popular decision, it is influence. A hypothetical example (and by no means related at all to whiterabbit’s situation):
A daughter annouces her engagement to her parents. Her fiancee is a manipulative, domineering, and potentially abusive person, but she doesn’t see it. All she sees is the sweet talking, forceful, and rough-around-the-edges man of her dreams. The parents advise her daughter that this man may not be the right person for her, and so cannot in good faith endorse the marriage. The daughter sees her parents as attempting to control her life, while the parents see themselves as trying to be a positive influence on the daughter’s life.
Is this a positive influence or an attempt at control?
There is all the difference between respecting your parents as a source of wisdom, and following their command even when you strongly disagree.
I am … drumroll … 43. And I respect my mother. If she offers an opinion I’ll seriously consider her input. As one factor to be considered. I wouldn’t, since before I was 18, let that be the only factor, or do something exclusively to win/keep her approval.
I’ll add in the other, parental, side. My eldest son is soon to turn 17. He’s just starting to think about colleges, future careers, and all that jazz. I offer my thoughts with caution. If he doesn’t take my advice, so be it, as long as his plans don’t include living in my house after college, or in my house if he was to decide to not attend college. Mostly I restrict my role to nagging him about studying for finals and enabling his college hunt. And of course knowing who his freinds are and where he’s going to be and when he’ll be home. But I hope that by now he’s internalized some values. If he hasn’t then its too late now. Do you know how much it hurts to bite your lip all day?
If parents have had the right kind of influence on their children before they are grown, then these kinds of issues should not arise. The parents will have given their children enough strong values and good sense that they will trust them to make the right decisions about their lives, even if the parents don’t always agree with those decisions. And the children will feel close enough to the parents and respect them enough to listen to their advice just as they would listen to the advice of a trusted friend, without feeling controlled or manipulated.
Of course, that is the ideal situation, which rarely plays out in the real world. But a good way to compare influence to control is to replace the parents in a given situation with a close, trusted friend and see how it feels. For instance, if someone presented JustPlainBryan’s example subsituting a close friend for the girl’s parents, I think most of us would see the friend as being helpful, not controlling.
Adult children can only be controlled if they let themselves be controlled. But parents who dole out time, affection, or money based on the behavior of their adult children are in danger of being cut out of those children’s lives entirely. The good parent will provide an adult child with advice without strings, and the sensible child will accept or reject that advice based on his or her own values and beliefs, without giving undue weight to the fact that the advice comes from a parent.
And I see on preview that DSeid has given a good example of what I’m talking about, from both perspectives.
I can’t even begin to imagine being the parent of a teenager these days.
But sometimes even close, trusted friends can be seen as controlling in the short term, but as a positive influence on your life in the long run . If we substitute a close trusted friend for the parents in the hypothetical example, that friend could been seen as someone who is attempting to break up the couple out of jealousy, and we’re back to square one.
Part of this discussion I think has to do with perspective. Obviously if you have a strong mind and a strong will, all of these points are moot. But not all of us have the capacity to have a strong mind at all times, especially in matters of the heart. Our individual perspectives can be warped in the short term.
My contention, then, is that there may be times (even if only rarely)when a parent is justified in exerting “perceived control” over their grown offspring. This should of course never be abused. Unfortunately it is abused all too often.
“What do you mean, you’re content to go to class and play video games? You’ve been a teen-ager for years now! You should be hanging out with the Wrong Crowd, smoking marijunana, getting arrested for vandalism, and getting picked up in the bad parts of town where people go cruising in beat-up Chevys! Why, when I was your age, I’d already gotten 3 girls pregnant and had to move to Pittsburg! What’s wrong with you lazy good-for-nothing goody-two-shoes kids these days?!”
I haven’t read the whole pit thread, but I seem to be the only one here who is thinking the obvious: MONEY.
If a family is wealthy, then generally the money is controlled by the parents. With this money comes a lot of power. If the children refuse to obey the wishes of the parents, even adult children, they may find themselves cut off.
I don’t know that this is the situation of whiterabbit, but it certainly is a case where it is understandable for grown children to adhere to parents wishes.
I think in some respects it IS often money, Debaser. But I don’t think I’d confine it simply to the “wealthy”.
Even in a middle class family, sometimes what keeps the “kids” in line is the fact that they can live at home with minimal costs, or that parents are helping with tuition, etc.
Once a child decides to strike out on their own and can pay their own bills, they definitely become less dependent, and therefore less beholden to their parents. But it could be the same for a wealthy child who decides they don’t want to be a “trust fund baby” as it could be for someone who is essentially forced out on their own due to limited family means.
Big truth to the statement that “money talks”. Not always, but it certainly seems to be not uncommon.
“Kids today, pffft! When I was your age, I’d already sprinkled grass on my draft card and rolled it into a doobie that I smoked while following the Dead on tour!”
When I started auditing an introduction to civil law class, the prof. brought up a case that caught my attention.
An 18-year-old young woman joined a cult. Her parents were flabbergasted, and they abducted her from the cult and kept her locked up for 3 days. The young woman turned around and sued her parents for false imprisonment. The judge, who was a father himself, ruled in the parents’ favor, citing their parental obligation to rotect their offspring.
But – she was 18! She was a legal adult! What right did anyone have to abduct her and lock her up, parents or no parents?!
No way! The smart people I know take wisdom where they find it.
Some people who express joy in being unresponsive to their parents have probably just jumped out of the nest. Maybe once they have become parents they will see the parent<>child relationship from both sides.
I myself jumped out of the nest ASAP, but my darling wife continues to lie in her mothers lap like a little baby. It’s wonderful!
Our three kids, well. #1 and #2 jumped out quickly, but now that they are parents themselves, they migrate towards us. And #3, bless her. She never felt the need to divorce us.
This is coming from a 22 year old who’s still 12 at heart.
I grew up in something of what I thought to be a wholesome home. I have little to complain about. My parents were loving, caring, and didn’t fear to lay the heavy hand (or belt) when it was needed.
When I was 17, I was talked to by my semi-inebriated mother who bluntly told me to get out of the middle of po-dunk-nowhere wisconsin and go do something with my life. I could come back later.
A lot of the “controlling parents” factor, as I’ve seen it, comes from kids who have never been more than a few city blocks, or a county (depending on where you’re from). I honestly believe that the parents who’ve never seen their kids gone never see them truly as adults. Until they have children at least.
This is my opinion, in my limited experience, and also as told to me by my mother, whom I love and trust. And told me to go out and “sow my wild oats” 12 countries later and I’ve had my fun. Watch out Europe, here I come.
Weasel-answer, the amount which is healthy and normal for the family and relationships involved. I’m not sure a satisfactory non-weasel answer can be made.