I had more questions at 15 than I did at 18, and more at 18 than I did at 21.
I know there are flaws in this argument but, at 15, if I had access to an anonymous adult consensus that I could ask anything, I'd have been as happy as a pig in shite. Especially if they cared enough to give me an honest answer.
It's what families should be doing and no longer are.
You know, that would be interesting, to see, in a family wise way, which user is in what position. As in, which is the youngest, middle, oldest sons/daughters. Which are the fathers and mothers. Which ones are the uncles and aunties. Which ones are the grandfathers and grandmothers, etc.
May be a stupid idea, but it was just in my head when I seen your comment.
I'd also like to hear your reasoning behind the last statement, if you have the time. I'm always interested in the structure of families in our society and always interested in a new perspective.
Okay, but this is purely a personal viewpoint from observation, rather than proven thesis. I'm not presenting this as fact, more an opinion.
In any family of children, parents and grandparents, the middle generation (parents) are the social glue. They're the ones who ferry the kids to the grandparents, the ones who organise the kid's parties (and their parent's parties). They organise holidays for them and kids (which grandparents are sometimes invited to). Particularly when one of the upper generation is widowed, the middle generation become an even more important touching point between both extremes of age.
If we say the current lower generation were born in the 1980s/1990s, the middle generation the 1960s/1970s, and the elder generation the 1930s/1940s/1950s, what characterises those time periods in the western world?
The 1930s to the 1950s were recession and world war decades (and recovery from world war). Life was hard, many husbands and fathers were lost in war, people had to pull together, in some ways were forced to live in close proximity and depend upon each other.
The middle generation born in the 1960s and 1970s grew up with free love, the permissive society, huge personal freedoms, "peace", but - I think - less sense of personal responsibility, particularly towards the family unit.
As parents today, I don't think they understand their responsibility as the "middle" generation. There has always been conflict but there has always been conflict resolution. Not so much any more. People just go their own way and conflicts aren't resolved. You hear people say kids have no respect for the old. Why would they if they never get to spend time with their grandparents? You can't blame a kid for not arranging to meet their grandparents. That's what the middle generation should do, and isn't.
You and I are obviously slightly different examples of the same thing. I was given to my grandma not as a big family gathering but to remove me from the already smaller unit of my parents and I. It's the same lack of responsibility to the wider family unit.
I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush here; it's not true of every single family in every corner of every country, but it's much truer than it used to be.
Interesting...
I have been considering for a while that it is the middle generation that paved this way as they did not appreciate having so much responsibility with their family and wished for their children to have easier lives, free of responsibility.
I theorize this due to the mentality that I have heard from other Americans that it is selfish of parents to expect children to take responsibility for care of the household (such as cooking, cleaning, and aiding in care for children), something that I had done for the entirety of my life and don't complain much about. The basis for considering it selfishness being "it wasn't their fault that they were born into a working family" or other reasons. While it's true and I see the logic, in my family, my responsibilities were performed because I was given the benefit of living in a house and having food, at least that's how my parents explained it to me.
Sorry for the rant, by the way. But I have quite a bit of sympathy for members of my generation that DIDN'T get the benefit of having a life of purpose (mine being to care for the household). All for the sake of making life easier, of protecting the kids from the reality of old age (grandparents/elders) or responsibility (work). =/
Some family do this since they like to overly shelter the children. They are also kid these keep on a short leash and never have any life skills. It is not always they think its abuse but sometime they think kids are going to die if they make own food,learn clean,learn to do luandry.
Why are there so many teenagers here, is it normal?
← View full post
I had more questions at 15 than I did at 18, and more at 18 than I did at 21.
I know there are flaws in this argument but, at 15, if I had access to an anonymous adult consensus that I could ask anything, I'd have been as happy as a pig in shite. Especially if they cared enough to give me an honest answer.
It's what families should be doing and no longer are.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
You know, that would be interesting, to see, in a family wise way, which user is in what position. As in, which is the youngest, middle, oldest sons/daughters. Which are the fathers and mothers. Which ones are the uncles and aunties. Which ones are the grandfathers and grandmothers, etc.
May be a stupid idea, but it was just in my head when I seen your comment.
This.
I'd also like to hear your reasoning behind the last statement, if you have the time. I'm always interested in the structure of families in our society and always interested in a new perspective.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Okay, but this is purely a personal viewpoint from observation, rather than proven thesis. I'm not presenting this as fact, more an opinion.
In any family of children, parents and grandparents, the middle generation (parents) are the social glue. They're the ones who ferry the kids to the grandparents, the ones who organise the kid's parties (and their parent's parties). They organise holidays for them and kids (which grandparents are sometimes invited to). Particularly when one of the upper generation is widowed, the middle generation become an even more important touching point between both extremes of age.
If we say the current lower generation were born in the 1980s/1990s, the middle generation the 1960s/1970s, and the elder generation the 1930s/1940s/1950s, what characterises those time periods in the western world?
The 1930s to the 1950s were recession and world war decades (and recovery from world war). Life was hard, many husbands and fathers were lost in war, people had to pull together, in some ways were forced to live in close proximity and depend upon each other.
The middle generation born in the 1960s and 1970s grew up with free love, the permissive society, huge personal freedoms, "peace", but - I think - less sense of personal responsibility, particularly towards the family unit.
As parents today, I don't think they understand their responsibility as the "middle" generation. There has always been conflict but there has always been conflict resolution. Not so much any more. People just go their own way and conflicts aren't resolved. You hear people say kids have no respect for the old. Why would they if they never get to spend time with their grandparents? You can't blame a kid for not arranging to meet their grandparents. That's what the middle generation should do, and isn't.
You and I are obviously slightly different examples of the same thing. I was given to my grandma not as a big family gathering but to remove me from the already smaller unit of my parents and I. It's the same lack of responsibility to the wider family unit.
I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush here; it's not true of every single family in every corner of every country, but it's much truer than it used to be.
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Interesting...
I have been considering for a while that it is the middle generation that paved this way as they did not appreciate having so much responsibility with their family and wished for their children to have easier lives, free of responsibility.
I theorize this due to the mentality that I have heard from other Americans that it is selfish of parents to expect children to take responsibility for care of the household (such as cooking, cleaning, and aiding in care for children), something that I had done for the entirety of my life and don't complain much about. The basis for considering it selfishness being "it wasn't their fault that they were born into a working family" or other reasons. While it's true and I see the logic, in my family, my responsibilities were performed because I was given the benefit of living in a house and having food, at least that's how my parents explained it to me.
Sorry for the rant, by the way. But I have quite a bit of sympathy for members of my generation that DIDN'T get the benefit of having a life of purpose (mine being to care for the household). All for the sake of making life easier, of protecting the kids from the reality of old age (grandparents/elders) or responsibility (work). =/
--
Allistalla
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Some family do this since they like to overly shelter the children. They are also kid these keep on a short leash and never have any life skills. It is not always they think its abuse but sometime they think kids are going to die if they make own food,learn clean,learn to do luandry.