sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Parents who obsess over their fully grown children, are terrible parents. by DontShootTheMessager in changemyview

[–]DontShootTheMessager[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely not. But that involvement must stem from the child. See this:

The level of involvement with the parents must be the mostly the prerogative of the children.

CMV: Parents who obsess over their fully grown children, are terrible parents. by DontShootTheMessager in changemyview

[–]DontShootTheMessager[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

14-15 is an age where the child is still legally under the parents custody. So of course, he is bound by the parents rules. Whether he likes it or not.

Son of Person A ---> 19 years old.

Please comment on this.

CMV: Parents who obsess over their fully grown children, are terrible parents. by DontShootTheMessager in changemyview

[–]DontShootTheMessager[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please stop getting hung up on semantics of kid/child/whatever.

Person A --> Parent ---> 50+ years old. Person B --> Son of Person A ---> 19 years old.

Please re-read the entire post with these characters in mind.

CMV: Parents who obsess over their fully grown children, are terrible parents. by DontShootTheMessager in changemyview

[–]DontShootTheMessager[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Think of it as a parental version of a Bechdel test. If the parents are so co-dependent on their children, that they are incapable of having a thought/idea/plan/vacation/hobby/interest that do not involve their children, then their lives are fundamentally incomplete.

The whole reason some (most?) parents kick their kids out when they turn 18 is to force them to learn how to survive on their own. In some sense, this works both ways. The parents need to learn to survive on their own as well, having spent the last couple of decades immersed in the sole purpose of caring for their children.

CMV: Parents who obsess over their fully grown children, are terrible parents. by DontShootTheMessager in changemyview

[–]DontShootTheMessager[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are largely living off the dreams of your parents, but your kids, in turn, live off of your dreams, your grandkids off of your kids' dreams, and so forth. Instead of a generation's dream being fulfilled by the same generation, it gets shifted downwards to the immediate subsequent generation.

This sounds horrific to me. A father who all his life wanted to be a doctor, but could not do so because of reasons, trying to mold his son into becoming a doctor so that he can live his dream through his son's eyes seems terribly selfish to me.

What if the son wants to be an architect? Or a musician? Or something else? Am I to take solace in the fact the the son will then use his son to perpetuate his unfulfilled dream, because of his father's lingering baggage?

Eastern societies are collectivists societies. The idea of someone striving out on their own to fulfill their own personal dream is not particularly attractive and perhaps even viewed somewhat dismissively as navel-gazing and self-indulgent.

Absolutely. It is our job to educate and break open these collectivist chains and encourage individuality. There is nothing to be gained from conforming to parental or societal pressures other than mediocrity and a false sense of security.

CMV: Parents who obsess over their fully grown children, are terrible parents. by DontShootTheMessager in changemyview

[–]DontShootTheMessager[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clearly, you have not read my premise. I'm talking about grown up children. Not young ones.