Posted on 12/09/2007 12:49:26 PM PST by aomagrat
Edited on 12/09/2007 12:59:09 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
But OTOH, I would like you to consider asking yourself this: Could your lack of experience of being a parent of a teen possibly color your views of the teen-parent relationship, weighing it too heavily towards the teen’s point of view?
I’m sure that any tendency to take a teen’s word against his parent is highly useful, especially when the teen needs a sympathetic ear to listen to him. Just having someone to listen to everything you say and automatically accept it as unvarnished truth, can no doubt be very helpful in many situations. (Though I can’t help but wonder if it’s the best thing in ALL situations?)
= = =
Actually, most of the teens might well have told you—at least 40% of them—that initially they thought I was taking too much of their parents’ perspective.
I probably did best with teens who were my students counseling them about family problems—especially in China and Taiwan vs in formal counseling situations.
IN formal counseling situations, usually getting the dad involved was very difficult. Also, they tended to bring the teen in when things were durn near hopeless to begin with.
IF the parents were willing to adjust their pride, ego, and petty issues and if the teen was willing to consider his/her flaws . . . progress could be made. Those were often big IF’s.
I have to add...that guy Freud...he had some major issues:’)
Thanks for your kind words.
I wish more folks of insight and discernment would speak up.
If your conclusions are correct, would there have been help for him, a group that he would have fit in, and if so what kind of group?
You must not have read where I claimed that the reason New Life Church was attacked is because it's full of Little Eichmanns.
Now that's a post where I didn't feel the need to point out that it was sarcasm. :-)
A few questions:
1. What happened with the father and that daughter ages 1-8?
2. How much time did the dad spend focusing on that daughter just warmly, healthily, affectionately loving her and affirming her as valued for who she was regardless of how she did?
3. How much special 1:1 time did Dad have with that daughter 1-8? HOw many dates did he take just her on such as to lunch, dinner or a fun movie?
4. How much did dad just listen to her and actively respond in ways that showed he heard and felt her emotions and understood her world and something of what it was like inside her skin 1-8?
5. How vulnerable with her was the dad 1-8 about his own failings and overcomings? How humble was he with her?
6. How often and how well did he come along side and help her through rough spots without being demanding, controlling or perfectionistic?
7. How often did he come along-side her and just sit and share the same view looking out on the world together showing her that she was valuable to him without her having to do anything; perform well; avoid mistakes etc.?
I’m guessing zilch or close to zilch.
One Sermon I heard on that Scripture emphasized
IN THE WAY THAT PARTICULAR CHILD WAS DESIGNED TO GO BY GOD.
AS OPPOSED TO IN THE WAY MOM AND/OR DAD’S EGO NEEDS DEMANDED THE CHILD GO.
One Sermon I heard on that Scripture emphasized
IN THE WAY THAT PARTICULAR CHILD WAS DESIGNED TO GO BY GOD.
MMMMMMMM. THEY ARE GONNA GET YOU. lol
Well thank you, I guess.
Speaking of forgiveness, now might be a good time to ask yourself the question: If Mrs. Ron Murray were to log on to FR and read my oft repeated suggestions of an "emotionally incestuous" relationship between her and Matthew, as well as my accusations of other forms of abuse, would she ever forgive me?
BTW, glad to hear you've been defreuded. I still had fun writing that up, anyway. It was meant to entertain other Freepers as well, because it's such a little known story.
Trying to bring tears again, are you.
to repeat . . . about 30 years ago, I read a study that summarized all the research to date about parenting and discipline styles effecting the results of success as adults.
1. Success as adults was defined as
A) staying out of trouble with the law
B) having stable gainful employment
C) staying off welfare
D) STable marriage . . . as I recall. not 100% certain of the last one but I’m 99% sure it was that one.
They studied
1. socio economic status.
2. laisez faire lax discipline
3. authoritarian discipline
4. authoritative discipline
5. physical discipline
6. no physical discipline
and a host of other variables.
ONE VARIABLE ACCOUNTED FOR 80% OF THE VARIANCE AS TO WHETHER THE CHILD WOULD SUCCEED AS AN ADULT.
WHAT WAS THAT ONE VARIABLE?
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
NO, NOT whether the child was LOVED OR NOT.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
WHETHER the child
FELT
LOVED
or not.
RELATIVELY SPEAKING, NOTHING ELSE MATTERED.
Well put.
That had no obligation to raise their children by any standards but the Lord’s.
= = =
Sorry, Cindy, but that’s my point.
The evidence strongly suggests that at least mommy dearest
did
NOT raise the son by the Scripture.
She EVIDENTLY, REPORTEDLY, ALLEGEDLY
PROVOKED THE SON TO WRATH DOZENS OF TIMES A DAY EVERY DAY YEAR IN YEAR OUT FOR MOST OF HIS CHILDHOOD.
AT some point, mommy dearest is just as accountable to Scripture as she is demanding the son be.
2. maybe he was too young....but if I recall correctly, he encouraged her good behaviour by saying "I'm proud of you" etc.. He was a disciplinarian....but also taught and encouraged her in sports etc.,
3. special one on one time? I can't say how much in the exact number....but probably not daily.
4. I think he did that well.
5. I doubt he showed or admitted any vulnerabilities. It was more than likely evident during the teens--at least from what I observed.
6. I can't think of there being a lot of rough spots with her until she became of puberty. I think since she was his first child, he could have done better. His role models weren't that hot..not to give him excuses. Trying to be supportive, turned into discipline more often than not. It was a fight of wills..
7. Not sure that ever happened after 12-15. He gave lots of advice, explained the benefits of good choices, and the consequences of bad ones.
Now the other kids are the opposite of her...but had the same dad. Maybe they learned from her what not to do...but they seem to have more common sense.
I understand the perspective and can say theoretically it makes slight sense.
HOWEVER, as I’ve noted . . . in probably 5,000 families . . .
I have NEVER seen a single case of that. There has ALWAYS been a more than sufficient cause in the childrearing that occurred the first 8 years of life.
That’s just been my experience and my observations.
Keep in mind a couple of things as you go searching back through his writings:
1) This guy was a "Little Ward Churchill". A lot of what he posted is plagiarized, containing no attributions to other authors, though a quick google shows the text to be lifted verbatim from some other author.
2) I don't have the posts at hand, but a couple of other Freepers have pointed out that he seems to be doing a lot of "projecting" in that he takes experiences that other ex-Pent forum denizens have posted about, and seems to think that they actually happened to him instead.
I agree that we are still each responsible for our choices and behaviors.
However, it’s unfair to say this kid woke up on a Monday morning evil by happenstance.
or that he came out of the womb that way. I just don’t believe either probability.
I hope I don't step on anyones toes.The Charismatics that I have known were lead more by voices
in their head believing it from G-d than their
understanding of the Word.Following Rhema as opposed to the Logos
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.