Parenting and Parental Entitlement

[Guest Raidne]

Jesus I was just going to ignore Min, but no i am not pregnant. I just brought home an assorted case of Virginia wine (which is MUCH better than you'd expect but that's a whole other thread) so it would be a crying shame if I was.

[Sci-2]

If a kid can't be trusted to make decent decisions for their future at the age of legal adulthood, then I would suspect that they should have been more involved in their major life decisions and given more responsibility in the past.

This is a better way to state what I was try to get at. Parental authority should [not] come from catering to your kids with the expectation they'll do what you want (note I'm not saying this was Kal's position).

Kids should know, I would [say] early on, that they are going to have fund certain ambitions. But they should also have been giving given the skills and mindset to do this.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

My children don't and won't "owe" me anything. I didn't have children for that reason and I want my children (when they are more adult than they are now) to make their own decisions (including their own mistakes) without reference to a misplaced sense of obligation to me.

However, that said, I will feel that I have completely failed as a parent if they are not consciously aware of how lucky they are and are grateful, not necessarily to me, but to all people who do things to help them. That is, my parents are very clear that I don't "owe" them anything, but due to their and my grandparents incredible, mindblowing generosity, my sisters and I graduated from all of our education (including graduate level for two of us, with an open offer for the third one of us to go whenever she wants) without debt. I am deeply, and profoundly grateful to them and their sacrifice to make that happen. I'm even more deeply and profoundly grateful for how much they care for us. When I was in law school I broke my knee in a freak accident (during finals, no less). My wonderful father literally dropped everything and came up to help me manage.

Does that make sense? They don't owe me anything, but I really want to raise them to be gracious and grateful adults.

[Guest Raidne]

When I was in law school I broke my knee in a freak accident (during finals, no less). My wonderful father literally dropped everything and came up to help me manage.

Does that make sense? They don't owe me anything, but I really want to raise them to be gracious and grateful adults.

Yes, it really does make sense. You want your kids to be the kind of people who appropriately are gracious and feel gratitude, as opposed to needing to be sure that they specifically feel gratitude for any or every particular instance. Your father has probably never in his life thought "I hope she's grateful that I ran over and helped her out that one time she broke her knee!" I doubt it would ever even occur to him. If this does occur to the parent, something is probably wrong there. Seems uncontroversial to me, but I bet some people disagree with my last statement there.

[Sixshells]

I'm definitely in the parents aren't entitled to anything they didn't earn camp. Parental sacrifice is so easily used as a pretext for parents to push the responsibility of their bad relationship whith their children on the child, I have grown extremely weary of that. Don't do something that feels to you like a sacrifice, it only leads to resentment. It's a sensitive issue probably because of what happened with bothe my parents, who were pretty toxic each in their own way. But frankly, when I called my dad on the way he has never, ever, been emotionally available for me as a childe and we never developed a relationship, and he said that's because he had to work so hard to support us and put us through college, meaning he made so much sacrifices, it pissed me off, because he was pushing on me the resonsibility of his own emotional avoidance. When he supported me financially to go through college, I didn't really felt grateful as much as I felt kept under his control because of the social convetion that I should feel obligated.

On the girl calling her dad a bitch: first, her dad is not making her any good by letting her do that without doing anything about it like telling her it hurts him and working out with her what makes her says things like that. Second, you have the impression her father is great and all, but unless you know this family intimately you have no idea what happens between them when there are no strangers.

[Kalbear]

The idea that there are parents out there who don't care about their kids in any normal parent/child way is really disturbing and people don't want to believe it, whereas we see examples of children being terrible all the time (and note that an example of that is given in this thread even though calling your Dad a bitch is not really relevant to the question of gratitude or lack of gratitude, strictly speaking). I can understand that.

And if you had stated this from the onset instead of framing it in generalities, this wouldn't have been an issue. Of course, you wouldn't have a drama thread.

These statements fail to recognize that there is a difference between a 2 year old and a 17 year old. Your authority, it seems to me, is not based on how much more you know than you child, but where you child is in their development with regard to the process of becoming an individual, independent adult.

Yes. However, I've got a 15 year old and a 3 year old, so forgive me if I'm not using your personal experience with a BPD adult as a good source for parenting advice. Again, on some level parenting is about manipulation and coercion. Telling a 15 year old that they need to do their homework because if they don't they won't get into law school and have a wonderful life is often not that effective as a tool for gaining compliance, even if that is the end and a good reason.

People who are older will always know more about how the world works in many ways than people who are younger - that's what wisdom is - but that doesn't mean that you get to tell your son he's marrying the wrong person or choosing the wrong profession or buying a house in the wrong neighborhood, or vacationing in the Caribbean at the wrong time of year...at some point, you're not any old parent - you're Mrs. Costanza.

Actually it does mean those things. It doesn't mean that I can call the police on them or force them to move. A parent saying 'hey, maybe moving to the ghetto next to that drug den isn't a great idea' isn't being a bad or particularly domineering parent any more than a friend telling you that perhaps you shouldn't do heroin makes them a bad friend. There are better and worse ways of telling them these things and there are better and worse ways of showing it, but that doesn't mean 'never do it'. That's absurd. There are degrees of controlling, Raidne. The solution to an overbearing parent is not a parent without rules.

And it's as absurd to say 'no matter what my children say I will fund their education 100%'. I'm not committing to that. There's a very good chance I will be paying for their educations down the road because they've been taught to have reasonable expectations about what the future holds and for the most part I trust them, but on the off chance that they don't do that, I'm not going to give them unlimited support. If you think that is a domineering parent then the fault is with you.

If a kid can't be trusted to make decent decisions for their future at the age of legal adulthood, then I would suspect that they should have been more involved in their major life decisions and given more responsibility in the past.

That's possible. It's also possible that they made a bad decision and simply made a mistake. I hear that even adults occasionally make mistakes on where they go to school, what jobs they take and who they marry.

[Tears of Lys]

As I get older this is a subject I've been thinking about a lot. There's a ton of things that I felt like were a birthright (i.e.: being in a good school district, going to college, summer camps, tennis lessons and braces and contact lens) where I realize now, I only felt that way because of how effortlessly my parents provided them. There was entitlement going on, but it was enitrely on my end...and largely a function of how good they were at this whole parenting thing. As a kid when it's all you know, it's easy to take for granted. It takes the space of decades to look back and see the accumulation of all the things they did to give my sister and I the best life possible. It's still to this day purest example of selflessness I've witnessed. I don't know any other way to look at it.

It's daunting to think about the extent I will need to overcome the selfishness within me to be the kind of parents they were to my own kids if I ever have any.

From reading your posts over the years and gaining somewhat of a sense of your personality and how thoughtful you are, I somehow think that if and when little JaimeL (of whatever gender) is placed into your arms, your worries will prove to be for naught.

[Guest Raidne]

It is my opinion that being trusted to make your own decisions is not the same as proving you will make the right decisions. Of course adults also make bad decisions. They can do this because they are trusted to make their own decisions. Being trusted to make your own decisions is about whether you are allowed to, or whether your parents make your ability to obtain a college degree dependent on whether you choose a major they approve of.

Can I ask what your criteria for that will be? What majors are OK and what majors aren't?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Sure, it's manipulative. So is telling a kid that they need to eat dinner before getting dessert, or that if they hit they'll be taken away from the playground. Parenting is, at its core, perfectly manipulative.

My statement goes well with Ep's : it's perfectly reasonable to assume that I know a bit more about how the world works than a 17 year old applying for college. Based on that, I think it's reasonable to help them out to achieve what they want to within reason - which does mean things like not funding whatever college they choose to go to for whatever reason they desire. If they want to go to a college because their boyfriend happens to be going there too, well, I'm going to nip that shit in the bud if there's a better option ( as an example) - and if they still want to go that's fine, but that means they're going to have to deal with some funding issues.

It probably is. It's also pretty obnoxious for that kid when they become a senior to decide that their new dream is to become a drummer and they need to join a great drum school when they've never actually played the drums.

I agree with every word of this.

For many non-wealthy families, parents saving money to put children through college is an enormous sacrifice. It materially affects the parents' own future. And so ultimately, it should remain the choice of those parents as to how they are going to use that money because it is theirs, not the kid's. Getting your college paid for is a privilege, not a right.

[Guest Raidne]

Getting your college paid for is a privilege, not a right.

This has become a very interesting question because of the way that we do student loan funding, i.e. your parents income counts toward what loans you qualify for. For instance, if your parents make over $200K and you are an only child, you are fucked. You can't take out loans. At least we have an active education program for Vets at present? That's not always true either.

I'm not sure what my opinion is, but I think you are maybe obligated to cover what loans won't cover because the whole system as its set up is premised on that, and set up by a democratically elected government, indicated that the majority in American culture, at least, endorses that viewpoint. If your kids can take out 100% tuition in loans, that you don't make enough money to owe them any portion of it and our system recognizes that.

[Sci-2]

For many non-wealthy families, parents saving money to put children through college is an enormous sacrifice. It materially affects the parents' own future. And so ultimately, it should remain the choice of those parents as to how they are going to use that money because it is theirs, not the kid's. Getting your college paid for is a privilege, not a right.

I'm okay with this, so long as the kids know these kinds of things from jump. A good parent should raise a kid to be prepared for these things. Instead, I've seen parents basically coddle their kids on the assumption the kid was going to go into the STEM majors or law school and then both sides feel betrayed because the kid wants to do something else with their life.

A kid should be able to plan for the fact that their parents payment for tuition is conditional. Those conditions should not be vague but spelled out clearly, I would say by the time the kid is entering high school.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

For many non-wealthy families, parents saving money to put children through college is an enormous sacrifice. It materially affects the parents' own future. And so ultimately, it should remain the choice of those parents as to how they are going to use that money because it is theirs, not the kid's. Getting your college paid for is a privilege, not a right.

Don't get divorced in NJ!

[TrackerNeil]

Sure, it's manipulative. So is telling a kid that they need to eat dinner before getting dessert, or that if they hit they'll be taken away from the playground. Parenting is, at its core, perfectly manipulative.

it's perfectly reasonable to assume that I know a bit more about how the world works than a 17 year old applying for college. Based on that, I think it's reasonable to help them out to achieve what they want to within reason - which does mean things like not funding whatever college they choose to go to for whatever reason they desire. If they want to go to a college because their boyfriend happens to be going there too, well, I'm going to nip that shit in the bud if there's a better option ( as an example) - and if they still want to go that's fine, but that means they're going to have to deal with some funding issues.

I'm not sure that insisting that small children eat their vegetables or not strike others is analogous to offering to fund a college education only if specific conditions are met. Both may be well intentioned, but the first two are part of basic social and physiological care while the third is not.

[sologdin]

your kids don't owe you anything just because you chose to have them

agreed. and, furthermore, parents may in fact owe their children damages for wrongful life, in appropriate circumstances.

[S John]

I agree with every word of this.

For many non-wealthy families, parents saving money to put children through college is an enormous sacrifice. It materially affects the parents' own future. And so ultimately, it should remain the choice of those parents as to how they are going to use that money because it is theirs, not the kid's. Getting your college paid for is a privilege, not a right.

I really don't plan to pay for my hypothetical children's college. For my parents, paying for my sisters and my college education would have ruined them financially. I don't blame them for not paying it at all. I think they would have liked to have been able to, but the beauty of the situation is that there was no ability for them to put conditions on me. I'm the one paying for it, and I'm the one who will reap what I sow. They can't threaten you with maintaining a certain GPA, and they can't pull the rug out from under you if you major in something they don't like. There is no rug! Both my sister and myself were free to pursue whatever we wanted. The debt sucked but there's a lesson in that, and certainly a freedom in it as well. If I have kids I'm pretty content to let them act like legal adults when they are 18 years old and figure it out on their own. I won't prevent them from doing anything and I'll help in some ways, but as long as they're able bodied and minded its time to GTFO of my house and do something with your life.

It seems like it'd be a lot easier for me to let them be their own person and pursue their own interests if I'm not footing the bill. Unless someone is filthy stinking rich, it'd be very hard to part with the cost of college tuition and not be able to set some preconditions. Would I be as thrilled to be paying 50 grand + for an Art History degree for my kid as I would be to be paying for an Engineering one? Well, probably not. To avoid having to do that, I don't have a problem with telling a 17 or 18 year old kid to think about making their own way in the world. If my kid was taking responsibility for the costs, then I would absolutely encourage whatever path they choose. At that point they are making their own investment and pursuing their own interests.

Knowing how much of a pain in the ass it is to pay for a college education I'm really glad I don't owe my parents quite that much gratitude. Thanks for the independent streak, mom and dad. I'll try not to put you in an old folks home one day.

[Kalbear]

For instance, it is my opinion that being trusted to make your own decisions is not the same as proving you will make the right decisions. Of course adults also make bad decisions. They can do this because they are trusted to make their own decisions. Being trusted to make your own decisions is about whether you are allowed to, or whether your parents make your ability to obtain a college degree dependent on whether you choose a major they approve of.

My children's ability to obtain a college degree is independent of whether I fund them. Again, there's this bizarre notion that if a parent doesn't help with the funds for a kid that they won't be able to go to school at all; what is this, the 40s? So lets just get rid of that notion and discuss what I actually wrote.

As an adult, I expect my children to make bad decisions some of the time. I do not believe that I am obligated to support them 100% in their bad decision making. Point of fact, I think it's one of my duties as a parent to let my kids know when I think they're doing something very wrong - and if I think 100% that what they're doing is hugely a bad notion, no, I'm not going to fund them. This goes beyond a major - though that's certainly something I'd consider as a factor.

Can I ask what your criteria for that will be? What majors are OK and what majors aren't?

Depends on the kid. They're all different. One of my children can't handle the sight of anything remotely gross, much less touching it; I'm not going to be thrilled about sending her to nursing school if that's what she wants. Currently it's not an issue; my eldest wants to do Japanese language as a major and she's both very gifted at it and passionate about it, so things are good. If she decided that she wanted to, say, major in singing I'd be a bit less thrilled since she's a bad singer and has shown no interest in it.

Here's the thing, Raidne: I'm not declaring point blank that I have a specific list of things that are permissible and things that are not; I'm reserving the right to make a judgment in the future. What I'm not willing to do is say 'do whatever you want and I'll pay for it'.

[Guest Raidne]

I really don't plan to pay for my hypothetical children's college.

I hate to repeat this, but do you say this knowing that it's not likely they will be able to take out loans to cover their tuition because of your income?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I, for instance, will not be making conditional offers of tuition based on whether I approve of a chosen major or school because I think that fails to appreciate the individuality of the child as a person who is not an extension of the parent's personality, if not in intent, then in action, and it probably wouldn't matter to the child which it is in terms of effect. What I probably will do is expect my children to fund enough of their own education that they have a solid stake in the marketability of their own decisions. But I think that distinction is really hard to see without framing the issue of the responsibility of the parent precisely as raising independent individuals.

I think there are legitimate reasons for parents to refuse to fund some educations. Of course, all start from the premise that it is the parents who have the only moral entitlement to that money anyway, because they earned it.

1. Not wanting to subsidize what they see as frivolous behavior. If parents believe that the kid is picking a b.s. major simply for fun, without any serious thought as to a career, they may decided they don't want to encourage that behavior by subsidizing it. They may believe they would be doing their kid more harm than good by financing non-renumerative majors. Kalbear made this same genral point, and I agree completely. Parental funding amounts to a subsidy, so they question that you must ask is "Is this a behavior or a choice I want to subsidize?"

2. Demonstrating the financial consequences of the choice. The parents may feel that the only reason they were able to pay for college at all is because they focused on earning potential. A kid who decides to take a major that likely will pay very little probably won't be able to afford college for his/her child when their time comes. Part of the deal of getting a college education financed is that you pass that opportunity along, and if you're not going to do that, they're not going to give you an opportunity you won't be able to give your kids. In other words, this is a way of telling the kid to think twice about the financial consequences of what they're doing.

3. Selfishness. They may just decided that it is bullshit for them to have worked and saved so hard only for the kid to treat the money as essentially financing hobbies rather than careers. Since that's not why they did it, they're not going to give it up.

Anyway, I'd point out that kids who really want to demonstrate their indepedence and freedom of thought can put their convictions where their pockets are, and pay for school themselves. Or earn a scholarship. There are a lot of kids whose parents don't have the money, and they're really in no worse position than those kids are. Perhaps better, because they had the benefit of a more affluent upbringing in the first place.

Other than that, I'll just agree with Kalbear again:

I'm not declaring point blank that I have a specific list of things that are permissible and things that are not; I'm reserving the right to make a judgment in the future. What I'm not willing to do is say 'do whatever you want and I'll pay for it'.

[Kalbear]

I'm not sure that insisting that small children eat their vegetables or not strike others is analogous to offering to fund a college education only if specific conditions are met. Both may be well intentioned, but the first two are part of basic social and physiological care while the third is not.

You may be right, but I suspect that you're not. Put it another way, TN - is it manipulative to force my kids to do homework before playing videogames or hang out with friends? Is it manipulative to have them have chores and an allowance and a bank account instead of paying for whatever they want? Is it manipulative to get a kid tutoring? All of these things are manipulations towards some other goal that they may not want to do. In that same way, funding a college of the kid's choice without any input is not on the table. I don't think it's a reasonable thing to offer and I don't think it teaches the right lesson in life. You can disagree with me and that's fair - I could be wrong on this - but the basis of it is the same as veggies or violence prevention; it is trying to teach them some specific moral guidelines combined with teaching them some boundaries on what they can do.

[Arlingzen Bill]

One aspect not discussed, to this point, is opportunities in the good majors. It isn't just lawyers that have a flooded market. Parents can make bad choices too.