 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Jeepers Creepers posted by Alan on July 11, 2001 at 08:30:25:
Alan,
I'm no head shrinker, but being 40, most of my peers have kids and yes, I am saddened by how many parents raise their kids these days, ignoring them emotionally and then overcompensating for that with material items. Then mom and dad lay blame on all the external stimuli like TV, movies and video games when the problems start with kids that have no values- something that needs to be taught at home at a very early age. I realize that's simplistic 2 sentence explanation of a much more complex subject, but I don't have the time or inclination to go deeper.But
Saying mom didn't hug any of us enough is way off the mark. Your experience consists of seeing the bad cases every day. Pretty heavy baggage. There are also plenty of parents taking care of their kids heads, raising them with ethics, discipline and a value system. WIth all due respect, it seems like you're so close to this subject that you saw this as the main point of the film and I think that it was only a small portion of the story.
Cheers,
Troy
Follow Ups:
All I can say is that my personal and clinical impression of families is that the worst of them are destructive, and the best of them are a neurotic mess. The "hugs" thing is just a metaphorical way of stating that, again in my opinion, nobody gets the childhood they deserve. (Besides, how did this get to be my thing, you started it with the mommy didn't hug me enough comment.) In further thinking about the David character in A.I. he exhibits exactly the neurotic neediness that pretty much all of us have. But we're humans, we develop physically and intellectually, but to some degree never emotionally and we act out our neurotic neediness in adult ways. David was not provided the capacity to develop beyond his childish neediness. He's stuck in it. Why? Because we (adults, parents, society) MADE HIM THAT WAY! The movie is simply pointing this out. You're right, the excuse that problems are generated by the external stimuli is simplistic crap. Those of my cohort saw more violence on TV in a week than kids today see in a month.One other point about the movie. Many have made the biological son of the couple out to be the villan in the movie, and take issue that it's a cheap shot by SS. The kid is clearly not the villan, he's just a regular human child on his way to adulthood, learning all the tricks from his parents and the culture. And the ending isn't about tear jerking, it doesn't matter who the aliens are, how they got there, who they decended from, or any of that. As I said in my first post, it's only to remind us that, in the end, it's always about the parents, it's never about the kids. Who cares about the format?
I think the reason why we have this disagreement is more our difference of philosophy than anything else. Sorry, but I think you give parents too much credit. I think the culture gives parents too much credit. But then, the culture is parents, and what are they gonna say...I suck? In fact most of my work is not with "bad cases" but with families that would be seen by outside observers, neighbors, fellow church goers, as healthy models for the community. And they're a sick neurotic mess.
Good discussion though, despite what Dr. Freud says. Sorry if I went at the quality of the previous posts the way I did. Just a little pissed off I guess. I am, after all a fellow needy neurotic adult. I was made that way.
Alan, I enjoyed your comments about A.I., even though I haven't seen the film. Those comments made me want to see it, despite some negative reviews. And, as a general matter (and as a parent of 3), I think kids are getting the short straw in the US today in ways that were not true when I was a kid 40 years ago. As I am sure you would agree, money is not a substitute for "face time"; and, what I see among many affluent families is that kids get money from their parents but not much attention. However, I attribute this, not to any neurotic characterstic of families, but to a gradual movement in the US to celebrate gratification of the individual's needs over the group's needs, however you define "group". This seems to have begun, (gulp!) in the 1960s.However, I am interested in your observation that "the best of them [families] are a neurotic mess."
Two questions:
1. By what (or whose) standards are they a "neurotic mess" ?
2. What (or who) is it that validates those standards?
My own observation as a non-professional is that families are a "mess" in the sense that they are extremely complicated, exhibit tremendous variation from sample to sample and thereby defy easy categorization. Why are they a "mess"? Because family membership is not a matter of choice. Although husbands and wives choose each other when they get married, I think we all agree that 10, 20, 30 years later, both partners are different people. And, of course, relataives are a fact, not a choice. A child does not choose her parents, and vice-versa. So, families are an act of will. They exist because their members have decided to make them exist. Necessarily, that involves a patchwork of emotional improvisation, as the family members do what they can -- and what they have to -- to get along with each other.
Certainly for the intellectual, whose tendency is to want to organize things into manageable classifications and categories, this is inconvenient. But, to my mind, "neurotic" is a negative value judgment; and inferring "neurotic" from "messy" is not self-evident to me. Most people -- who are the products of families -- manage to function in the societies in which they are born with reasonable success.
A final point that, I confess, always annoys me. At least in the popular mind, the goal of pyschiatry seems to be to have people who are "well-adjusted." Certainly, if I were choosing dinnertable companions or a group with whom to spend a weekend at the beach, I would want them to be well-adjusted. They might also be crashing bores.
The "well-adjusted" imperative ignores the fact that many, many persons who have made significant contributions to society in all fields of life were not at all "well-adjusted"; and some of them, probably by your definition, were/are "neurotic." I'm not at all sure I would want to do without them.
In my mind, "well-adjusted" may also be a synonym for "mediocre."
Neurotic Bruce.
Bruce,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on my various ravings.To address your two questions:
1. By what (or whose) standards are they a "neurotic mess" ?
You caught me Bruce. I am a plagiaristic theif. The term "neurotic mess" and the concept that the "bad" families are destructive and the "good" families are "just a neurotic mess" comes from Colin Ross,MD of the Forest View Mental Health centers in Richardson, TX and Grand Rapids,MI. Ross is an internationally recognized specialist in the treatment of post traumatic stress disorder, personality disorders, and also dissociative identity disorder (formerly multiple personality disorder). His clinical perspective is virtually unchallenged as being on the leading edge of treatment for these disorders.
2. What (or who) is it that validates those standards?
All I can say about this is that it is Dr. Ross' personal clinical impression taken from anecdotal evidence from his years of practice. There are certainly no "neurotic mess" clinical studies, or "neurotic mess" data available to support such a contention. Although Dr. Ross is an ackowledged authority on the above disorders, I'm sure that many would disagree with his perspective on families. Not me though.
The "bad" cases are repugnant to you. I'm sorry your toilet training made you hate your own feces. You are going to be fine Alan. :)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
