Please help with advice on preventing Scandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well 14/21 of the kids weren’t allowed to watch TV at all, other than DVDs of bible stories. The rest were allowed to watch a few things under parental supervision. No newspapers were allowed, I only know 2/21 were allowed to play video games. Music was very tightly controlled, probably only 8/21 could have named a Bryan Adams song by age 14 if asked to. That kind of thing.
 
That’s not control, that’s abnormal.
I was allowed to listen to the radio and records (and own records, heck my parents bought me records for birthday and Xmas because I loved music so much). I wore clothes that looked pretty much like a normal teenager (certain things like short shorts, tube tops, bikinis were not allowed though). I was also allowed to watch most TV shows (cable did not exist then so there wasn’t a lot of raunchy stuff on during evening viewing hours). I read the newspaper every night and the only argument we had was that Dad didn’t like me taking it apart before he could get to it first. The main bone of contention for me and my parents was when I brought home some book that had graphic sex scenes in it somewhere or possibly a women’s magazine that had models in states of undress - it was the 70s, women had their groceries hanging out everywhere. One time I tried to hem my shorts to make them short shorts and I got chastised for that. Probably rightly so.

I knew other Catholic kids who had some semblance of parental control at home and they did pretty much all the same things I did. The main difference between us and the uncontrolled kids was we weren’t out with a fake ID drinking, fooling around in somebody’s van or unoccupied house, dating older men and doing the things you see going on in “Fast Times at Ridgmont High”.

If your idea of “parental control” is based on fundies you’re describing, that’s not the norm for Catholics, at least not anybody that I know.
 
Last edited:
Protestant Fundamentalism is a great cause of antireligious sentiment imo.
But can the one be considered a success if he is an atheist? Hopefully he comes to the faith.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Yes, before we jump all over this guy, there may be some valid reasons for the parents wanting to have the extended family live with them, such as more time with the grandkids + having family there to look after them as they become older/ in poorer health. Also, some families do still believe in living in an extended family group. While it is perceived as generous for the parents to be sharing their home with the family of 11, there are likely other dimensions to it. It’s pretty flip to say “You don’t like it? Move!” when there may be a lot of reasons - economic, personal, involving the grandparents’ own welfare, etc. - why this is not possible or desirable in this situation where the daughter and son-in-law aren’t exactly millennials camping out in the basement.

I also think “my house, my rules” only goes so far when you have multiple generations living together for any reason. Obviously it would not be okay if the grandparents encouraged the kids to disobey their parents’ authority on the basis of “grandparents’ house, grandparents’ rules”. Obviously if the house is divided in half then the grandparents can have guests, etc. in “their half” and the son-in-law cannot police this activity, but son-in-law (and daughter) still have the authority over their own children.
Click to expand...
I am from a culture that had – and still has – multi-generational homes.

But that very culture precludes a child – in this case the daughter – attempting to “parent her parents” in their own home. That is brutally disrespectful. For the son-in-law? It is much less tolerable.

The grandson is 25 years old. He is an adult. Presumably, his girlfriend is coming to see him. In a house that has, at minimum, 16 people living in it, any of the adults – not just the grandson – having a guest coming to visit would be hard pressed to have any zone of the house that is not filled with several of the 11 children, assuming we are not talking about the equivalent of the White House or Buckingham Palace.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like it’s not your home, so it’s not your rules. Ultimately it is their decision what happens. You need to respect that even if you disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top