Here's Anonymous on PL's post: "STROLLERS BANNED IN BARS! A NO-BRAINER, BUT NOT FOR THE NARCISSISTS!":
I was perusing the Gothamist article about the stroller ban at The Gate and wound up in the comments section at FIPS. I read your comment, and have a question for you: Who are you?!
(Besides being a psychotherapist for blah-blah years—whatever that’s worth-- and some sort of a Park Slope parent)
I should’ve prefaced this comment by saying that I live in Park Slope, I’ve got a couple of kids, and as a rule, I don’t drag my kids to bars or to restaurants that don’t cater to kids. I’m pretty sure that the one time a year that I wind up meeting some friends at a bar on a slow afternoon (or say, watching a bit of a World Cup game) for a beer is not just an opportunity to act out my drama through my children. I still find plenty of opportunities to act out my own dramas. And I'm not an apologist for those that pollute the bars with their kids. That’s not my point.
It’s interesting that you don’t find that it undermines the spew that you preach on this site to sit in judgment of the shameless narcissists who reveal their poor life choices by taking their kids to bars and nice restaurants. I am curious how you reconcile all this healing and self-actualization that you’re helping or hoping (or something) others realize in themselves with this negative, counterproductive, judgmental sniping.
There is no doubt that there are selfish, entitled people who wind up having kids without understanding the magnitude of that choice. I’m not sure many people do fully grasp what it means to be a parent before they decide to do it. But you appeal to the shame and guilt in your fellow PS parents (and patients, it would appear) by calling them out on your site and the other sites you frequent. This seems to violate the FPL handbook and trashes the credibility of whatever you want to accomplish with the FPL thing.
And it reeks of your own narcissism that you use your new-agey, healing, loving forum to address your beef with your own neighbors, and to remind readers that you’ve been doing it for years. And you might want reign in the pride that you have for unearthing the little nugget that there are narcissistic parents in Park Slope. Any monkey that steps out off the subway in this neighborhood could smell it in the air in a couple of minutes. It’s hardly a landmark discovery.
These petty attacks don’t seem to demonstrate your state of harmony with others and the world around you, but maybe that makes sense to you…being a highly-evolved psychotherapist and all.
Lots o' luck.
Here's PL:
Thanks for writing in, Anonymous, though I'm not sure why you're asking who I am since it is "narcissistically" all over my blog, isn't it?!
Anyway, many people confuse judgment with assessment, as you seem to be doing. Judgments are not based on reality, but on projections, transferences, identifications, etc. Judgments, in other words, start with a need to see other people as you wish to see them, rather than as they are.
Assessments on the other hand are descriptions based on information objectively observed. To call a narcissist a narcissist isn't a judgment, therefore; it is an assessment, and actually an essential ingredient to any healing process. There is no healing without facing the truth about oneself.
It is true, yes, that I don't see my role as a "healer" as being to sooth anyone's fragile ego nor feed anyone's illusions about themselves. Too much damage is done from that kind of enabling, especially to children, and including by many therapists.
Any "monkey," as you snidely put it, can smell the narcissism in Park Slope, yes again, but rarely does anyone write about more than their own distaste or inconvenience from the actions of the Stepford Parents here. I am much more concerned with the gutted self-esteem and lack of empathy the Park Slope children are suffering from as a result of the self-indulgent parenting that goes on in this enclave.
This statement by you is certainly not a throw-away line in my book (or blog): "There is no doubt that there are selfish, entitled people who wind up having kids without understanding the magnitude of that choice. I’m not sure many people do fully grasp what it means to be a parent before they decide to do it."
And I don't seek to "shame" or increase "guilt," Anon, but to insist upon self-responsibility.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query park slope parents. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query park slope parents. Sort by date Show all posts
NO EMPATHY? ARE THESE KIDS FROM PARK SLOPE?!
I WARNED YOU!
For several years, now, I've been writing about the crop of narcissistic kids being bred by latter day baby boomers and echo boom parents in enclaves like Park Slope. (You can check out just a few of my postings on the subject HERE.)
A little less than a year ago, I quoted from a book, entitled THE NARCISSISM EPIDEMIC, written by psychology professors, W. Keith Campbell and Jean Twenge, who chart the dramatic rise in the number of Americans who have a clinical narcissist personality disorder.
A little more than a year ago, I quote an article in Slate.com entitled: "But Enough About You …What is narcissistic personality disorder, and why does everyone seem to have it?"
Before I even started the FPL blog, I wrote regularly on the Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn blog about the raging Stepford Parents, living behind the brownstone ramparts of Park Slope, destroying the capacity for empathy in their children. The fact that I was both a parent 3 times over and a psychotherapist who worked with kids and families for 30 years didn't matter to these automatons, though. Needless to say, I got an enormous amount of flack for what I had to say.
Well, read it and weep, folks -according to a new study from the University of Michigan, college students today have 40 percent less empathy than people their age did two to three decades ago. FORTY PERCENT!!
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORTS HealthDay column reports:
"We found the biggest drop in empathy after the year 2000," co-author Sara Konrath, a researcher at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, said in a news release. "College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago, as measured by standard tests of this personality trait."
The analysis indicated that relative to their late-1970s' counterparts, today's college students are less likely to make an effort to understand their friends' perspectives or to feel tenderness or concern for the less fortunate.
"Many people see the current group of college students -- sometimes called 'Generation Me' -- as one of the most self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident and individualistic in recent history," observed Konrath, who is also affiliated with the psychiatry department at the University of Rochester.
Congratulations, all you Park Slope parents! You did it! You successfully so over-indulged and lived through your kids that they don't give a shit about anybody but themselves now. You've gutted them of their empathy, an essential quality necessary for human development, just as I said you would. Now, we all get to live with their narcissism.
Thanks!
For several years, now, I've been writing about the crop of narcissistic kids being bred by latter day baby boomers and echo boom parents in enclaves like Park Slope. (You can check out just a few of my postings on the subject HERE.)
A little less than a year ago, I quoted from a book, entitled THE NARCISSISM EPIDEMIC, written by psychology professors, W. Keith Campbell and Jean Twenge, who chart the dramatic rise in the number of Americans who have a clinical narcissist personality disorder.
A little more than a year ago, I quote an article in Slate.com entitled: "But Enough About You …What is narcissistic personality disorder, and why does everyone seem to have it?"
Before I even started the FPL blog, I wrote regularly on the Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn blog about the raging Stepford Parents, living behind the brownstone ramparts of Park Slope, destroying the capacity for empathy in their children. The fact that I was both a parent 3 times over and a psychotherapist who worked with kids and families for 30 years didn't matter to these automatons, though. Needless to say, I got an enormous amount of flack for what I had to say.
Well, read it and weep, folks -according to a new study from the University of Michigan, college students today have 40 percent less empathy than people their age did two to three decades ago. FORTY PERCENT!!
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORTS HealthDay column reports:
"We found the biggest drop in empathy after the year 2000," co-author Sara Konrath, a researcher at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, said in a news release. "College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago, as measured by standard tests of this personality trait."
The analysis indicated that relative to their late-1970s' counterparts, today's college students are less likely to make an effort to understand their friends' perspectives or to feel tenderness or concern for the less fortunate.
"Many people see the current group of college students -- sometimes called 'Generation Me' -- as one of the most self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident and individualistic in recent history," observed Konrath, who is also affiliated with the psychiatry department at the University of Rochester.
Congratulations, all you Park Slope parents! You did it! You successfully so over-indulged and lived through your kids that they don't give a shit about anybody but themselves now. You've gutted them of their empathy, an essential quality necessary for human development, just as I said you would. Now, we all get to live with their narcissism.
Thanks!
PARK SLOPE IS STILL THE CAPITAL OF PARENTAL ABUSE!!
This is a local story, but pretty hard to believe, so I had to comment on it: Park Slope parents want ice cream trucks banned from playgrounds because they can't stand the meltdowns their kids have when they say no. Yep. I didn't make this up. It's on the ONLY THE BLOG KNOWS BROOKLYN blog.
I mean - Wow! I haven't commented much on the narcissism breeding ground that is Park Slope in a while - been busy with Obama's election and now, health care and the crazy right wing backlash - but this is a whopper that I can't ignore. This is such a horrific story about parental abandonment of children and abdication by the very worst kind of adults. That a parent would rather attempt to ban ice cream trucks from the playground than set limits on their child's sugar cravings and tantrums is extraordinarily disturbed and tragic. I thought I'd heard it all when the Stepford Parents here were mounting a protest to allow their toddlers in strollers into bars, but clearly, the hits keep on coming out here in parental Loonyville. Park Slope is really a bad place to raise children, isn't it? I mean, here is a conglomerate of vicariously acting out deprived adult parents gutting their children of the strengths needed to function in the world - frustration tolerance, delayed gratification, self-regulation... Whew!
I mean - Wow! I haven't commented much on the narcissism breeding ground that is Park Slope in a while - been busy with Obama's election and now, health care and the crazy right wing backlash - but this is a whopper that I can't ignore. This is such a horrific story about parental abandonment of children and abdication by the very worst kind of adults. That a parent would rather attempt to ban ice cream trucks from the playground than set limits on their child's sugar cravings and tantrums is extraordinarily disturbed and tragic. I thought I'd heard it all when the Stepford Parents here were mounting a protest to allow their toddlers in strollers into bars, but clearly, the hits keep on coming out here in parental Loonyville. Park Slope is really a bad place to raise children, isn't it? I mean, here is a conglomerate of vicariously acting out deprived adult parents gutting their children of the strengths needed to function in the world - frustration tolerance, delayed gratification, self-regulation... Whew!
REPOST: THE ABUSED CHILD IN YOU AND ME!
There was a good piece on Slate.com last October in the "Dear Prudence" column entitled: "Surviving Mommie Dearest: My abusive mother haunts my dreams. How can I move on?"
"Prudie" answers a letter from an adult survivor of childhood abuse. It is worth reading, and although I agree with the columnist's statements in response to the letter, I would add the major caveat that one cannot follow such advice unless some serious self-work has been done first to pave the way, not just a "a short-term tune up," as Prudie suggests. Oh, and I would also disagree with you, Prudie, in that I do think that the mother of "Stuck In My Head," for all intents and purposes, was the anti-Christ! (Prudie's response to SIMH is after my post here.)
Here's PL:
I believe it was Alexander Lowen who once proclaimed that "ninety-nine percent of all children are abused" in some way or another by their parents or primary caretakers. (Lowen, of course, was the famed psychiatrist who created Bioenergetics, the life-changing therapy approach that treats the whole person - mind, body and emotions - and coined the term "body language." Others subsequently added the spiritual aspect to Lowen's work and created Core Energetics.)
My three-plus decades of work as a clinical social worker and psychotherapist, along with my expertise at reading what Lowen called the "language of the body," leads me unequivocally to the realization that Lowen was right. So right that I have yet to meet a single individual in my professional or personal life that emerged from childhood unscathed by the emotional-psychological dysfunctions and distortions in their parents' personalities.
That being said, that there is an "abused child" in all of us, I would like to delineate how I see the parental abuse spectrum.
At the lower, less extreme end on this scale are those adults with kids who I would describe as the "Clueless Parents." They had children at a young age very often, before even remotely having the time to become even remotely self-actualized. They may have a lot of energy for their kids, but they lack the needed wisdom and life experience to be true guides for younger beings. While the basic physical needs of their children may be met adequately, their higher, quality of life needs are not. Also in this range are parents who are from, or are recent descendants of parents from, "old world" or Third World countries, where poverty, ignorance about childhood developmental, and the socially acceptable harsh treatment of children is the norm. Children from these kinds of moderately abusive situations tend to have difficulty growing emotionally and psychologically past the levels attained by their parents, even though they may do better professionally and financially than said parents.
Close by, but still more abusive than the Clueless Parents, are the "Park Slope Parents." Educated, professional, maybe even artistically inclined, these people had children, and often too many of them, to fulfill an image of themselves as successful according to their gender-specific identities. Excessively ego-driven, these parents had kids to act out a story line that in their imaginations would enhance their self-worth and value in society, would recreate or redeem their own childhoods, and worst of all, fill the void that only grows over time from not being truly self-actualized in love, Eros and sex, and in their creative lives. These are the narcissistic parents Alice Miller writes about in her landmark book, DRAMA OF THE GIFTED CHILD, and ironically, but predictably, the children raised by these parents end up gutted of a genuine sense of self and riddled by a desperate neediness and an exaggerated sense of entitlement.
Next up on the abuse ladder are the "Borderline Parents." Straddling the line, as the name implies, between everyday neurotic and narcissistic complexes and the netherland of transient psychosis, these apparently stable individuals usually function fairly well in society, though they will sporadically descend into substance abuse, sexual acting out, rageful outbursts and paranoid and labile emotional swings. The children of these parents often become "survivors," individuals with strong compensated personalities whose behavior is overly focused on taking care of the needs of others at their own expense, proving that they can do without over and over again. As adults, the children of borderlines are surprisingly good candidates for a healing psychotherapy experience, even though their parents are absolutely not. Perhaps it is because these children have developed an early capacity for self-reliance, which is exactly what a truly holistic psychotherapy promotes.
Finally, there are the parents we typically label as "abusive," what I will call the "Sociopathic Parents." Without the capacity for empathy, these parents are essentially psychotic. They see their children merely as objects, as players in their own delusional fantasies. To the sociopath, children can and should be systematically and relentlessly manipulated, exploited, imprisoned, brutalized, punished and in some cases, ultimately destroyed. If the children of these parents don't end up psychotic or dead, they will most likely have borderline features at best, or suffer from major depression at worst. It should be noted that those who do survive such abuse and become relatively healed at some point, speak to the existence of a powerful Higher Self at work.
Folks, unless you claim to be among the one-percent of us who indeed had genuinely self-actualized parents, and therefore, you are someone I've never met or even heard about, then there is an abused child lurking inside of you. And that child is interfering with your capacity to enjoy great love, Eros and sex, is blocking you from full creative expression of your personal gifts and talents, is derailing your efforts to maintain a vibrant, healthy body and is preventing you from truly knowing and being yourself. The good news is that regardless of which type of abuse you endured, with enough determination, you can heal, you can have the ultimate "revenge," which is a happy, healthy, wealthy and wise life!
More to come on this subject...
Here's Prudie's response to SIMH
"Dear Stuck,
Your mother is no anti-Christ; she’s just a sad, sick woman who’s hurt her children and made a hash of her life. Sure, she was a scarily overwhelming figure in your childhood, but a good step toward releasing her hold is to recognize how much you inflate this pathetic flyspeck of a person. Accept that she has no power over you anymore and that you can consciously work on diminishing her place in your psyche. When you were a girl, she and her boyfriends made your nights a real misery. But even if she’s still in your dreams, remember she’s no longer lurking down the hall. You emerged from this maelstrom of abuse and became a loving, productive person. Many are shattered by such a start in life, but through hard work, self-insight, and resilience, you made it. Start working at being nicer to yourself. It might help to recognize that some credit, too, must go to your lucky draw in the genetics department. Perhaps you have siblings who were more fragile than you and broke under your mother’s “care.” You were fortunate to be made of tougher stuff, so celebrate those good genes. Then acknowledge that no matter how much you may physically resemble your mother, she doesn’t inhabit you. Those are your hands, that’s your smile. Take steps to reclaim them. Sign up for a pottery or painting class and watch something beautiful emerge from your hands. Buy yourself a ring that gives you pleasure. Go to a department store cosmetics counter and get a makeover. Not to hide your face, but to bring out what’s unique about your own looks. Reconsider therapy, even if only for a short-term tune up. Tell potential therapists you aren’t seeking an open-ended discussion about your childhood, but want to work on practical ways to diminish the thoughts about your mother. After a bad dream comes, when you open your eyes, savor the realization that you’re a grown woman, in your own bed, next to your darling husband, and you’re free.
Prudie"
"Prudie" answers a letter from an adult survivor of childhood abuse. It is worth reading, and although I agree with the columnist's statements in response to the letter, I would add the major caveat that one cannot follow such advice unless some serious self-work has been done first to pave the way, not just a "a short-term tune up," as Prudie suggests. Oh, and I would also disagree with you, Prudie, in that I do think that the mother of "Stuck In My Head," for all intents and purposes, was the anti-Christ! (Prudie's response to SIMH is after my post here.)
Here's PL:
I believe it was Alexander Lowen who once proclaimed that "ninety-nine percent of all children are abused" in some way or another by their parents or primary caretakers. (Lowen, of course, was the famed psychiatrist who created Bioenergetics, the life-changing therapy approach that treats the whole person - mind, body and emotions - and coined the term "body language." Others subsequently added the spiritual aspect to Lowen's work and created Core Energetics.)
My three-plus decades of work as a clinical social worker and psychotherapist, along with my expertise at reading what Lowen called the "language of the body," leads me unequivocally to the realization that Lowen was right. So right that I have yet to meet a single individual in my professional or personal life that emerged from childhood unscathed by the emotional-psychological dysfunctions and distortions in their parents' personalities.
That being said, that there is an "abused child" in all of us, I would like to delineate how I see the parental abuse spectrum.
At the lower, less extreme end on this scale are those adults with kids who I would describe as the "Clueless Parents." They had children at a young age very often, before even remotely having the time to become even remotely self-actualized. They may have a lot of energy for their kids, but they lack the needed wisdom and life experience to be true guides for younger beings. While the basic physical needs of their children may be met adequately, their higher, quality of life needs are not. Also in this range are parents who are from, or are recent descendants of parents from, "old world" or Third World countries, where poverty, ignorance about childhood developmental, and the socially acceptable harsh treatment of children is the norm. Children from these kinds of moderately abusive situations tend to have difficulty growing emotionally and psychologically past the levels attained by their parents, even though they may do better professionally and financially than said parents.
Close by, but still more abusive than the Clueless Parents, are the "Park Slope Parents." Educated, professional, maybe even artistically inclined, these people had children, and often too many of them, to fulfill an image of themselves as successful according to their gender-specific identities. Excessively ego-driven, these parents had kids to act out a story line that in their imaginations would enhance their self-worth and value in society, would recreate or redeem their own childhoods, and worst of all, fill the void that only grows over time from not being truly self-actualized in love, Eros and sex, and in their creative lives. These are the narcissistic parents Alice Miller writes about in her landmark book, DRAMA OF THE GIFTED CHILD, and ironically, but predictably, the children raised by these parents end up gutted of a genuine sense of self and riddled by a desperate neediness and an exaggerated sense of entitlement.
Next up on the abuse ladder are the "Borderline Parents." Straddling the line, as the name implies, between everyday neurotic and narcissistic complexes and the netherland of transient psychosis, these apparently stable individuals usually function fairly well in society, though they will sporadically descend into substance abuse, sexual acting out, rageful outbursts and paranoid and labile emotional swings. The children of these parents often become "survivors," individuals with strong compensated personalities whose behavior is overly focused on taking care of the needs of others at their own expense, proving that they can do without over and over again. As adults, the children of borderlines are surprisingly good candidates for a healing psychotherapy experience, even though their parents are absolutely not. Perhaps it is because these children have developed an early capacity for self-reliance, which is exactly what a truly holistic psychotherapy promotes.
Finally, there are the parents we typically label as "abusive," what I will call the "Sociopathic Parents." Without the capacity for empathy, these parents are essentially psychotic. They see their children merely as objects, as players in their own delusional fantasies. To the sociopath, children can and should be systematically and relentlessly manipulated, exploited, imprisoned, brutalized, punished and in some cases, ultimately destroyed. If the children of these parents don't end up psychotic or dead, they will most likely have borderline features at best, or suffer from major depression at worst. It should be noted that those who do survive such abuse and become relatively healed at some point, speak to the existence of a powerful Higher Self at work.
Folks, unless you claim to be among the one-percent of us who indeed had genuinely self-actualized parents, and therefore, you are someone I've never met or even heard about, then there is an abused child lurking inside of you. And that child is interfering with your capacity to enjoy great love, Eros and sex, is blocking you from full creative expression of your personal gifts and talents, is derailing your efforts to maintain a vibrant, healthy body and is preventing you from truly knowing and being yourself. The good news is that regardless of which type of abuse you endured, with enough determination, you can heal, you can have the ultimate "revenge," which is a happy, healthy, wealthy and wise life!
More to come on this subject...
Here's Prudie's response to SIMH
"Dear Stuck,
Your mother is no anti-Christ; she’s just a sad, sick woman who’s hurt her children and made a hash of her life. Sure, she was a scarily overwhelming figure in your childhood, but a good step toward releasing her hold is to recognize how much you inflate this pathetic flyspeck of a person. Accept that she has no power over you anymore and that you can consciously work on diminishing her place in your psyche. When you were a girl, she and her boyfriends made your nights a real misery. But even if she’s still in your dreams, remember she’s no longer lurking down the hall. You emerged from this maelstrom of abuse and became a loving, productive person. Many are shattered by such a start in life, but through hard work, self-insight, and resilience, you made it. Start working at being nicer to yourself. It might help to recognize that some credit, too, must go to your lucky draw in the genetics department. Perhaps you have siblings who were more fragile than you and broke under your mother’s “care.” You were fortunate to be made of tougher stuff, so celebrate those good genes. Then acknowledge that no matter how much you may physically resemble your mother, she doesn’t inhabit you. Those are your hands, that’s your smile. Take steps to reclaim them. Sign up for a pottery or painting class and watch something beautiful emerge from your hands. Buy yourself a ring that gives you pleasure. Go to a department store cosmetics counter and get a makeover. Not to hide your face, but to bring out what’s unique about your own looks. Reconsider therapy, even if only for a short-term tune up. Tell potential therapists you aren’t seeking an open-ended discussion about your childhood, but want to work on practical ways to diminish the thoughts about your mother. After a bad dream comes, when you open your eyes, savor the realization that you’re a grown woman, in your own bed, next to your darling husband, and you’re free.
Prudie"
SMARTMOM'S SON BECOMING A MAN/PL RESPONDS: THE GOOD YEARS AREN'T BEHIND US!
Here's another revealing "SMARTMOM" column by Louise Crawford that was on her blog - ONLY THE BLOG KNOWS BROOKLYN - today, followed below by some of my comments to her.
Here's Louise:
"In just a few months, Teen Spirit will turn 18. That’s the end of childhood, right? It’s the age when a boy can become a soldier and vote in a general election. He still can’t drink (legally, that is), but he can buy cigarettes and start working at the Park Slope Food Co-op as an adult member of the household.
Yeesh.
It’s weird to have a child who is at the end of childhood. That means he’s close to completing that idyllic stage of life that he will discuss again and again in bars, on first dates, in marital counseling and in memoir writing workshops.
His childhood may well be blamed for everything that goes right and wrong in his life, in his relationships and in his career. It will also be idealized and exaggerated. Events will be inflated; deprivations and high points will be exaggerated; parents and sibling will be demonized and glorified (though not always in equal measure).
For now, Smartmom is eschewing the “seems like yesterday” clichés about Teen Spirit’s ascent to full manhood. That said, she is allowing herself a few looks back. How is it possible, she has asked herself a few times this week, that it was nearly 18 years ago when she was wheeled into a delivery room to have her emergency C-section at Lenox Hill Hospital? To this day, she remembers singing, “Yes Sir, That’s My Baby” as she lay in the recovery area.
Smartmom can remember the day they moved to Park Slope when Teen Spirit was a tiny 3-month-old. He was cute as a button — she and Hepcat called him their Maurice Sendak baby, thanks to his perfectly round face and his halo of blonde hair.
Truth be told, Teen Spirit was the cutest baby ever. No kidding. People used to stop them on the street to compliment their little boy. They were even asked on a few occasions if they were interested in having him model. Teen Spirit is actually on the cover of a corporation annual report wearing only a cloth diaper.
It’s funny to think back to that time. It’s like the Garden of Eden of Smartmom and Hepcat’s life together — before high school, middle age, and the realities of a 20-year marriage.
A lot of things didn’t turn out as they expected. For one thing, Smartmom and Hepcat never planned to stay in their small three-bedroom apartment this long. They didn’t think Teen Spirit’s tiny bedroom would be big enough for a 5-year-old.
Now at 17, Teen Spirit sleeps with his head touching one wall and his feet touching the other. Smartmom and Hepcat can hear his foot taps in their room, which is right next door.
But Teen Spirit never complained or went through that phase where he compared his life to the more-opulent lifestyles of his friends, who live in Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights brownstones. He’s always been comfortable in his own economic skin and doesn’t pine for material possessions or name-brand clothing. Quite the contrary, Teen Spirit dresses in clothing he finds on the street (washed first, most of the time).
Teen Spirit has always been very attached to their building on Third Street, especially when a boy named Eddie moved in downstairs when Teen Spirit was 3. The two quickly became best friends. For years, “I’m going down Eddie’s” was a constant refrain as the boys played non-stop in one or the other’s apartment.
The other refrain? “I’ll chain myself to a lamppost,” Teen Spirit would say whenever Smartmom and Hepcat were looking for a new home in whatever affordable neighborhood they were considering at the time.
Sadly, Eddie and his family moved away when he was 12, and it was a sad day for Teen Spirit. Smartmom always expected to follow their lead and move to a small town somewhere where they would have a big Victorian house with lots of space for everyone.
But Smartmom could never wrap her head around living anywhere else but Brooklyn. She never even got around to moving the family to Ditmas Park or Kensington, where she could give Teen Spirit a backyard and at least a small piece of that childhood idyll: watching the flowers grow, the dogwood tree bloom or the neighbor’s weird chain link fence.
Smartmom and Hepcat aspired to the American Dream, but Teen Spirit got the Brooklyn Dream instead. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing.
How cool was it to have his best friend living right downstairs? There’s a special closeness that develops between childhood neighbors in a New York apartment building.
Teen Spirit got to play on the sidewalks of Park Slope. Those summer nights were fun. Especially when the parents barbecued on the street and the kids made ’smores.
Teen Spirit never had to depend on his parents to drive him around except when he needed band equipment schlepped all the way to Red Hook. And he never had to worry about getting into a car with a drunk teenage driver.
From a young age, he had the freedom to walk wherever he wanted. Seventh Avenue. Prospect Park. Fifth Avenue. At the age of 14, he was riding the subway all over the city.
He got to watch his freelancer father agonize over work in his office (a.k.a. the living room). He got to see his mother sweat over a hot computer in her office (a.k.a. the dining room).
And think of the food. The cuisines of the world are available 24/7. Hey, what do you feel like tonight: Indian, Chinese, Thai, Grand Canyon?
Finally, he absorbed that worldly vibe that comes from living in New York City, which includes a comfort level with a diverse cast of characters, an interest in how people are different, and appreciation for the colorful and the unusual side of things.
So with the end of Teen Spirit’s childhood right around the corner, Smartmom is pretty sure that she and Hepcat gave Teen Spirit a childhood to remember. It may not be the pastoral childhood that Smartmom imagined, but it was a childhood Brooklyn-style.
And that makes him ready to be a man."
PL:
As always, Smartmom, your candor and openness in revealing your personal journey is refreshing and hopeful in a world where masks of adulthood tend to supplant the real thing far too often. And above all else, your kids have and will benefit from that openness on their journeys into adulthood, as Teen Spirit is now just beginning his.
I must take issue with two statements, though, that reflect a belief of yours, apparently, that many others hold onto as well. You refer to the end of childhood as "completing that idyllic stage of life..." and you refer to your son's infant years as the "Garden of Eden of Smartmom and Hepcat’s life together — before high school, middle age, and the realities of a 20-year marriage." That point of view may be common, but it is not the way it is naturally meant to be. Ending childhood is organically much more "idyllic" than childhood - for the child - because now, he can become the master of his own life as an adult in an adult world. As kids, we are continually subject to the constructs, dictates and foibles of the adults in whose care we exist in states of utter dependency. Adulthood is freedom, and yes, with that freedom comes self-responsibility, but that is the greatest gift of all: I get to choose. Yahoo! Furthermore, the twentieth year of a marriage should organically be the best so far - until the twenty-first - because unless you've stopped growing and thriving together, nothing behind you can be better than where you are and where you're going.
If there's any message we should be giving to our kids, then, it's that life gets better and better over time, that the future is to be embraced and sought after, that the Garden lies down the road, not in the past. If some previous times represent the good old days, who would want to grow up?
Here's Louise:
"In just a few months, Teen Spirit will turn 18. That’s the end of childhood, right? It’s the age when a boy can become a soldier and vote in a general election. He still can’t drink (legally, that is), but he can buy cigarettes and start working at the Park Slope Food Co-op as an adult member of the household.
Yeesh.
It’s weird to have a child who is at the end of childhood. That means he’s close to completing that idyllic stage of life that he will discuss again and again in bars, on first dates, in marital counseling and in memoir writing workshops.
His childhood may well be blamed for everything that goes right and wrong in his life, in his relationships and in his career. It will also be idealized and exaggerated. Events will be inflated; deprivations and high points will be exaggerated; parents and sibling will be demonized and glorified (though not always in equal measure).
For now, Smartmom is eschewing the “seems like yesterday” clichés about Teen Spirit’s ascent to full manhood. That said, she is allowing herself a few looks back. How is it possible, she has asked herself a few times this week, that it was nearly 18 years ago when she was wheeled into a delivery room to have her emergency C-section at Lenox Hill Hospital? To this day, she remembers singing, “Yes Sir, That’s My Baby” as she lay in the recovery area.
Smartmom can remember the day they moved to Park Slope when Teen Spirit was a tiny 3-month-old. He was cute as a button — she and Hepcat called him their Maurice Sendak baby, thanks to his perfectly round face and his halo of blonde hair.
Truth be told, Teen Spirit was the cutest baby ever. No kidding. People used to stop them on the street to compliment their little boy. They were even asked on a few occasions if they were interested in having him model. Teen Spirit is actually on the cover of a corporation annual report wearing only a cloth diaper.
It’s funny to think back to that time. It’s like the Garden of Eden of Smartmom and Hepcat’s life together — before high school, middle age, and the realities of a 20-year marriage.
A lot of things didn’t turn out as they expected. For one thing, Smartmom and Hepcat never planned to stay in their small three-bedroom apartment this long. They didn’t think Teen Spirit’s tiny bedroom would be big enough for a 5-year-old.
Now at 17, Teen Spirit sleeps with his head touching one wall and his feet touching the other. Smartmom and Hepcat can hear his foot taps in their room, which is right next door.
But Teen Spirit never complained or went through that phase where he compared his life to the more-opulent lifestyles of his friends, who live in Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights brownstones. He’s always been comfortable in his own economic skin and doesn’t pine for material possessions or name-brand clothing. Quite the contrary, Teen Spirit dresses in clothing he finds on the street (washed first, most of the time).
Teen Spirit has always been very attached to their building on Third Street, especially when a boy named Eddie moved in downstairs when Teen Spirit was 3. The two quickly became best friends. For years, “I’m going down Eddie’s” was a constant refrain as the boys played non-stop in one or the other’s apartment.
The other refrain? “I’ll chain myself to a lamppost,” Teen Spirit would say whenever Smartmom and Hepcat were looking for a new home in whatever affordable neighborhood they were considering at the time.
Sadly, Eddie and his family moved away when he was 12, and it was a sad day for Teen Spirit. Smartmom always expected to follow their lead and move to a small town somewhere where they would have a big Victorian house with lots of space for everyone.
But Smartmom could never wrap her head around living anywhere else but Brooklyn. She never even got around to moving the family to Ditmas Park or Kensington, where she could give Teen Spirit a backyard and at least a small piece of that childhood idyll: watching the flowers grow, the dogwood tree bloom or the neighbor’s weird chain link fence.
Smartmom and Hepcat aspired to the American Dream, but Teen Spirit got the Brooklyn Dream instead. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing.
How cool was it to have his best friend living right downstairs? There’s a special closeness that develops between childhood neighbors in a New York apartment building.
Teen Spirit got to play on the sidewalks of Park Slope. Those summer nights were fun. Especially when the parents barbecued on the street and the kids made ’smores.
Teen Spirit never had to depend on his parents to drive him around except when he needed band equipment schlepped all the way to Red Hook. And he never had to worry about getting into a car with a drunk teenage driver.
From a young age, he had the freedom to walk wherever he wanted. Seventh Avenue. Prospect Park. Fifth Avenue. At the age of 14, he was riding the subway all over the city.
He got to watch his freelancer father agonize over work in his office (a.k.a. the living room). He got to see his mother sweat over a hot computer in her office (a.k.a. the dining room).
And think of the food. The cuisines of the world are available 24/7. Hey, what do you feel like tonight: Indian, Chinese, Thai, Grand Canyon?
Finally, he absorbed that worldly vibe that comes from living in New York City, which includes a comfort level with a diverse cast of characters, an interest in how people are different, and appreciation for the colorful and the unusual side of things.
So with the end of Teen Spirit’s childhood right around the corner, Smartmom is pretty sure that she and Hepcat gave Teen Spirit a childhood to remember. It may not be the pastoral childhood that Smartmom imagined, but it was a childhood Brooklyn-style.
And that makes him ready to be a man."
PL:
As always, Smartmom, your candor and openness in revealing your personal journey is refreshing and hopeful in a world where masks of adulthood tend to supplant the real thing far too often. And above all else, your kids have and will benefit from that openness on their journeys into adulthood, as Teen Spirit is now just beginning his.
I must take issue with two statements, though, that reflect a belief of yours, apparently, that many others hold onto as well. You refer to the end of childhood as "completing that idyllic stage of life..." and you refer to your son's infant years as the "Garden of Eden of Smartmom and Hepcat’s life together — before high school, middle age, and the realities of a 20-year marriage." That point of view may be common, but it is not the way it is naturally meant to be. Ending childhood is organically much more "idyllic" than childhood - for the child - because now, he can become the master of his own life as an adult in an adult world. As kids, we are continually subject to the constructs, dictates and foibles of the adults in whose care we exist in states of utter dependency. Adulthood is freedom, and yes, with that freedom comes self-responsibility, but that is the greatest gift of all: I get to choose. Yahoo! Furthermore, the twentieth year of a marriage should organically be the best so far - until the twenty-first - because unless you've stopped growing and thriving together, nothing behind you can be better than where you are and where you're going.
If there's any message we should be giving to our kids, then, it's that life gets better and better over time, that the future is to be embraced and sought after, that the Garden lies down the road, not in the past. If some previous times represent the good old days, who would want to grow up?
WHAT'S WRONG WITH PARENTS? IT'S THE KIDS WHO DEFEND AND IDEALIZE THEM WHEN THEY GROW UP!
I have spent three decades working with people in therapy, listening to their inner lives and their histories, and I have participated in raising three children over that time as well, and I've lived in Park Slope, the breeding capital of the country, for the last five+ years. I have heard and seen a lot. And some of the most horrendous stories of child abuse and mistreatment I have heard have been from adult people who claimed to have "great" parents when they were kids.
I have heard adults describe the beatings and physical torture they endured in their childhoods as simple "strictness" or just "cultural." I have heard grown-up offspring blame themselves over and over for the verbal abuse heaped upon them as children by their frustrated, out-of-control parents. I have heard about how mommy or daddy was "my best friend," which often meant that said mommy or daddy leaned on the child for emotional, romantic or sometimes even sexual comfort and support because the marital relationship sucked. And the damage caused by the garden variety narcissism so rampant and socially acceptable in so many middle and upper-middle class parents in enclaves like Park Slope is off the scale.
I have heard grown people idealize and cover for their parents with a determination that is frightening. Why frightening? Because an adult who isn't able to face the dysfunction in their parents isn't likely to take the steps necessary to heal the harmful effects of those distortions in themselves, and is much more likely to repeat the pattern of abuse and neglect in all of their significant relationships, including with their own children.
Little children have no choice. They have to idealize their sick parents because when you are that little and totally dependent and vulnerable, it is too overwhelming to face the craziness in those that you rely on for everything. So, children will elevate their parents and denigrate themselves at all costs because it seems necessary for survival. That child would rather think "Something is wrong with me, that's why I'm not getting what I need" than face that their caretaker is limited, maybe even dangerous to their well-being. But as adults, we are no longer dependent and little and weak. We can face the truth from those earlier times, face the madness of the circumstances we grew up in and stop the cycle.
If you are an adult human being reading this, you once were a kid with parents. I implore you - take your parents off the pedestal in your mind and heal yourself. In so doing, you help to heal the generations of children to come.
Really. Think about it. Do it. Really.
I have heard adults describe the beatings and physical torture they endured in their childhoods as simple "strictness" or just "cultural." I have heard grown-up offspring blame themselves over and over for the verbal abuse heaped upon them as children by their frustrated, out-of-control parents. I have heard about how mommy or daddy was "my best friend," which often meant that said mommy or daddy leaned on the child for emotional, romantic or sometimes even sexual comfort and support because the marital relationship sucked. And the damage caused by the garden variety narcissism so rampant and socially acceptable in so many middle and upper-middle class parents in enclaves like Park Slope is off the scale.
I have heard grown people idealize and cover for their parents with a determination that is frightening. Why frightening? Because an adult who isn't able to face the dysfunction in their parents isn't likely to take the steps necessary to heal the harmful effects of those distortions in themselves, and is much more likely to repeat the pattern of abuse and neglect in all of their significant relationships, including with their own children.
Little children have no choice. They have to idealize their sick parents because when you are that little and totally dependent and vulnerable, it is too overwhelming to face the craziness in those that you rely on for everything. So, children will elevate their parents and denigrate themselves at all costs because it seems necessary for survival. That child would rather think "Something is wrong with me, that's why I'm not getting what I need" than face that their caretaker is limited, maybe even dangerous to their well-being. But as adults, we are no longer dependent and little and weak. We can face the truth from those earlier times, face the madness of the circumstances we grew up in and stop the cycle.
If you are an adult human being reading this, you once were a kid with parents. I implore you - take your parents off the pedestal in your mind and heal yourself. In so doing, you help to heal the generations of children to come.
Really. Think about it. Do it. Really.
A STROLLER IS JUST A WHEELCHAIR FOR THE LITTLE LAME PRINCE!
This is a comment I posted on the Park Slope-based blog, ONLY THE BLOG KNOWS BROOKLYN, in response to a series of postings about the Barnes and Nobles bookstore in Park Slope attempting to control the traffic of SUV-sized strollers anywhere in the store and the protests of the parental lunatic fringe out here in Stepford. The comments are quite unbelievable, even to the point, I swear, you can't make this up, but some even go so far as this: "Strollers are vehicles for people who cannot walk - some cannot walk at all, some cannot walk for long distances reliably. If B&N banned wheelchairs because they clogged the aisles, imagine the outrage. But what is a stroller if not a wheelchair?"
WHAT?!
Anyway, here's what I wrote on the blog:
How utterly disingenuous so many of the "pro-strollers-anywhere" postings are here. The reason the Stepford moms in this enclave are so militant is because they have found themselves in an untenable situation - trying to vicariously fulfill an image of what an imaginary perfect childhood would have been like if only they had the overly-indulgent, enmeshed parents they're trying to be, while simultaneously trying to live a gratifying, boundless 21st Century lifestyle. And who's suffering? Well, not just the other patrons who are either single or are mature enough parents (like me - father of 2 young ones) not to bring their kids to coffee shops, bars or yes, most bookstores (at least until they're past stroller age). No, the annoyance of other adult human beings who want to live in peace in Park Slope is not horrific. The real tragedy here is what is being done to the kids. And how telling is it that some parents are trying to classify children in strollers in the same category as disabled people in wheelchairs? Doesn't that kind of perfectly symbolize the sad plight of these kids whose parents do in fact treat them like disabled princes and princesses? (See "THE LITTLE LAME PRINCE" by Dinah Maria Craik)
WHAT?!
Anyway, here's what I wrote on the blog:
How utterly disingenuous so many of the "pro-strollers-anywhere" postings are here. The reason the Stepford moms in this enclave are so militant is because they have found themselves in an untenable situation - trying to vicariously fulfill an image of what an imaginary perfect childhood would have been like if only they had the overly-indulgent, enmeshed parents they're trying to be, while simultaneously trying to live a gratifying, boundless 21st Century lifestyle. And who's suffering? Well, not just the other patrons who are either single or are mature enough parents (like me - father of 2 young ones) not to bring their kids to coffee shops, bars or yes, most bookstores (at least until they're past stroller age). No, the annoyance of other adult human beings who want to live in peace in Park Slope is not horrific. The real tragedy here is what is being done to the kids. And how telling is it that some parents are trying to classify children in strollers in the same category as disabled people in wheelchairs? Doesn't that kind of perfectly symbolize the sad plight of these kids whose parents do in fact treat them like disabled princes and princesses? (See "THE LITTLE LAME PRINCE" by Dinah Maria Craik)
AND ON THE REALLY LIGHTER SIDE - THE PARK SLOPE FOOD COOP STILL HASN'T GROWN-UP!!
Before I became infamous around Park Slope for lambasting narcissistic parents bringing their tots to bars and fine dining restaurants, I started out as a critic of the self-righteous, self-serving club out here known as the Park Slope Food Coop
Well, CLICK HERE to read an article that was in the NY Times this past weekend about the nefarious PSFC.
This is an excerpt:
"I BOUNDED off the Q train in Brooklyn one night last winter and headed to Union Street, past the yogurt shop and the firehouse, to do some grocery shopping. But my plans soon went awry.
'You’re suspended,' the entrance worker at the Park Slope Food Coop announced as I swiped my membership card. Some entrance workers speak softly, but not this one. Worse, there were a dozen other shoppers within earshot.
Flushed, defeated and taken aback — I knew I owed the co-op some work, but I didn’t know I had been blacklisted — I slunk around the corner for a takeout burrito. But no amount of mushrooms and spinach could diminish my shame and guilt.
Below is a piece I wrote for the ONLY THE BLOG KNOWS BROOKLYN blog a while ago about why I quit the coop:
Well, count me among those who just recently left the co-op. After 3 years, I finally had enough of the Soviet-style Communism masquerading as socialism (which OTBKB commenter Michael reminded us is rooted in the philosophy: to each according to their needs, from each according to their means).
The PSFC's "love us or get out" attitude is hardly exemplary of anything resembling cooperative. I have been a supporter of sustainable agriculture for two decades. One of my best friends was executive director of the largest activist organization in the country for sustainable agriculture and even she told me that the PSFC hard-core were notoriously known as the Co-op Nazi's - even in those liberal circles!
And oh yeah, on Fairway, first of all, you totally DON'T need a car - the F train to Smith and 9th and the 77 bus is a quick and easy route, and with no long lines AND FREE home delivery for orders over a hundred dollars, we have saved hours over the co-op life every week, AND don't let anyone lie to you, the prices are totally comparable to the co-op's, in some cases significantly cheaper, and they have ever-expanding organic sections, including beautiful organic meats and chicken. By adding the two local greenmarkets in Prospect Park on Wednesday and Saturday to our bi-monthly trips to Fairway, our food-shopping life has once again become pleasurable.
The bottom line is this: like most fascist regimes, the PSFC's dogma has ended up superceeding its original mission, which in this case was to help local, small, organic farmers stay in business and help consumers obtain healthy food. I believe in sustainable agriculture as a way of life. I'm also very busy as a psychotherapist, writer and parent of two kids. Most other serious food co-ops in the country today allow members the option to work at the co-op and pay lower prices, or not work and pay higher prices. Who does that hurt? Really?
Well, CLICK HERE to read an article that was in the NY Times this past weekend about the nefarious PSFC.
This is an excerpt:
"I BOUNDED off the Q train in Brooklyn one night last winter and headed to Union Street, past the yogurt shop and the firehouse, to do some grocery shopping. But my plans soon went awry.
'You’re suspended,' the entrance worker at the Park Slope Food Coop announced as I swiped my membership card. Some entrance workers speak softly, but not this one. Worse, there were a dozen other shoppers within earshot.
Flushed, defeated and taken aback — I knew I owed the co-op some work, but I didn’t know I had been blacklisted — I slunk around the corner for a takeout burrito. But no amount of mushrooms and spinach could diminish my shame and guilt.
Below is a piece I wrote for the ONLY THE BLOG KNOWS BROOKLYN blog a while ago about why I quit the coop:
Well, count me among those who just recently left the co-op. After 3 years, I finally had enough of the Soviet-style Communism masquerading as socialism (which OTBKB commenter Michael reminded us is rooted in the philosophy: to each according to their needs, from each according to their means).
The PSFC's "love us or get out" attitude is hardly exemplary of anything resembling cooperative. I have been a supporter of sustainable agriculture for two decades. One of my best friends was executive director of the largest activist organization in the country for sustainable agriculture and even she told me that the PSFC hard-core were notoriously known as the Co-op Nazi's - even in those liberal circles!
And oh yeah, on Fairway, first of all, you totally DON'T need a car - the F train to Smith and 9th and the 77 bus is a quick and easy route, and with no long lines AND FREE home delivery for orders over a hundred dollars, we have saved hours over the co-op life every week, AND don't let anyone lie to you, the prices are totally comparable to the co-op's, in some cases significantly cheaper, and they have ever-expanding organic sections, including beautiful organic meats and chicken. By adding the two local greenmarkets in Prospect Park on Wednesday and Saturday to our bi-monthly trips to Fairway, our food-shopping life has once again become pleasurable.
The bottom line is this: like most fascist regimes, the PSFC's dogma has ended up superceeding its original mission, which in this case was to help local, small, organic farmers stay in business and help consumers obtain healthy food. I believe in sustainable agriculture as a way of life. I'm also very busy as a psychotherapist, writer and parent of two kids. Most other serious food co-ops in the country today allow members the option to work at the co-op and pay lower prices, or not work and pay higher prices. Who does that hurt? Really?
Tots at the Bar?
I have a column called “Au Contraire: The Occasional Note by Peter Loffredo,” on the “Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn” blog, run by Louise “Smartmom” Crawford (of Brooklyn Paper fame). I frequently rail on about the epidemic of parental over-involvement that runs rampant among so many enclaves of educated Baby Boomers these days. My over-involvement in this issue stems from my awareness as a therapist of the damage being done to so many children by these otherwise well-intentioned parents. I have said more than once to said parents that they are creating a generation of “cranky narcissists,” and I have, of course, gotten a lot of angry responses back. (I have also dared to suggest that parents should focus a little more on their sex-romance lives, and boy did that really go down like a lead balloon!)
Yet, this is no small matter from which I intend to back away, and here’s why: narcissism, which can be initiated in almost any stage of early childhood, and can be part of any character structure, is an insidious, crippling disorder.
The characteristics of narcissism include: an intense investment in a false self, with extreme efforts to live up to a grandiose, perfect, “special” self-image; an intense desire to be attached to an idealized other, who is objectified, seen as perfect and special and can be merged with in fantasy and used to bolster one’s own unrealistic, idealized self-image (“the special person of a special person”); others are related to as either sources of supply for emotional gratification and self-aggrandizement, or as extensions of the self, not as real, separate beings with their own needs and identities, so there is very little capacity for real empathy with others as a result; a self-righteous sense of entitlement with little ability to tolerate frustration; an intense underlying rejection of the real self, which is seen as weak, vulnerable, inadequate and imperfect and irreversibly flawed; anger, contempt and irritability felt towards others who display what has been rejected in the real self; an extraordinary dependence on external validation by others for one’s sense of worth, with the double-bind that those who do give such support are devalued, while criticism or negative feedback is reacted to with rage and deep feelings of woundedness; and finally, there is a deep abandonment depression underlying all narcissistic disorders.
Narcissistic injury can take an infinite number of specific forms, but essentially it originates when the parents need the child to be something substantially different from what he or she really is, and that includes a parent wanting a child to think of her or him as their “friend.” Children do not naturally think of their parents as friends. In fact, they need not to see their parents that way.
Which brings me back to the OTBKB blog, and the parents of Park Slope, where the latest controversy being bandied back and forth on the blog is over the fact that a bar in town decided to institute a ban on strollers recently. No, I’m not kidding! A bar. As in... a bar! Now, I like to have a drink as much as anybody, and certainly there are times when a few hours with my kids can increase that craving, but I haven’t yet had an impulse to go to a bar with my 6 year-old to knock down a few. I mean, why would I? I AM A GROWN-UP! (And yes, I am also a stay-at-home Dad, ladies, so don’t even try that one!) The local moms here in Stepford, Brooklyn, however, have tried to make this into a “Mommies rights” issue, whining about how they need places to hang out with other moms with strollers somewhere, especially since they were booted out of Barnes and Nobles a short time ago because their kids were wrecking the place and disrupting other patrons, and because recently someone dared to put a sculpture in Prospect Park that takes up about 50 square feet. That’s right – several parents have complained that in all the vastness of Prospect Park, this piece of art for ADULTS to contemplate takes up space where parents and tots might want to have a picnic! So, if bookstores and public parks are fair game for these parents who rely so heavily on the company of their children for self-esteem and value, why not a bar? Why not a fine restaurant? Why not a health club?
Listen, I love children, and children love me. This is not primarily a convenience issue for me. It is first and foremost an issue of mental health. Children are suffering at the hands of these parents who think that their enmeshment with their children is going to make up for the lack of gratification in their adult sex or work lives, or for the slings and arrows of their own childhoods, or for their own generalized anomie.
I’d like to end with this amazing prose by Kahlil Gibran:
“Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts. For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness; For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.”
Yet, this is no small matter from which I intend to back away, and here’s why: narcissism, which can be initiated in almost any stage of early childhood, and can be part of any character structure, is an insidious, crippling disorder.
The characteristics of narcissism include: an intense investment in a false self, with extreme efforts to live up to a grandiose, perfect, “special” self-image; an intense desire to be attached to an idealized other, who is objectified, seen as perfect and special and can be merged with in fantasy and used to bolster one’s own unrealistic, idealized self-image (“the special person of a special person”); others are related to as either sources of supply for emotional gratification and self-aggrandizement, or as extensions of the self, not as real, separate beings with their own needs and identities, so there is very little capacity for real empathy with others as a result; a self-righteous sense of entitlement with little ability to tolerate frustration; an intense underlying rejection of the real self, which is seen as weak, vulnerable, inadequate and imperfect and irreversibly flawed; anger, contempt and irritability felt towards others who display what has been rejected in the real self; an extraordinary dependence on external validation by others for one’s sense of worth, with the double-bind that those who do give such support are devalued, while criticism or negative feedback is reacted to with rage and deep feelings of woundedness; and finally, there is a deep abandonment depression underlying all narcissistic disorders.
Narcissistic injury can take an infinite number of specific forms, but essentially it originates when the parents need the child to be something substantially different from what he or she really is, and that includes a parent wanting a child to think of her or him as their “friend.” Children do not naturally think of their parents as friends. In fact, they need not to see their parents that way.
Which brings me back to the OTBKB blog, and the parents of Park Slope, where the latest controversy being bandied back and forth on the blog is over the fact that a bar in town decided to institute a ban on strollers recently. No, I’m not kidding! A bar. As in... a bar! Now, I like to have a drink as much as anybody, and certainly there are times when a few hours with my kids can increase that craving, but I haven’t yet had an impulse to go to a bar with my 6 year-old to knock down a few. I mean, why would I? I AM A GROWN-UP! (And yes, I am also a stay-at-home Dad, ladies, so don’t even try that one!) The local moms here in Stepford, Brooklyn, however, have tried to make this into a “Mommies rights” issue, whining about how they need places to hang out with other moms with strollers somewhere, especially since they were booted out of Barnes and Nobles a short time ago because their kids were wrecking the place and disrupting other patrons, and because recently someone dared to put a sculpture in Prospect Park that takes up about 50 square feet. That’s right – several parents have complained that in all the vastness of Prospect Park, this piece of art for ADULTS to contemplate takes up space where parents and tots might want to have a picnic! So, if bookstores and public parks are fair game for these parents who rely so heavily on the company of their children for self-esteem and value, why not a bar? Why not a fine restaurant? Why not a health club?
Listen, I love children, and children love me. This is not primarily a convenience issue for me. It is first and foremost an issue of mental health. Children are suffering at the hands of these parents who think that their enmeshment with their children is going to make up for the lack of gratification in their adult sex or work lives, or for the slings and arrows of their own childhoods, or for their own generalized anomie.
I’d like to end with this amazing prose by Kahlil Gibran:
“Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts. For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness; For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.”
"SMARTMOM" ON WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE AN AFFAIR! PL RESPONDS!
From this week’s "SMARTMOM" in the Brooklyn Paper and on the ONLY THE BLOG KNOWS BROOKLYN blog:
A few days ago, these plaintive words appeared on Park Slope Parents, that invaluable list-serve for parenting and, er, marital advice:
“I wanted to ask fellow Park Slope Parents how you deal with a spouse cheating. My husband has a real desire to act out on it, and I have caught him browsing the Craigslist ads. He has not actually met with anyone, but I feel that if he continues browsing the ads, it will happen. It very upsetting to me, and I also realize the reality of things that it’s hard to be with the same sexual partner all your life. How do you deal with this? Besides getting a divorce? Any advice would be so helpful.”
Obviously this woman is very upset. Why else would she write to a bunch of virtual strangers about something so personal?
Smartmom pored over the plethora of responses, which expressed many points of view. One person wrote that viewing the Craigslist listings does not mean that he plans to cheat.
Brooklyn Bridge Realty
“I’ve been married for seven years, have never cheated on my wife, would never consider cheating, but have browsed plenty of Craigslist sections. It’s fantasy fodder.”
It’s tough not to notice that he’s been married seven years …
Another person suggested that the wife should send her husband to strip clubs to get his ya-yas out. “Send him with the understanding this is an outlet for visual stimulation, not permission to go home with anyone,” she wrote.
Smartmom thinks strip clubs are sexist and just plain silly (and they didn’t help Tiger Woods from straying).
Another married woman, who has had affairs mostly with women, said it was OK as long as the affair-haver is honest about it.
“It was amazing. My husband, somehow was fine and I found myself feeling more head over heels in love with him than I had in a long time,” the bisexual adulteress posted. “I felt so trusted, loved and blessed that he would let me have this — and the blast of sexual energy from being with someone ‘new’ just recharged our marriage.”
Smartmom was intrigued — and annoyed by the overly effusive tone of this post. Sure she knows that there are loads of people out there who engage in some form of polyamory, the practice of having more than one intimate relationship at a time, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. But clearly, it’s not for everyone.
If your partner trusts you to go out and fool around a bit because the love is there, then maybe this could work. But if your partner feels the slightest bit of betrayal then the whole thing is a bust.
And why would you want to hurt your spouse that way? “Do no harm” should be the mantra of marriage.
Still another person wrote: “Cheating is almost always more about narcissism, escapism and immaturity than any purely sexual need. For the most part, people who are self-assured and happy with themselves, their lives, their achievements, etc. don’t cheat.”
Smartmom isn’t sure that it’s all together true. All kinds of people have affairs — even self-assured and happy ones. Tiger Woods? David Letterman? Bill Clinton? These are men at the top of their games, for Buddha’s sake.
By the same token: having low self-esteem or being unhappy doesn’t necessarily mark you as an adulterer. For instance, Smartmom has issues with self-esteem, but that doesn’t mean she’s “hiking the Appalachian Trail.” Not yet anyway.
But if it is the mid-life miasma that’s the problem, there are a lot of other things you can do to elevate your mood that might be a tad more constructive like therapy, making a change in your career or creative life, going on a trip, making new friends.
Being married does not mean that you’ll never feel sexual stirrings for another person. Who hasn’t had a teeny, tiny crush on someone he or she met at a dinner party or people they look forward to seeing at school drop off? But having an affair is another order of magnitude.
Managing an affair is a time consuming — and a morally compromising activity. More often than not, it involves lying about where you are and not being where you’re supposed to be.
And what happens if you fall in love? That will almost certainly wreak havoc on your family and hurt your beloved (and your children). You can’t always control the trajectory of what goes on between two people. And this is where the hurt, betrayal and rejection comes in.
OK. But isn’t it possible to be just a little bit unfaithful? What about a frenzy of kisses at a Christmas party or a quick romp while on a trip?
If it’s a one-time thing, Smartmom says, why not? While that might sound flip, the truth is, it doesn’t need to break up a marriage. But if you find yourself doing it again and again, you really need to look at what’s missing in your relationship — and your life. So find a good therapist. In therapy, you can take an incisive look at what’s really going on.
What about doing it the French way? Many married couples there have lovers on the side, and it seems to work out just fine. One former president even had his mistress at his state funeral!
While that sounds tres sophisticated and fun, Smartmom knows she’s not capable of being quite so French.
Truth is, Smartmom is the jealous type. She goes a little bit crazy when Hepcat visits his ex-girlfriend from sophomore year in college to fix her computer.
As for being unfaithful herself, Smartmom knows with certainty that an affair would be very unwise. When she falls in love, she falls big. She’s not capable of Clinton-esque compartmentalization. Plus, she’s a lousy liar. She’d probably become obsessed and stalk the guy or at least Google him until her fingers fall off.
Worst of all, an affair might force Smartmom to question her marriage. While Smartmom loves to analyze and test her marriage, she doesn’t really want to challenge it in such an obvious way. She’s worked good and hard to get along with Hepcat, and they even have a new couch. Who wants to pine for someone other than person with whom she shares her bed?
Truthfully, Smartmom is too much of a pragmatist for an affair. Sure, at the beginning it might be hot and sexy — and a seemingly great panacea for a mid-life crisis. But inevitably, the sparks stop flying and eventually it will be just like her marriage — no better or worse.
Pretty soon, you’ll be discussing hemorrhoids and colonoscopies with your paramour, and it won’t be quite so romantic after all.
Here's PL:
Where to begin, Smartmom? You touch on so many bases here, but like so many of your pieces, I appreciate your honesty and willingness to reveal yourself.
Here are some of my thoughts –
If we’re talking about having “an affair,” as in having sex and romantic interludes with someone outside of your marriage and keeping it a secret, then we’re talking about someone who is not very self-actualized. Why? Well, implied by the secrecy aspect of the scenario is that there is some dissatisfaction in the marriage that hasn’t been addressed over time, which means there is a low-level of honesty and open communication between the spouses, which is unactualized behavior. “Worst of all, an affair might force Smartmom to question her marriage,” you say. Well, actually, that forcing the questioning would be the upside of having an affair, no?
On the other hand, if the purported reason for the secrecy is “structural” – i.e. - to keep the “intact family” intact – or as you put it, SM, you’re “too much of a pragmatist for an affair,” then what you’re describing is a household without Eros. There might be love all around, but a marriage without Eros – what you toss off too easily as “hot and sexy” – does not provide a healthy environment for either spouses or children to live in.
Moving towards the so-called “open marriage” scenarios, well... polyamory is certainly a valid life-choice, and an interesting way to engage in relationships, but once you’ve played that hand out (usually before middle age), a self-actualized individual will inevitably gravitate towards the rich mine of “spontaneous monogamy,” (as opposed to the contractual kind) in order to have that ultimate experience of love, Eros and sex focused like a laser through one person meeting you in the same way. Deep levels of self-revelation, which deepens, sustains and expands the experience of love, Eros and sex, takes time and focus. The “free sample” of falling in love, be it in an affair or otherwise, is exactly that – a free sample. To really cash in, you have to do the self-work necessary to keep the channels open to your inner self and with your partner.
Regarding either affairs or polyamory, Smartmom worries about the consequences. “And what happens if you fall in love?” Smartmom asks. “That will almost certainly wreak havoc on your family and hurt your beloved (and your children). You can’t always control the trajectory of what goes on between two people. And this is where the hurt, betrayal and rejection comes in.”
Au contraire, Smartmom. The betrayal of your beloved and your children comes from your betrayal of yourself, from denying yourself fulfillment, from not having the chutzpah to tell your husband that you might be dissatisfied with some aspects of your marriage, or even telling him that you’re having feelings for someone else. Some well-timed “havoc” is very often what saves a marriage and a family from a life of hunkering down into masochism, martyrdom and unhappiness.
Oh, and there’s no reason whatsoever that discussing hemorrhoids and colonoscopies with your paramour has to kill the romance!
A few days ago, these plaintive words appeared on Park Slope Parents, that invaluable list-serve for parenting and, er, marital advice:
“I wanted to ask fellow Park Slope Parents how you deal with a spouse cheating. My husband has a real desire to act out on it, and I have caught him browsing the Craigslist ads. He has not actually met with anyone, but I feel that if he continues browsing the ads, it will happen. It very upsetting to me, and I also realize the reality of things that it’s hard to be with the same sexual partner all your life. How do you deal with this? Besides getting a divorce? Any advice would be so helpful.”
Obviously this woman is very upset. Why else would she write to a bunch of virtual strangers about something so personal?
Smartmom pored over the plethora of responses, which expressed many points of view. One person wrote that viewing the Craigslist listings does not mean that he plans to cheat.
Brooklyn Bridge Realty
“I’ve been married for seven years, have never cheated on my wife, would never consider cheating, but have browsed plenty of Craigslist sections. It’s fantasy fodder.”
It’s tough not to notice that he’s been married seven years …
Another person suggested that the wife should send her husband to strip clubs to get his ya-yas out. “Send him with the understanding this is an outlet for visual stimulation, not permission to go home with anyone,” she wrote.
Smartmom thinks strip clubs are sexist and just plain silly (and they didn’t help Tiger Woods from straying).
Another married woman, who has had affairs mostly with women, said it was OK as long as the affair-haver is honest about it.
“It was amazing. My husband, somehow was fine and I found myself feeling more head over heels in love with him than I had in a long time,” the bisexual adulteress posted. “I felt so trusted, loved and blessed that he would let me have this — and the blast of sexual energy from being with someone ‘new’ just recharged our marriage.”
Smartmom was intrigued — and annoyed by the overly effusive tone of this post. Sure she knows that there are loads of people out there who engage in some form of polyamory, the practice of having more than one intimate relationship at a time, with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. But clearly, it’s not for everyone.
If your partner trusts you to go out and fool around a bit because the love is there, then maybe this could work. But if your partner feels the slightest bit of betrayal then the whole thing is a bust.
And why would you want to hurt your spouse that way? “Do no harm” should be the mantra of marriage.
Still another person wrote: “Cheating is almost always more about narcissism, escapism and immaturity than any purely sexual need. For the most part, people who are self-assured and happy with themselves, their lives, their achievements, etc. don’t cheat.”
Smartmom isn’t sure that it’s all together true. All kinds of people have affairs — even self-assured and happy ones. Tiger Woods? David Letterman? Bill Clinton? These are men at the top of their games, for Buddha’s sake.
By the same token: having low self-esteem or being unhappy doesn’t necessarily mark you as an adulterer. For instance, Smartmom has issues with self-esteem, but that doesn’t mean she’s “hiking the Appalachian Trail.” Not yet anyway.
But if it is the mid-life miasma that’s the problem, there are a lot of other things you can do to elevate your mood that might be a tad more constructive like therapy, making a change in your career or creative life, going on a trip, making new friends.
Being married does not mean that you’ll never feel sexual stirrings for another person. Who hasn’t had a teeny, tiny crush on someone he or she met at a dinner party or people they look forward to seeing at school drop off? But having an affair is another order of magnitude.
Managing an affair is a time consuming — and a morally compromising activity. More often than not, it involves lying about where you are and not being where you’re supposed to be.
And what happens if you fall in love? That will almost certainly wreak havoc on your family and hurt your beloved (and your children). You can’t always control the trajectory of what goes on between two people. And this is where the hurt, betrayal and rejection comes in.
OK. But isn’t it possible to be just a little bit unfaithful? What about a frenzy of kisses at a Christmas party or a quick romp while on a trip?
If it’s a one-time thing, Smartmom says, why not? While that might sound flip, the truth is, it doesn’t need to break up a marriage. But if you find yourself doing it again and again, you really need to look at what’s missing in your relationship — and your life. So find a good therapist. In therapy, you can take an incisive look at what’s really going on.
What about doing it the French way? Many married couples there have lovers on the side, and it seems to work out just fine. One former president even had his mistress at his state funeral!
While that sounds tres sophisticated and fun, Smartmom knows she’s not capable of being quite so French.
Truth is, Smartmom is the jealous type. She goes a little bit crazy when Hepcat visits his ex-girlfriend from sophomore year in college to fix her computer.
As for being unfaithful herself, Smartmom knows with certainty that an affair would be very unwise. When she falls in love, she falls big. She’s not capable of Clinton-esque compartmentalization. Plus, she’s a lousy liar. She’d probably become obsessed and stalk the guy or at least Google him until her fingers fall off.
Worst of all, an affair might force Smartmom to question her marriage. While Smartmom loves to analyze and test her marriage, she doesn’t really want to challenge it in such an obvious way. She’s worked good and hard to get along with Hepcat, and they even have a new couch. Who wants to pine for someone other than person with whom she shares her bed?
Truthfully, Smartmom is too much of a pragmatist for an affair. Sure, at the beginning it might be hot and sexy — and a seemingly great panacea for a mid-life crisis. But inevitably, the sparks stop flying and eventually it will be just like her marriage — no better or worse.
Pretty soon, you’ll be discussing hemorrhoids and colonoscopies with your paramour, and it won’t be quite so romantic after all.
Here's PL:
Where to begin, Smartmom? You touch on so many bases here, but like so many of your pieces, I appreciate your honesty and willingness to reveal yourself.
Here are some of my thoughts –
If we’re talking about having “an affair,” as in having sex and romantic interludes with someone outside of your marriage and keeping it a secret, then we’re talking about someone who is not very self-actualized. Why? Well, implied by the secrecy aspect of the scenario is that there is some dissatisfaction in the marriage that hasn’t been addressed over time, which means there is a low-level of honesty and open communication between the spouses, which is unactualized behavior. “Worst of all, an affair might force Smartmom to question her marriage,” you say. Well, actually, that forcing the questioning would be the upside of having an affair, no?
On the other hand, if the purported reason for the secrecy is “structural” – i.e. - to keep the “intact family” intact – or as you put it, SM, you’re “too much of a pragmatist for an affair,” then what you’re describing is a household without Eros. There might be love all around, but a marriage without Eros – what you toss off too easily as “hot and sexy” – does not provide a healthy environment for either spouses or children to live in.
Moving towards the so-called “open marriage” scenarios, well... polyamory is certainly a valid life-choice, and an interesting way to engage in relationships, but once you’ve played that hand out (usually before middle age), a self-actualized individual will inevitably gravitate towards the rich mine of “spontaneous monogamy,” (as opposed to the contractual kind) in order to have that ultimate experience of love, Eros and sex focused like a laser through one person meeting you in the same way. Deep levels of self-revelation, which deepens, sustains and expands the experience of love, Eros and sex, takes time and focus. The “free sample” of falling in love, be it in an affair or otherwise, is exactly that – a free sample. To really cash in, you have to do the self-work necessary to keep the channels open to your inner self and with your partner.
Regarding either affairs or polyamory, Smartmom worries about the consequences. “And what happens if you fall in love?” Smartmom asks. “That will almost certainly wreak havoc on your family and hurt your beloved (and your children). You can’t always control the trajectory of what goes on between two people. And this is where the hurt, betrayal and rejection comes in.”
Au contraire, Smartmom. The betrayal of your beloved and your children comes from your betrayal of yourself, from denying yourself fulfillment, from not having the chutzpah to tell your husband that you might be dissatisfied with some aspects of your marriage, or even telling him that you’re having feelings for someone else. Some well-timed “havoc” is very often what saves a marriage and a family from a life of hunkering down into masochism, martyrdom and unhappiness.
Oh, and there’s no reason whatsoever that discussing hemorrhoids and colonoscopies with your paramour has to kill the romance!
"SMARTMOM" Still Is!
Louise Crawford, aka "Smartmom," writing in the Brooklyn Paper and on her own blog, "Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn," courageously stands up for all teenagers, from Miley Cyrus, who posed topless in Vanity Fair, to Louise's own son, "Teen Spirit," who recently shaved his head. But Smartmom's standing up isn't of the usual false kind - i.e. - to "protect them" from the evils of sexuality and independence. No, this thoughtful parent accepts the challenging work of facing her own fears and wishes to control and instead seeks to understand the true needs of adolescents in our ever-vigilant, repressed, prudish culture overrun with sexually deprived parents.
Here's Louise in her own words:
"Both Teen Spirit and Miley Cyrus are adolescents. Both felt the need to reinvent themselves and show the world that they won’t be defined by their public personas (in Miley’s case, she’s not happy always being Hannah Montana; in Teen Spirit’s case, it was clearly time to throw off the look of the slacker dude who just doesn’t care).
"Who can blame either of them for wanting to reinvent themselves? Isn’t that what being an adolescent is all about?
"Smartmom was sorry that Miley chose the pages of Vanity Fair to do her growing up. But then again, teens in Park Slope have to become adults under the skeptical gaze of their Park Slope parents, their budinsky parents’ friends, and their neighbors (that’s like Vanity Fair, right?)
"Posing semi-nude for Annie Leibovitz, shaving your head on a whim. What’s the difference? It’s all part of growing up and trying to discover who you really are.
"Indeed, Cyrus has nothing to apologize about — except perhaps the half-baked apology she made this week. '[The] photo shoot was supposed to be ‘artistic,’ and now … I feel so embarrassed,' she said.
"Embarrassed? About what? She may not go to high school or live like a normal teen, but Miley Cyrus has every right to play with her inner and outer identity like every other kid.
"Change your hair. Change your clothes. Change your persona. Change your mind.
"It’s all part of the identity game."
Hooray for Smartmom!
Here's Louise in her own words:
"Both Teen Spirit and Miley Cyrus are adolescents. Both felt the need to reinvent themselves and show the world that they won’t be defined by their public personas (in Miley’s case, she’s not happy always being Hannah Montana; in Teen Spirit’s case, it was clearly time to throw off the look of the slacker dude who just doesn’t care).
"Who can blame either of them for wanting to reinvent themselves? Isn’t that what being an adolescent is all about?
"Smartmom was sorry that Miley chose the pages of Vanity Fair to do her growing up. But then again, teens in Park Slope have to become adults under the skeptical gaze of their Park Slope parents, their budinsky parents’ friends, and their neighbors (that’s like Vanity Fair, right?)
"Posing semi-nude for Annie Leibovitz, shaving your head on a whim. What’s the difference? It’s all part of growing up and trying to discover who you really are.
"Indeed, Cyrus has nothing to apologize about — except perhaps the half-baked apology she made this week. '[The] photo shoot was supposed to be ‘artistic,’ and now … I feel so embarrassed,' she said.
"Embarrassed? About what? She may not go to high school or live like a normal teen, but Miley Cyrus has every right to play with her inner and outer identity like every other kid.
"Change your hair. Change your clothes. Change your persona. Change your mind.
"It’s all part of the identity game."
Hooray for Smartmom!
ADVICE FROM DADLOFF ON PARK SLOPE PARENTS!
Here's Dadloff:
"When I wrote to you once before when you were complaining about SUV strollers in book stores and coffee shops, I advised you to move out of Park Slope. Now you are complaining once again about how bad Park Slope is. I advise you once again, if you are not happy there, you should move to a more suitable place that meets your requirements for Full Permission Living."
PL: I'm working on finding that place, DL!
"When I wrote to you once before when you were complaining about SUV strollers in book stores and coffee shops, I advised you to move out of Park Slope. Now you are complaining once again about how bad Park Slope is. I advise you once again, if you are not happy there, you should move to a more suitable place that meets your requirements for Full Permission Living."
PL: I'm working on finding that place, DL!
APPALLING PARENTS NOT LIMITED TO PARK SLOPE!
This post is coming from the Caribbean, St. Martin to be exact, where I am reminding myself, among other things, of how thoroughly healing and healthful sunshine is... along with the sea, sand and fine dining. (Some channeled info I listened to yesterday informs us that as we traverse through 5D, eventually we will all become vegetarians, and after that, we won't be needing food at all, but rather, we'll simply be absorbing the energy we need from the sun. Thus, I am getting in as much foie gras and creme brulee as possible right now!)
I am also being reminded, as I've written about many times, including in one of my "TRUTH ABOUT EVERYTHING SERIES" posts - that "PARENTS ARE THE LEAST QUALIFIED OF ALL ADULTS TO RAISE CHILDREN!" - and not just in enmeshed, dysfunctional enclaves like Park Slope, where bad parenting has been taken to a fine art.
Here in Paradise, parents suck, too!
So far, I've witnessed a toddler nearly having his arm ripped off while he got stuck in a luggage conveyor belt because his clueless parents weren't paying attention to him. Yes, they had 3 other ducklings they were haplessly trying to manage at the time, one of whom, in a Superman costume, was making grotesque feral sounds as he flew around the customs area. And in a lovely French restaurant in Grand Case last night, we had the experience of one family having to leave the establishment because of their screaming tot, but even worse, another family staying while their truly monstrous little boy demonstrated what attaching spirits look like when inhabiting a child who doesn't have the wherewithal to exorcise himself of such demons. (Hint: Parents are supposed to know how to do that!)
Folks, there is no difference, in this sense, between caring for an actual physical child and raising the remnants of the little child inside of you. It's a 24-7 job! That's not a metaphor or meant to be a symbolic statement.
Raising a child, inner or outer, is a 24-7 job. One moment of distraction and your kids being eaten by a conveyor belt... or running into traffic... or ruining the expensive dinners of dozens of people. Likewise, ignoring your inner child for a moment and you stub your toe, have a car accident or blurt out a hostile screed towards a loved one for no apparent reason.
If you don't want to live off the grid for a couple of years, or if you don't have enough money to hire a staff of caretakers, or if you don't live in an actual tribal village where everyone raises everyone else's children, and in any of these cases, if you haven't put in enough serious years of self work to become relatively self-actualized, then...
DON'T HAVE CHILDREN!
I am also being reminded, as I've written about many times, including in one of my "TRUTH ABOUT EVERYTHING SERIES" posts - that "PARENTS ARE THE LEAST QUALIFIED OF ALL ADULTS TO RAISE CHILDREN!" - and not just in enmeshed, dysfunctional enclaves like Park Slope, where bad parenting has been taken to a fine art.
Here in Paradise, parents suck, too!
So far, I've witnessed a toddler nearly having his arm ripped off while he got stuck in a luggage conveyor belt because his clueless parents weren't paying attention to him. Yes, they had 3 other ducklings they were haplessly trying to manage at the time, one of whom, in a Superman costume, was making grotesque feral sounds as he flew around the customs area. And in a lovely French restaurant in Grand Case last night, we had the experience of one family having to leave the establishment because of their screaming tot, but even worse, another family staying while their truly monstrous little boy demonstrated what attaching spirits look like when inhabiting a child who doesn't have the wherewithal to exorcise himself of such demons. (Hint: Parents are supposed to know how to do that!)
Folks, there is no difference, in this sense, between caring for an actual physical child and raising the remnants of the little child inside of you. It's a 24-7 job! That's not a metaphor or meant to be a symbolic statement.
Raising a child, inner or outer, is a 24-7 job. One moment of distraction and your kids being eaten by a conveyor belt... or running into traffic... or ruining the expensive dinners of dozens of people. Likewise, ignoring your inner child for a moment and you stub your toe, have a car accident or blurt out a hostile screed towards a loved one for no apparent reason.
If you don't want to live off the grid for a couple of years, or if you don't have enough money to hire a staff of caretakers, or if you don't live in an actual tribal village where everyone raises everyone else's children, and in any of these cases, if you haven't put in enough serious years of self work to become relatively self-actualized, then...
DON'T HAVE CHILDREN!
MORE SLAMS ON PL FOR BEING "JUDGMENTAL," INCLUDING FROM LOFF56! So, OK, PL RESPONDS ONE MORE TIME!!
First, here's the comeback from Anonymous:
Just because you say it, doesn’t make it necessarily so.
To issue blanket dismissals of your Park Slope breeder neighbors as pseudo-adults with inflated egos who become overindulgent parents of children who can’t hope to grow up to become self-actualized is, in fact, a judgment.
Your assertion that judgments are not based on reality is false. Reality can certainly be a component of judgment, as are the limited availability of information and whatever expectations the person formulating the opinion may have.
To call a narcissist a narcissist may or may not be a judgment. It depends on having sufficient information to make the claim. To refer to all your Park Slope breeder neighbors as narcissists is a judgment. Plain and simple.
I’m sure you come across some of these people in your practice, and maybe that gives you sufficient data points to make an “assessment” about those people. But to lump all of us together based on that interaction and some people’s (poor) decision to haul their kids to bars assumes you understand the motives of all of those people. You don’t, and your generalizations about them come from judgments. That’s fine, everyone judges other people, even despite their best efforts to refrain from it. Just don’t pretend that’s not what it is.
And don’t pretend you’re trashing these parents to save the children from suffering. If that were your sole objective, you wouldn’t do it this way. It pisses you off that people do this dumb shit, and you’ve taken to griping about it on your blog. Maybe your “concern” originated from a better place, but it’s just bitching.
On the inset of your webpage, you say that we’re “meant to live with full inner permission to follow our natural inner guidance and our inborn pleasure instinct to seek out gratification…, and that such a way of living always benefits those around us and those that we love.” It seems to be that when you observe the conflict between one’s innate pleasure instinct (mmm, beer) and living to benefit those one loves (dragging your kids to a bar), you take to slamming the offenders (Narcissists! Pseudo-adults! Hedge fund managers!). What a beautiful message. You claim to be merely calling for personal responsibility (which sounds like a positive message), but you’re doing it by shaming parents into doing better (hardly positive). How can you say name-calling isn’t trying to shame people into changing? That’s exactly what it is. It’s designed to make people feel bad about the way they behave.
Where is your empathy?
Next up, here's LOFF56:
Oh Jeeze, I must be bored and in need of a good semantic argument...
PL: Assessments on the other hand are descriptions based on information objectively observed. To call a narcissist a narcissist isn't a judgment, therefore; it is an assessment, and actually an essential ingredient to any healing process. There is no healing without facing the truth about oneself.
As a point of fact, an objective observation as you define it here doesn't exist. As you probably know an observer will always have an effect on the observed. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal for one, but also it's understood that observers in the wild no matter how invisible they try to make themselves will have some sort of effect on the animals they are observing. The same goes for people. Whether you call it a Judgment or an Assessment really is a matter of degree. Given that, anon. has a good point. Your assessment, as objective as you're trying to be, still means you're imparting an effect on those parents that you're assessing. And imparting anything on anybody even on a microscopic level is in fact to some degree narcissistic. Whether intentional or not.
And by the way, to "insist upon self-responsibility" is hardly "assessing" the situation. Of everything, this is the most obvious evidence of you imparting your will on the situation. Since when is "insisting" a tool of neutral observation?
I'm not suggesting that self-responsibility is not something we should all desire in our fellow humans, but even if it's for good, "insisting" that anybody do anything puts us on a different plane than those people, and that IS narcissistic. There may be an argument in here somewhere that says that some narcism (like this kind) is actually good... but for semantics sake, it's still narcism.
And now I'm gonna' end my narcissistic judgment of you and go about the rest of my day. :-D
Here's PL:
Wow! The semantics and relativistic arguments are flying boys! (I'm assuming that "Anonymous" is male, for some intuitive reason.)
Look, we've been down this road before on this blog. While time and space are indeed relative, and in the bigger picture, there are only a few Universal "Laws," and yes, we do create our own individual reality, as the quantum physicists have demonstrated,... while all this is true, nonetheless, and simultaneously, in the agreed-upon collective reality, where we all need oxygen to breathe, for instance, and where there is gravity, and narcissism, there are in fact Truths that are "Self-evident." What constitutes narcissism, for instance, is not relative at the human personality level. There is an agreed upon clinical definition of what it means, what its symptoms are and what effects it has. To root your arguments on the relativity of it all, is to be arguing for argument's sake, don't you think?
The second road we've been down before on this blog is the one regarding my bedside manner as a therapist. I do not operate as a proverbial "blank screen," that is for sure. In this day and age, that type of detached mental process is way too compartmentalized, cumbersome, time consuming and in terms of genuine self-actualization, insufficient to the task. I am not "shaming" my patients or readers by firmly pointing out their destructive and self-destructive behavior or thought patterns, and "insisting" that they attempt to do the work they came to see me for, anymore than I'm being judgmental or shaming if I tell my little child that throwing pasta across the table or stealing a friend's toy is not acceptable behavior.
And suffice it to say, it clearly isn't a need of mine, or of any adult I know, or of any child of mine, or of any child that I know, to eat dinner at Provini or bend an elbow at Union Hall.
Gimme a break, fellas!
Just because you say it, doesn’t make it necessarily so.
To issue blanket dismissals of your Park Slope breeder neighbors as pseudo-adults with inflated egos who become overindulgent parents of children who can’t hope to grow up to become self-actualized is, in fact, a judgment.
Your assertion that judgments are not based on reality is false. Reality can certainly be a component of judgment, as are the limited availability of information and whatever expectations the person formulating the opinion may have.
To call a narcissist a narcissist may or may not be a judgment. It depends on having sufficient information to make the claim. To refer to all your Park Slope breeder neighbors as narcissists is a judgment. Plain and simple.
I’m sure you come across some of these people in your practice, and maybe that gives you sufficient data points to make an “assessment” about those people. But to lump all of us together based on that interaction and some people’s (poor) decision to haul their kids to bars assumes you understand the motives of all of those people. You don’t, and your generalizations about them come from judgments. That’s fine, everyone judges other people, even despite their best efforts to refrain from it. Just don’t pretend that’s not what it is.
And don’t pretend you’re trashing these parents to save the children from suffering. If that were your sole objective, you wouldn’t do it this way. It pisses you off that people do this dumb shit, and you’ve taken to griping about it on your blog. Maybe your “concern” originated from a better place, but it’s just bitching.
On the inset of your webpage, you say that we’re “meant to live with full inner permission to follow our natural inner guidance and our inborn pleasure instinct to seek out gratification…, and that such a way of living always benefits those around us and those that we love.” It seems to be that when you observe the conflict between one’s innate pleasure instinct (mmm, beer) and living to benefit those one loves (dragging your kids to a bar), you take to slamming the offenders (Narcissists! Pseudo-adults! Hedge fund managers!). What a beautiful message. You claim to be merely calling for personal responsibility (which sounds like a positive message), but you’re doing it by shaming parents into doing better (hardly positive). How can you say name-calling isn’t trying to shame people into changing? That’s exactly what it is. It’s designed to make people feel bad about the way they behave.
Where is your empathy?
Next up, here's LOFF56:
Oh Jeeze, I must be bored and in need of a good semantic argument...
PL: Assessments on the other hand are descriptions based on information objectively observed. To call a narcissist a narcissist isn't a judgment, therefore; it is an assessment, and actually an essential ingredient to any healing process. There is no healing without facing the truth about oneself.
As a point of fact, an objective observation as you define it here doesn't exist. As you probably know an observer will always have an effect on the observed. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal for one, but also it's understood that observers in the wild no matter how invisible they try to make themselves will have some sort of effect on the animals they are observing. The same goes for people. Whether you call it a Judgment or an Assessment really is a matter of degree. Given that, anon. has a good point. Your assessment, as objective as you're trying to be, still means you're imparting an effect on those parents that you're assessing. And imparting anything on anybody even on a microscopic level is in fact to some degree narcissistic. Whether intentional or not.
And by the way, to "insist upon self-responsibility" is hardly "assessing" the situation. Of everything, this is the most obvious evidence of you imparting your will on the situation. Since when is "insisting" a tool of neutral observation?
I'm not suggesting that self-responsibility is not something we should all desire in our fellow humans, but even if it's for good, "insisting" that anybody do anything puts us on a different plane than those people, and that IS narcissistic. There may be an argument in here somewhere that says that some narcism (like this kind) is actually good... but for semantics sake, it's still narcism.
And now I'm gonna' end my narcissistic judgment of you and go about the rest of my day. :-D
Here's PL:
Wow! The semantics and relativistic arguments are flying boys! (I'm assuming that "Anonymous" is male, for some intuitive reason.)
Look, we've been down this road before on this blog. While time and space are indeed relative, and in the bigger picture, there are only a few Universal "Laws," and yes, we do create our own individual reality, as the quantum physicists have demonstrated,... while all this is true, nonetheless, and simultaneously, in the agreed-upon collective reality, where we all need oxygen to breathe, for instance, and where there is gravity, and narcissism, there are in fact Truths that are "Self-evident." What constitutes narcissism, for instance, is not relative at the human personality level. There is an agreed upon clinical definition of what it means, what its symptoms are and what effects it has. To root your arguments on the relativity of it all, is to be arguing for argument's sake, don't you think?
The second road we've been down before on this blog is the one regarding my bedside manner as a therapist. I do not operate as a proverbial "blank screen," that is for sure. In this day and age, that type of detached mental process is way too compartmentalized, cumbersome, time consuming and in terms of genuine self-actualization, insufficient to the task. I am not "shaming" my patients or readers by firmly pointing out their destructive and self-destructive behavior or thought patterns, and "insisting" that they attempt to do the work they came to see me for, anymore than I'm being judgmental or shaming if I tell my little child that throwing pasta across the table or stealing a friend's toy is not acceptable behavior.
And suffice it to say, it clearly isn't a need of mine, or of any adult I know, or of any child of mine, or of any child that I know, to eat dinner at Provini or bend an elbow at Union Hall.
Gimme a break, fellas!
"OLD MAN LOFFREDO?!" HEY!
Well, this is pretty funny! Apparently my critique of the narcissistic stroller set in Park Slope ruining the dining experience of adults is garnering some attention. Here's a link to a piece in the GOTHAMIST, written by one Jen Carlson, entitled "Are Park Slope Parents Killing the Romance?" in which I am referred to as "Old Man Loffredo!"
Now, what's up with that, Jen?!
Now, what's up with that, Jen?!
PL ON WHY I LOVE KIDS, BUT NOT PARENTS!
In case the implications of my positions expressed in many posts on this blog over the last few years on the subject of parenting aren't clear, in case I haven't directly said where I think things must lead if human beings are indeed evolving towards that "Highly Enlightened Society" mentioned in the "Conversation With God" books, let me state it now for the record, as such:
Parents are the least qualified of all adults to raise children.
Now, of course, I am saying it in that way somewhat for tongue-in-cheek impact, but here's what I genuinely and specifically mean - getting pregnant requires no further act beyond having sexual intercourse, maybe even only once, during the time when a woman is ovulating. That's it. Period. And once pregnant, if a decision is made to take the pregnancy to term and have a child, parenting does not have the prerequisites in our society's 3-dimensional value system and sensibilities that things like getting a job does, or that even driving a car does. In fact, you don't need a degree in anything, nor do you need a license or to have passed a test of any sort to become a parent. You do not even have to be of sound mind or body to become a parent; you don't have to be mature or wise or educated, including in sexuality or contraception, anatomy, child-development or child-rearing, and you certainly do not have to be self-actualized to become a parent in our society. All you literally have to do, then, to become a parent is fuck somebody, get pregnant and have the baby. Voila! Instant parent.
In Conversations With God, the "radical" statement is made that in a Highly Enlightened Society, the young would bear the children and the elders would raise them. Think about that! Really!
You see, as both as a seasoned parent and as a psychotherapist and expert in childhood development, I can tell you that a young parent (i.e. - under 40) has only youthful energy to offer a child, as in the ability to play soccer with them, which is basically no different than what a child can get from its own peers. On the other hand, a self-actualized older adult has wisdom to offer, experience, groundedness in life, and the ability to actually guide a child through some of life's mazes, something, in other words that a child can't get from its peers.
And PLEASE, don't use the "L" word with me! I have seen way too much abuse and exploitation of children by biological parents, and even more narcissistic, vicarious acting out through children by biological parents, all who claim to "love" their kids. I know too much to be fooled into thinking that love for a child is biological and restricted to "natural" parents.
Nonsense.
Love is a universal force that comes through someone who has opened that channel, and it comes in greater quantities as a function of sincere self-work and self-actualization, not from genetics or "blood."
Some who've read my strong opinions on these subjects over the years have tried to suggest that I just don't like children. Quite the contrary. I love children. That's why I am so vociferous, see?
It's parents I don't like.
Why? Because almost none who become parents do so because they are actualized and gratified in their well-lived lives, so in love with their romantic partner, and so loving of themselves, that they experience the calling of another soul wanting to come through them and be born into this world and go with that flow from that place. That would be quite beautiful, wouldn't it?
You see, a parent starting from that place, doesn't idealize and project and transfer onto a child. That parent allows love to flow through them to the child, but that parent also knows that raising a child is a job that requires as professional an approach as their career, with as much clarity and focus and planning, and with as much time away from the job as necessary to replenish oneself. A common and sure sign of dysfunctional parenting is when you hear the pseudo-superdedicated Park Slope-type parents talk with sighs about how their sex lives are on on hold because they have kids.
UGH!
Too bad for those kids, huh?
Okay, folks, I think I'm done for now. I hope I've made my positions on the matter of parenting a bit clearer, and thank you and congratulations to all the adults among you that have chosen to express your generativity by giving back to the world in ways other than adding to the population.
WHY I LIVE IN BROOKLYN?!
This is something I wrote this morning in response to a debate over which NYC park was better - Central Park or Prospect Park.
Here's PL:
Over my 6 years of living in Park Slope, and writing on this blog, and before that on the Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn blog, I have been very critical of this enclave of sexless, stroller-jockeying Stepford Parents, and the narcissistic, non-empathic kids they are breeding. So, naturally, people have often not so subtly suggested that if I didn't like it, I shouldn't live here, somewhat with the same tone that George Bush said "You're either with us or with the terrorists."
So, since it's obviously not the people in PS keeping me in this part of New York City, why do I live here?
Yep. It's Prospect Park!
I lived right near Central Park for 25 years, and used the park regularly, and there is no comparison. Prospect Park is a pristine paradise compared to Central Park. The lushness of it even elevates and freshens the air in the surrounding streets.
And the lack of tourists? Well, Jim Rasenberger must be the only New Yorker who thinks that is a drawback. His reasons for preferring CP basically seem to come down to that more people go there and it's more famous. Well, maybe that's because it's in Manhattan, and because it's more like an amusement park than a landscaping masterpiece.
Yes, I must agree with everything Elizabeth Giddens says, including her observation on God's practice run with men before he made his masterpiece - women.
Here's PL:
Over my 6 years of living in Park Slope, and writing on this blog, and before that on the Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn blog, I have been very critical of this enclave of sexless, stroller-jockeying Stepford Parents, and the narcissistic, non-empathic kids they are breeding. So, naturally, people have often not so subtly suggested that if I didn't like it, I shouldn't live here, somewhat with the same tone that George Bush said "You're either with us or with the terrorists."
So, since it's obviously not the people in PS keeping me in this part of New York City, why do I live here?
Yep. It's Prospect Park!
I lived right near Central Park for 25 years, and used the park regularly, and there is no comparison. Prospect Park is a pristine paradise compared to Central Park. The lushness of it even elevates and freshens the air in the surrounding streets.
And the lack of tourists? Well, Jim Rasenberger must be the only New Yorker who thinks that is a drawback. His reasons for preferring CP basically seem to come down to that more people go there and it's more famous. Well, maybe that's because it's in Manhattan, and because it's more like an amusement park than a landscaping masterpiece.
Yes, I must agree with everything Elizabeth Giddens says, including her observation on God's practice run with men before he made his masterpiece - women.
HERE'S A LITTLE LOL - A PIECE BY PL WRITTEN UP IN NY MAG'S "GRUB STREET!"
HERE'S THE GRUB STREET PIECE ENTITLED: Provini Is Infiltrated by ‘Needy, Greedy Narcissists’ With Kids
"Holistic psychotherapist Peter Loffredo seems like a chill and New Agey guy on his website, but don’t get him started about kids in restaurants. He laments that Provini, the new one from the owners of Bar Tano, has been infiltrated by what he calls the "You'll never get to be an adult in Park Slope without tolerating my kids" crowd.
"He goes on to say: 'Provini deliberately doesn't have high chairs, I was secretly told by a waitress, and there certainly isn't any room for strollers, but the exquisite wine list alone should keep kids out, don't you think? Not in Park Slope, where pathetic parents don't want to live with the choices they've made, so they crash everyone else's party. CRASH?! Yep. Everyone turned around to see the glass breaking on the floor at the table with the toddlers.'
"Hmmm, is it time to add Provini to the list of restaurants to avoid if you can't stand kids? And what’s more annoying, kids in fancy restaurants or Sex and the City types at Mars Bar?"
Peter Loffredo: Provini Infiltrated by the Parents With Kids Crowd [Only the Blog Knows Brooklyn]"
"Holistic psychotherapist Peter Loffredo seems like a chill and New Agey guy on his website, but don’t get him started about kids in restaurants. He laments that Provini, the new one from the owners of Bar Tano, has been infiltrated by what he calls the "You'll never get to be an adult in Park Slope without tolerating my kids" crowd.
"He goes on to say: 'Provini deliberately doesn't have high chairs, I was secretly told by a waitress, and there certainly isn't any room for strollers, but the exquisite wine list alone should keep kids out, don't you think? Not in Park Slope, where pathetic parents don't want to live with the choices they've made, so they crash everyone else's party. CRASH?! Yep. Everyone turned around to see the glass breaking on the floor at the table with the toddlers.'
"Hmmm, is it time to add Provini to the list of restaurants to avoid if you can't stand kids? And what’s more annoying, kids in fancy restaurants or Sex and the City types at Mars Bar?"
Peter Loffredo: Provini Infiltrated by the Parents With Kids Crowd [Only the Blog Knows Brooklyn]"
"AUNTLORI" ON "SMARTMOM'S PLAYGROUND ANTICS!"
“AUNTLORI” writes below about an epidemic that I’ve written about extensively on this blog and on the Park Slope-centered blog, “ONLY THE BLOG KNOWS BROOKLYN." It is the narcissistically-inspired plague of parental over-involvement with their children.
As both a mother of a toddler and a teacher of college students, AUNTLORI sees the results of this vicarious acting out by parents at both ends of the journey of childhood. Whether your child is 18 months or 18 years old, Mom and Dad, you are gutting their genuine confidence and sense of self, and thereby causing them to seek the over-compensation of self-aggrandizement and exaggerated self-importance, or to collapse into permanent co-dependence, because of your neediness.
Make no mistake, parents, your ingratiating indulgence and overprotective hovering is not a measure of your love for your kids. In fact, it is not love at all. It is you desperately trying to possess and control your kids so that they can fulfill for you what you feel you haven’t fulfilled for yourself. Your fantasy is that instead of doing the hard work of healing your own wounds from your own childhood, you can simply live out a new childhood through your unsuspecting children. How nefarious and selfish is that?
Here's AUNTLORI:
"What struck me most about this was not the absurdity of parental involvement in playground battles, but the fact that when I recollect my own playground adventures as a young child, there were no parents at the playground! I lived in a crowded suburban neighborhood, with a playground down the street. It was always loaded with kids, but there were no parents standing guard. We walked down the street by ourselves, played, fought, and got hurt by ourselves. I realize that life in the city vs. life in suburia is not the same; however, most playgrounds today, even in the safest of neighborhoods, are littered with parents ready to pounce. How do kids develop confidence and independence, if they are not given any? I was shopping at a local mall recently, on a particularly cold day and stopped in at the indoor playground to let my 18 month old burn off some energy. I sat down on a bench and watched him go. It was amazing to watch all the parents hovering over each toy, slide, and groups of kids. What in the world is going to happen in a fully contained, padded indoor playground? And I wondered why, as a college professor, so many of my 18 year old students wanted someone to hold their hand through each and every assignment and exam!"
Thanks, AUNTLORI!
As both a mother of a toddler and a teacher of college students, AUNTLORI sees the results of this vicarious acting out by parents at both ends of the journey of childhood. Whether your child is 18 months or 18 years old, Mom and Dad, you are gutting their genuine confidence and sense of self, and thereby causing them to seek the over-compensation of self-aggrandizement and exaggerated self-importance, or to collapse into permanent co-dependence, because of your neediness.
Make no mistake, parents, your ingratiating indulgence and overprotective hovering is not a measure of your love for your kids. In fact, it is not love at all. It is you desperately trying to possess and control your kids so that they can fulfill for you what you feel you haven’t fulfilled for yourself. Your fantasy is that instead of doing the hard work of healing your own wounds from your own childhood, you can simply live out a new childhood through your unsuspecting children. How nefarious and selfish is that?
Here's AUNTLORI:
"What struck me most about this was not the absurdity of parental involvement in playground battles, but the fact that when I recollect my own playground adventures as a young child, there were no parents at the playground! I lived in a crowded suburban neighborhood, with a playground down the street. It was always loaded with kids, but there were no parents standing guard. We walked down the street by ourselves, played, fought, and got hurt by ourselves. I realize that life in the city vs. life in suburia is not the same; however, most playgrounds today, even in the safest of neighborhoods, are littered with parents ready to pounce. How do kids develop confidence and independence, if they are not given any? I was shopping at a local mall recently, on a particularly cold day and stopped in at the indoor playground to let my 18 month old burn off some energy. I sat down on a bench and watched him go. It was amazing to watch all the parents hovering over each toy, slide, and groups of kids. What in the world is going to happen in a fully contained, padded indoor playground? And I wondered why, as a college professor, so many of my 18 year old students wanted someone to hold their hand through each and every assignment and exam!"
Thanks, AUNTLORI!
BAD EGGS?!
A murder was committed recently in my neighborhood of Brooklyn. A son killed his mother, tried to kill his father and then tried to kill himself by jumping in front of a subway train. All on a pretty upscale block in Windsor Terrace. The event's tragedy speaks for itself, but even more tragic is this column, written by Louise Crawford for PARK SLOPE PATCH, entitled: "Matricide in a Neighborhood of Mothers."
Here are a couple of excerpts:
"How could this happen in an area known for its happy children and dedicated parents?"
"What if a child is a "bad egg" with serious mental and emotional issues?"
"Is a parent always responsible for the sins of the child?"
And here's the worst one:
"There are plenty of great parents whose children do bad things. Sadly, even good parenting can't prevent what may be hidden in a child's DNA."
WHAT?!!?
In 2010, an intelligent person could actually ask this:
"How could this happen in an area known for its happy children and dedicated parents?"
And THIS: "What if a child is a 'bad egg?"
Woah, Louise! You are really taking the abdication of parental responsibility to new heights.
BAD EGGS?!!?
Sociopaths aren't born (or hatched!), they are made, and very often by over-involved "dedicated" parents whose ego needs are so huge that the child never develops empathy or a stable sense of self. Is your dedication to protecting parents so great that you'll toss damaged kids off like... bad eggs?!
Here are a couple of excerpts:
"How could this happen in an area known for its happy children and dedicated parents?"
"What if a child is a "bad egg" with serious mental and emotional issues?"
"Is a parent always responsible for the sins of the child?"
And here's the worst one:
"There are plenty of great parents whose children do bad things. Sadly, even good parenting can't prevent what may be hidden in a child's DNA."
WHAT?!!?
In 2010, an intelligent person could actually ask this:
"How could this happen in an area known for its happy children and dedicated parents?"
And THIS: "What if a child is a 'bad egg?"
Woah, Louise! You are really taking the abdication of parental responsibility to new heights.
BAD EGGS?!!?
Sociopaths aren't born (or hatched!), they are made, and very often by over-involved "dedicated" parents whose ego needs are so huge that the child never develops empathy or a stable sense of self. Is your dedication to protecting parents so great that you'll toss damaged kids off like... bad eggs?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
