Here's DADLOFF:
"Yesterday we went to a big shopping mall and what do you think we saw? There were armed guards stationed at all the entrances to the mall. They were stopping people who were trying to get in with double and triple SUV strollers. It seems like there was a big protest there from mothers who had single small size strollers. What in the world is happening when mothers (or fathers for that matter) can't go shopping because they can't take their children along. What is this country coming to?"
PL:
Here's what's happening, DADLOFF, as regards the upsurge of stroller wars. The generation of Baby Boom and Echo Boom parents (the generations after yours) have taken narcissism in parenting even beyond anything Alice Miller could have imagined in her landmark book on the subject, "THE DRAMA OF THE GIFTED CHILD."
The parents in question, the ones with the SUV-sized strollers and attitude, are basically pampered kids who want what they want, when they want it, and - and here's where it differs from Full Permission Living - they don't care who they inconvenience.
It's not as if there's suddenly a new phenomenon - parents with two or three little kids that have to go shopping - so why is there suddenly a new controversy about this? Because of the supersize me and get-out-of-my-way posture of so many of today's parents who want to not only own the latest, top-of-the-line Maclarens, but they want everyone else to be delighted that they have them.
This isn't an anti-kid attitude afoot here, DL, but perhaps there is an anti-narcississtic parent backlash happening.
And believe me, if people drove their cars the way some parents drive their strollers, they'd lose their licenses!
Thanks, DL!
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query strollers. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query strollers. Sort by date Show all posts
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)
AUNTLORI WEIGHS IN ON BANNING STROLLERS!
AUNTLORI:
"As someone who is very aware of the people around me, I feel compelled to comment on the stroller entries. A screaming child in a restuarant or any store is an annoyance to the other patrons. A child running free and bothering other patrons in a restaurant or any store is also an annoyance to the other patrons. A calm child sitting in a stroller while his/her mother shops is of no consequence to anyone. Is walking around a mother with a stroller that much of an inconvience? Personally, when my 18 month old acts up in his stroller, I leave the store, not only because I don't want to bother anyone else, but because I don't want to listen to it myself. However, I don't agree that my mere presence with a stroller in a bookstore makes me a Stepford mom trying to fulfill an imaginary childhood that I wish I had.
I agree, however, that the comparison of a stroller to a wheelchair is absurd, but perhaps they were trying to make a point, unfortunately in a rather tasteless and ludicrous way. The reality is that banning strollers from stores would be considered discrimination and in these economic times, I am not so sure many stores would be willing to ban anyone. And what would be the grounds for banning strollers? The annoyance of the other patrons? I am thoroughly annoyed by people who walk through stores, stand on lines, or sit in restaurants and talk on the their cell phones-I don't want to hear their one sided conversations. In fact, I was recently in the grocery store while a woman shopped with her two year old running wild and ripping things off the shelves WHILE she slowly pushed her cart and talked on her cell phone. That kid belonged in a stroller or strapped into the cart!
I would bet that most moms would agree that shopping, of any sort, with a child is not a first choice, but sometimes it is the only option. Perhaps both sides of this Pak Slope coin could use to practice a little more awareness and tolerance of 'the other."
"As someone who is very aware of the people around me, I feel compelled to comment on the stroller entries. A screaming child in a restuarant or any store is an annoyance to the other patrons. A child running free and bothering other patrons in a restaurant or any store is also an annoyance to the other patrons. A calm child sitting in a stroller while his/her mother shops is of no consequence to anyone. Is walking around a mother with a stroller that much of an inconvience? Personally, when my 18 month old acts up in his stroller, I leave the store, not only because I don't want to bother anyone else, but because I don't want to listen to it myself. However, I don't agree that my mere presence with a stroller in a bookstore makes me a Stepford mom trying to fulfill an imaginary childhood that I wish I had.
I agree, however, that the comparison of a stroller to a wheelchair is absurd, but perhaps they were trying to make a point, unfortunately in a rather tasteless and ludicrous way. The reality is that banning strollers from stores would be considered discrimination and in these economic times, I am not so sure many stores would be willing to ban anyone. And what would be the grounds for banning strollers? The annoyance of the other patrons? I am thoroughly annoyed by people who walk through stores, stand on lines, or sit in restaurants and talk on the their cell phones-I don't want to hear their one sided conversations. In fact, I was recently in the grocery store while a woman shopped with her two year old running wild and ripping things off the shelves WHILE she slowly pushed her cart and talked on her cell phone. That kid belonged in a stroller or strapped into the cart!
I would bet that most moms would agree that shopping, of any sort, with a child is not a first choice, but sometimes it is the only option. Perhaps both sides of this Pak Slope coin could use to practice a little more awareness and tolerance of 'the other."
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.”
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!
TODAY'S GREAT NEWS! MORE WOMEN ARE HAVING LESS KIDS!!
Here's the scoop, folks - read it and cheer!
According to a recent Pew Research study, more American women than ever now remain childless all their lives: 20 percent, compared with 10 percent 40 years ago.
Yes! Yes! YES!
If it isn't obvious to you why this is great news, you're probably not reading this blog in the first place. However, let me elaborate...
I have been working with adults and children as a clinical social worker and psychotherapist for 34 years. Plus, I've raised and am still raising children at the age of... well, nevermind. Here's what I know, bottom line - most people who have children don't have a clue about what parenting a child is like as a life choice, and even moreso, most parents have no idea whatsoever about what a child needs developmentally to grow up to be even remotely self-actualized.
This extraordinarily dysfunctional reality starts with the pathological reasons most people have children in the first place.
Check these stats out:
If you have a college degree of any kind, there's a 24 percent chance that you will never have a child; with a Ph.D., there's a 34 percent chance that you'll never have a child. But if you've never finished high school, there's only a 15 percent chance that you'll never have a child.
If you live in Utah, you're nearly twice as likely to conceive than you would be if you lived in New Hampshire.
If you're a teenage girl who is in a relationship with a gang member, you're nearly twice as likely to become pregnant than teenage girls who are not involved with gang members.
HELLO?!!?
In other words, if you're uneducated, young, right wing and desperate, you're significantly more likely to have kids! How great for our world is that?!
Now, I can hear all of my Park Slope breeder neighbors, streaming into bars and fine dining restaurants with their SUV Maclaren strollers, railing at me because they are none of the above. They are right. They come from the other, more insidious group of unqualified parents: the narcissists. Right, the self-referential, middle and upper-middle class pseudo-adults who have kids as an extension of their own inflated egos or to vicariously have another go at their own lost childhoods. These are the overindulgent parents who create the narcissistic offspring written about recently who grow up to have no empathy and who can, without conscience, become the hedge fund managers destroying our economy out of their own skewed sense of entitlement.
So, let's stand up and celebrate the women (and men) who are perhaps spending their lifetimes focusing on their own personal growth and development and fulfillment instead of acting out their dramas through their children. The world desperately needs this shift and we should all be encouraged at the trend.
Yes!
According to a recent Pew Research study, more American women than ever now remain childless all their lives: 20 percent, compared with 10 percent 40 years ago.
Yes! Yes! YES!
If it isn't obvious to you why this is great news, you're probably not reading this blog in the first place. However, let me elaborate...
I have been working with adults and children as a clinical social worker and psychotherapist for 34 years. Plus, I've raised and am still raising children at the age of... well, nevermind. Here's what I know, bottom line - most people who have children don't have a clue about what parenting a child is like as a life choice, and even moreso, most parents have no idea whatsoever about what a child needs developmentally to grow up to be even remotely self-actualized.
This extraordinarily dysfunctional reality starts with the pathological reasons most people have children in the first place.
Check these stats out:
If you have a college degree of any kind, there's a 24 percent chance that you will never have a child; with a Ph.D., there's a 34 percent chance that you'll never have a child. But if you've never finished high school, there's only a 15 percent chance that you'll never have a child.
If you live in Utah, you're nearly twice as likely to conceive than you would be if you lived in New Hampshire.
If you're a teenage girl who is in a relationship with a gang member, you're nearly twice as likely to become pregnant than teenage girls who are not involved with gang members.
HELLO?!!?
In other words, if you're uneducated, young, right wing and desperate, you're significantly more likely to have kids! How great for our world is that?!
Now, I can hear all of my Park Slope breeder neighbors, streaming into bars and fine dining restaurants with their SUV Maclaren strollers, railing at me because they are none of the above. They are right. They come from the other, more insidious group of unqualified parents: the narcissists. Right, the self-referential, middle and upper-middle class pseudo-adults who have kids as an extension of their own inflated egos or to vicariously have another go at their own lost childhoods. These are the overindulgent parents who create the narcissistic offspring written about recently who grow up to have no empathy and who can, without conscience, become the hedge fund managers destroying our economy out of their own skewed sense of entitlement.
So, let's stand up and celebrate the women (and men) who are perhaps spending their lifetimes focusing on their own personal growth and development and fulfillment instead of acting out their dramas through their children. The world desperately needs this shift and we should all be encouraged at the trend.
Yes!
UNUSUAL FOLLOW-UP TO "THERE JUST AREN'T ALWAYS TWO SIDES" - STARBUCKS VERSUS McDONALDS
In an article on THE BIG MONEY website, entitled "There Is No McDonald's America and Starbucks America," by Dan Mitchell, the author says this:
"We are constantly confronted by false choices: Are you conservative or liberal? Do you prefer Letterman or Leno? You either shop at Barnes & Noble or at an indie bookshop. "Free trade" is either an unalloyed good or destroying society. You must take sides, whether or not there really are two "sides" to any particular question, which there usually aren't." (SEE THE FPL PIECE BY THAT SAME NAME)
I love that!
Then Dan goes on to say that asking people if they prefer McDonald's or Starbucks is like "comparing apples to kumquats."
Well, Dan, it used to be, but unfortunately, Howard D. Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, has attempted to turn Starbucks into McDonald's and as a result caused the demise of what was once the go-to model of a successful franchise.
I used to love going to Starbucks when it was exclusively a high-quality coffee bar. It was serene, cerebral even, with perhaps a touch of college town ambiance, and they made great coffee! But alas, even though Schultz made a fortune with the original business model, he apparently wanted to become McDonald's. So, there appeared the cheap snacks, and the little boxes of chocolate milk, and the sweeter and sweeter non-coffee drinks. In other words, Starbucks became - KID FRIENDLY!! And here I go... WHO WANTS TO HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE WHILE NAVIGATING AROUND SUV-SIZED STROLLERS AND LISTENING TO VERY LOUD TODDLERS FLINGING THEIR GOOEY RICE KRISPIE TREATS ALL OVER THE FLOOR?!!?
Clearly, not me. I stopped going to Starbucks a couple of years ago. Maybe the desperate mothers who couldn't stand one more day trapped in their brownstones with those loud, treat-flinging kids were grateful that Starbucks became a romper room, but judging from the way Starbucks has been losing money hand over fist and closing franchises down lately, something's gone wrong. And contrary to what some might think, it's not the economy. During recessions, people continue to do certain soothing things out of emotional necessity, like watching movies or TV and drinking coffee.
No, Starbucks, either out of greed or bad business judgment, blew it. Catering to kids - and of course, now we're onto one of my favorite themes - is not only bad for the kids and bad for the adults, its bad for business. Unless you're McDonalds.
"We are constantly confronted by false choices: Are you conservative or liberal? Do you prefer Letterman or Leno? You either shop at Barnes & Noble or at an indie bookshop. "Free trade" is either an unalloyed good or destroying society. You must take sides, whether or not there really are two "sides" to any particular question, which there usually aren't." (SEE THE FPL PIECE BY THAT SAME NAME)
I love that!
Then Dan goes on to say that asking people if they prefer McDonald's or Starbucks is like "comparing apples to kumquats."
Well, Dan, it used to be, but unfortunately, Howard D. Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, has attempted to turn Starbucks into McDonald's and as a result caused the demise of what was once the go-to model of a successful franchise.
I used to love going to Starbucks when it was exclusively a high-quality coffee bar. It was serene, cerebral even, with perhaps a touch of college town ambiance, and they made great coffee! But alas, even though Schultz made a fortune with the original business model, he apparently wanted to become McDonald's. So, there appeared the cheap snacks, and the little boxes of chocolate milk, and the sweeter and sweeter non-coffee drinks. In other words, Starbucks became - KID FRIENDLY!! And here I go... WHO WANTS TO HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE WHILE NAVIGATING AROUND SUV-SIZED STROLLERS AND LISTENING TO VERY LOUD TODDLERS FLINGING THEIR GOOEY RICE KRISPIE TREATS ALL OVER THE FLOOR?!!?
Clearly, not me. I stopped going to Starbucks a couple of years ago. Maybe the desperate mothers who couldn't stand one more day trapped in their brownstones with those loud, treat-flinging kids were grateful that Starbucks became a romper room, but judging from the way Starbucks has been losing money hand over fist and closing franchises down lately, something's gone wrong. And contrary to what some might think, it's not the economy. During recessions, people continue to do certain soothing things out of emotional necessity, like watching movies or TV and drinking coffee.
No, Starbucks, either out of greed or bad business judgment, blew it. Catering to kids - and of course, now we're onto one of my favorite themes - is not only bad for the kids and bad for the adults, its bad for business. Unless you're McDonalds.
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]"
"ANONYMOUS" JUMPS ON PL'S "JUDGMENTAL" ATTITUDE ABOUT PARENTS, ETC.!/PL RESPONDS!
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.
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.
DADLOFF ON PL'S "A STROLLER IS JUST A WHEELCHAIR FOR THE LITTLE LAME PRINCE"/PL RESPONDS
Here's Dadloff:
"I need to reply to your entry about suv strollers this past week, I was excited to visit auntlori in the boston area. she is pregnant with her second child which is due in june. I decided to take her shopping to purchase items she would need to have for a soon to be two old and a new arrival. the first thing on our list of purchases was a stroller that would hold both children. low and behold we purchased a very large SUV double stroller, so large that I think you need a drivers licence and directional signals. it also has a rack on it that can accommodate a pack n play in case the child needs to take a nap in the book store. I also gave her my FULL PERMISSION to live her life as she sees fit. Part of which would be to go to barnes and noble to purchase books and also to go to starbuck to have a coffee, latte or cappachino of her choice being able to take both of her children with her because of having a SUV double stroller. you are generalizing about the park slope area. perhaps you are not aware of the story hours in a lot of barnes and noble stores for todlers or that some starbucks like to see mothers with their children patronize their stores. maybe you need to move out of park slope."
PL:
I'm working on the last thing, DL!
"I need to reply to your entry about suv strollers this past week, I was excited to visit auntlori in the boston area. she is pregnant with her second child which is due in june. I decided to take her shopping to purchase items she would need to have for a soon to be two old and a new arrival. the first thing on our list of purchases was a stroller that would hold both children. low and behold we purchased a very large SUV double stroller, so large that I think you need a drivers licence and directional signals. it also has a rack on it that can accommodate a pack n play in case the child needs to take a nap in the book store. I also gave her my FULL PERMISSION to live her life as she sees fit. Part of which would be to go to barnes and noble to purchase books and also to go to starbuck to have a coffee, latte or cappachino of her choice being able to take both of her children with her because of having a SUV double stroller. you are generalizing about the park slope area. perhaps you are not aware of the story hours in a lot of barnes and noble stores for todlers or that some starbucks like to see mothers with their children patronize their stores. maybe you need to move out of park slope."
PL:
I'm working on the last thing, DL!
REPOST: BEFORE YOU JUMP SHIP!
This is one of my own personal favorites of all the posts I've written:
I would assume that there are fewer and fewer parents these days who would argue against the notion that parenting should be an equally shared responsibility and that child-rearing tasks shouldn't be divided up along prescribed gender lines as they once were. So, rather than write about what's already been written about a lot on this subject, I would like to write about the notion of "equal unparenting."
I've talked and written a lot about how over-involved the recent generations of parents (Baby Boomers and Echo Boomers) are with their kids, and the kind of narcissistic disturbances that can cause. I have also talked quite a bit about how important it is for children to have parents who are happy and fulfilled in their sex-lives and creative lives.
Now, let's get practical and radical and take it out of the box. Raising kids the way most people try and do it today, even with the shifts towards equality of tasking, is inherently dysfunctional. Two parents, living together under one roof with their kids full-time, while also pursuing a self-actualized lifestyle of gratification in love and work is tantamount to climbing Mount Everest or competing in a triathlon every day! And how many of you have done either of those things even once? (I actually do know a mother of three who competes in triathlons as a way of taking a break from the rigors of mothering!)
So, when faced with this daunting situation (and by the way, most first-time parents don't have a clue what they're getting into), what typically happens? Well, like on any sinking ship, the first thing you do is throw overboard the things that seem expendable in an attempt to stay afloat. Sex is usually at the top of that list. No time, too tired, too angry - "Yeah, we'll make a date with each other." Never happens. Well, maybe it happens once. Next to get tossed are any avocations or hobbies that you love, but which don't bring in any money. Writing? Painting? Ice climbing in the Pacific Northwest? Can't afford it. Exercise? Yeah, for the kids - soccer, Little League, karate, ballet. "Should we let the gym membership expire?" "No!" Gourmet cuisine? Yeah, remember when you always cut out the recipes from the Wednesday NY Times to sample? "Amy's Macaroni and Cheese" sure makes cooking easy, now, doesn't it? And it's organic!
What follows the tossing overboard period is the spirit-crushing feeling of loss and emptiness because it "wasn't supposed to be like this." You're depressed and overwhelmed. This is followed by the insidious, relationship-killing blaming of each other - for not doing your share of the equal shared parenting, for not initiating sex, for not making me care that I've gained weight...
Now it's bad. At this point, it's usually the point of no-return for a couple and the only two choices are split-up or hunker down. In truth, the healthier couples can't hunker down, so... Couples therapy? An affair? A trial separation? Well, here's where I come in and where it's all about EROS. If the in-loveness hasn't been killed off completely, if there's still an ember of desire and passion for each other left alive, there's a possibility that the relationship can be revived, but it's rare. And it's going to require breaking the log-jam you're in and breaking the mold of how it's "supposed" to be done, and couples having the courage and fortitude to do that is even rarer.
How do you go about it? You start with your desires, the callings in your heart and soul, the ones that won't go away that you sadly pine about in bed when you're not having sex. You need to retrieve the very things you threw overboard because those things were NOT AT ALL EXPENDABLE. They were the essential things to living a good life and being good parents. Yes. That's right. Your kids need YOU to play soccer more than they need to play it. Your kids need you to have TIME OUTS more than they do. Yeah. Instead of sending more money on McLaren SUV strollers, violin lessons or Wiis, spend it on a good babysitter and housecleaning person. Next - and this is a big one - spend some time alone. Real time. Not just a couple of hours. A couple of days. Go in on a small studio if you have to. You're going to have to spend the bucks if you get divorced anyway. Think about it. A lawyer, child support and maintenance is going to cost you a lot more than a babysitter, housecleaner and a small studio to have some private time in.
Finally, assuming the EROS still burns somewhere for your partner, yes, do make a date with each other - and keep it. But DO NOT talk about the kids or the house or anything other than what you're passionate about and sex, sex, sex. Talk about it, reveal your hidden fantasies and shameful desires and then DO IT! Do it with more gusto than you've ever done it before. Sex only gets better with age. That's right, better. Anybody who has ever told you otherwise should get thrown overboard.
Okay, that's it for now.
I would assume that there are fewer and fewer parents these days who would argue against the notion that parenting should be an equally shared responsibility and that child-rearing tasks shouldn't be divided up along prescribed gender lines as they once were. So, rather than write about what's already been written about a lot on this subject, I would like to write about the notion of "equal unparenting."
I've talked and written a lot about how over-involved the recent generations of parents (Baby Boomers and Echo Boomers) are with their kids, and the kind of narcissistic disturbances that can cause. I have also talked quite a bit about how important it is for children to have parents who are happy and fulfilled in their sex-lives and creative lives.
Now, let's get practical and radical and take it out of the box. Raising kids the way most people try and do it today, even with the shifts towards equality of tasking, is inherently dysfunctional. Two parents, living together under one roof with their kids full-time, while also pursuing a self-actualized lifestyle of gratification in love and work is tantamount to climbing Mount Everest or competing in a triathlon every day! And how many of you have done either of those things even once? (I actually do know a mother of three who competes in triathlons as a way of taking a break from the rigors of mothering!)
So, when faced with this daunting situation (and by the way, most first-time parents don't have a clue what they're getting into), what typically happens? Well, like on any sinking ship, the first thing you do is throw overboard the things that seem expendable in an attempt to stay afloat. Sex is usually at the top of that list. No time, too tired, too angry - "Yeah, we'll make a date with each other." Never happens. Well, maybe it happens once. Next to get tossed are any avocations or hobbies that you love, but which don't bring in any money. Writing? Painting? Ice climbing in the Pacific Northwest? Can't afford it. Exercise? Yeah, for the kids - soccer, Little League, karate, ballet. "Should we let the gym membership expire?" "No!" Gourmet cuisine? Yeah, remember when you always cut out the recipes from the Wednesday NY Times to sample? "Amy's Macaroni and Cheese" sure makes cooking easy, now, doesn't it? And it's organic!
What follows the tossing overboard period is the spirit-crushing feeling of loss and emptiness because it "wasn't supposed to be like this." You're depressed and overwhelmed. This is followed by the insidious, relationship-killing blaming of each other - for not doing your share of the equal shared parenting, for not initiating sex, for not making me care that I've gained weight...
Now it's bad. At this point, it's usually the point of no-return for a couple and the only two choices are split-up or hunker down. In truth, the healthier couples can't hunker down, so... Couples therapy? An affair? A trial separation? Well, here's where I come in and where it's all about EROS. If the in-loveness hasn't been killed off completely, if there's still an ember of desire and passion for each other left alive, there's a possibility that the relationship can be revived, but it's rare. And it's going to require breaking the log-jam you're in and breaking the mold of how it's "supposed" to be done, and couples having the courage and fortitude to do that is even rarer.
How do you go about it? You start with your desires, the callings in your heart and soul, the ones that won't go away that you sadly pine about in bed when you're not having sex. You need to retrieve the very things you threw overboard because those things were NOT AT ALL EXPENDABLE. They were the essential things to living a good life and being good parents. Yes. That's right. Your kids need YOU to play soccer more than they need to play it. Your kids need you to have TIME OUTS more than they do. Yeah. Instead of sending more money on McLaren SUV strollers, violin lessons or Wiis, spend it on a good babysitter and housecleaning person. Next - and this is a big one - spend some time alone. Real time. Not just a couple of hours. A couple of days. Go in on a small studio if you have to. You're going to have to spend the bucks if you get divorced anyway. Think about it. A lawyer, child support and maintenance is going to cost you a lot more than a babysitter, housecleaner and a small studio to have some private time in.
Finally, assuming the EROS still burns somewhere for your partner, yes, do make a date with each other - and keep it. But DO NOT talk about the kids or the house or anything other than what you're passionate about and sex, sex, sex. Talk about it, reveal your hidden fantasies and shameful desires and then DO IT! Do it with more gusto than you've ever done it before. Sex only gets better with age. That's right, better. Anybody who has ever told you otherwise should get thrown overboard.
Okay, that's it for now.
DADLOFF FOLLOWS UP WITH FRESH AIR AND FLAG-WAVING! PL RESPONDS.
Here's DADLOFF's response, unedited for spelling, grammar and punctuation:
"maybe you should re-locate to upstate NY here, the air, water and living is pure and clean and you probably will not find crazy mothers with SUV strollers disrupting your visits to starbucks and the book stores here they are welcome in all places with open arms many folks up here fly the AMERICAN FLAG and are proud to be AMERICANS I don't think I have heard people up here. reps or dems talking about our ex pres and wanting to send him to prison and everyone he was connected with no one, that I know of wanted to send Truman for what he did in korea or Kennedy for cuba and vietnam and johnson for vietnam to prison
why do you think that I like all these conservative or liberal talk show hosts personally, I think they are commedians and are good for a laugh now and then I think you may want to let a couple of years go bye before you pass judgement on Obama or for that matter Bush"
PL:
Let me just address this statement of yours, DL, because in and of itself, it's the most inane of the unthinking, jingoistic blather that's bit the dust in the last year - "many folks up here fly the AMERICAN FLAG and are proud to be AMERICANS." Sounds good, huh? If your country is a football team, and if symbolism was a good replacement for mature, adult thoughtfulness. What has waving a flag got to do with anything? And what "country" do your "folks" love? The one that was formed around these words?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
WOAH! How unbelievably "liberal" is that?
Yes, that's the Declaration of Independence, DL, the words that formed our country. Governments get their power from the governed, see? And their job description is the Constitution of the United States.
Presidents are elected officials working for the people, and their oath of office says that they agree to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Take a breath and re-read that, DL. It is the Constitution that presidents swear to protect - the rule of law in this land. Not what they think is best for the country, regardless of those laws, not what their ideology or their place in history or the world should be, but what serves the people and those laws.
Get it? Your childish, flag-waving "folks" want a king they can worship, or a quarterback they can root for, or a big daddy that can do no wrong, even when they are abusive and acting out their own craven power trips, rather than an intelligent, enlightened president working for the people and the Constitution. George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al, broke the law and violated the Constitution. They therefore committed treason. They should be held accountable. It doesn't matter what their motive was. They were servants of the people and they violated their oaths, and our country's laws.
P.S. It's a tough choice, DL - for a second - the fresh air and simplistic flag-waving of upstate New York versus the dirty streets and open minds of New York City, but I'll take Manhattan. It's a lot easier to find a good therapist here.
"maybe you should re-locate to upstate NY here, the air, water and living is pure and clean and you probably will not find crazy mothers with SUV strollers disrupting your visits to starbucks and the book stores here they are welcome in all places with open arms many folks up here fly the AMERICAN FLAG and are proud to be AMERICANS I don't think I have heard people up here. reps or dems talking about our ex pres and wanting to send him to prison and everyone he was connected with no one, that I know of wanted to send Truman for what he did in korea or Kennedy for cuba and vietnam and johnson for vietnam to prison
why do you think that I like all these conservative or liberal talk show hosts personally, I think they are commedians and are good for a laugh now and then I think you may want to let a couple of years go bye before you pass judgement on Obama or for that matter Bush"
PL:
Let me just address this statement of yours, DL, because in and of itself, it's the most inane of the unthinking, jingoistic blather that's bit the dust in the last year - "many folks up here fly the AMERICAN FLAG and are proud to be AMERICANS." Sounds good, huh? If your country is a football team, and if symbolism was a good replacement for mature, adult thoughtfulness. What has waving a flag got to do with anything? And what "country" do your "folks" love? The one that was formed around these words?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
WOAH! How unbelievably "liberal" is that?
Yes, that's the Declaration of Independence, DL, the words that formed our country. Governments get their power from the governed, see? And their job description is the Constitution of the United States.
Presidents are elected officials working for the people, and their oath of office says that they agree to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Take a breath and re-read that, DL. It is the Constitution that presidents swear to protect - the rule of law in this land. Not what they think is best for the country, regardless of those laws, not what their ideology or their place in history or the world should be, but what serves the people and those laws.
Get it? Your childish, flag-waving "folks" want a king they can worship, or a quarterback they can root for, or a big daddy that can do no wrong, even when they are abusive and acting out their own craven power trips, rather than an intelligent, enlightened president working for the people and the Constitution. George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al, broke the law and violated the Constitution. They therefore committed treason. They should be held accountable. It doesn't matter what their motive was. They were servants of the people and they violated their oaths, and our country's laws.
P.S. It's a tough choice, DL - for a second - the fresh air and simplistic flag-waving of upstate New York versus the dirty streets and open minds of New York City, but I'll take Manhattan. It's a lot easier to find a good therapist here.
MALE SPINSTERS? Hmm...
Interesting piece I came across today on the “men.style.com” website, called, “The Stigma Of The Never-Married Man,” by Kate Hahn. In a way, it’s kind of a related follow-up to the posts I’ve made about open marriage.
Hahn claims that while the “confirmed bachelor” once used to be envied by many men, he is now looked down upon as “weird,” which is weird since the number of never-married men in their forties has doubled since 1980, according to U.S. Census Bureau.
So, what gives?
Playboy, loser, commitment-phobic, too fussy... latently gay? These are often the suggestions bandied about by the married among us. But Carl Weisman, author of the book, “So Why Have You Never Been Married?” suggests that maybe some men know themselves too well to ever commit to a strollers and “banana-pancake lifestyle.” "And," Weisman says, “maybe they don't deserve to be subjected to judgmental looks, because the kind of honesty that prevents them from entering a relationship just for the sake of it is the unmarried fortysomething's saving grace.”
Weisman believes that instead of looking askance at the perennially unmarried man, society should applaud him—even the cad. "The only thing worse than a playboy who refuses to commit is a playboy who gets married," he says.
Of course, as is so often the case in these kinds of phenomena, the answer is some mixture of both and neither... or all of the above, but with a third factor.
Yes, for sure, some men are unable/unwilling to engage in a long-term monogamous relationship because they have unresolved issues around intimacy and negative transferences to women. But just as surely, many men who get married have serious dependency issues and idealized transferences to women - just as bad as the negative ones in their effects, by the way. Both are recipes for the disaster of an unfulfilled life, but as a therapist and sociologist, if I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I'd say that at least the unmarried guy isn't screwing up any children by demonstrating what an unfortunate compromise "love" and married life can be.
On the flip side, a man might never get married because he wants to live outside of the institutional box, and avoid all the concomitant expectations of friends and family and corporations in that box. This radical man, however, will more than likely have experienced being deeply in-love and most likely, even cohabitation, even monogamy. He just rejects the contract part of it. Likewise, a man can be married in the legal, normative way, but still have vibrant love-Eros-and-sex and open, honest communication with his partner, without becoming deadeningly co-dependent.
But then there's the question raised by the fact that the number of never-married men has doubled in the last few decades. That fact goes along with other statistics that show that fewer people are getting married in general, and at later ages, and having less children. I've written about this before, with a definite sense of optimism about its meaning. This is the "third factor."
As we human beings are evolving mentally, emotionally and spiritually, as we are moving from younger soul ages to older soul ages, we are becoming less and less dependent on rigid social constructs and controls to rule our day-to-day lives, and more and more able to follow our own individual inner guidance for direction. FULL PERMISSION LIVING! To quote myself: "Full Permission Living rests on the foundation of truth that all people are entitled to live pleasure-filled, spontaneous, lives without guilt, shame or oppressive inner rules and prohibitions. Indeed, we are meant to live with full inner permission to follow our natural inner guidance and our inborn pleasure instinct to seek out gratification in all of our actions and endeavors, and that such a way of living always benefits those around us and those that we love."
So, don't judge those single guys approaching middle age. Get to know them, you married folks, lest they hit you back with Eric Clapton's old lyrics: "Fore you 'cuse me, take a look at yourself."
Hahn claims that while the “confirmed bachelor” once used to be envied by many men, he is now looked down upon as “weird,” which is weird since the number of never-married men in their forties has doubled since 1980, according to U.S. Census Bureau.
So, what gives?
Playboy, loser, commitment-phobic, too fussy... latently gay? These are often the suggestions bandied about by the married among us. But Carl Weisman, author of the book, “So Why Have You Never Been Married?” suggests that maybe some men know themselves too well to ever commit to a strollers and “banana-pancake lifestyle.” "And," Weisman says, “maybe they don't deserve to be subjected to judgmental looks, because the kind of honesty that prevents them from entering a relationship just for the sake of it is the unmarried fortysomething's saving grace.”
Weisman believes that instead of looking askance at the perennially unmarried man, society should applaud him—even the cad. "The only thing worse than a playboy who refuses to commit is a playboy who gets married," he says.
Of course, as is so often the case in these kinds of phenomena, the answer is some mixture of both and neither... or all of the above, but with a third factor.
Yes, for sure, some men are unable/unwilling to engage in a long-term monogamous relationship because they have unresolved issues around intimacy and negative transferences to women. But just as surely, many men who get married have serious dependency issues and idealized transferences to women - just as bad as the negative ones in their effects, by the way. Both are recipes for the disaster of an unfulfilled life, but as a therapist and sociologist, if I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I'd say that at least the unmarried guy isn't screwing up any children by demonstrating what an unfortunate compromise "love" and married life can be.
On the flip side, a man might never get married because he wants to live outside of the institutional box, and avoid all the concomitant expectations of friends and family and corporations in that box. This radical man, however, will more than likely have experienced being deeply in-love and most likely, even cohabitation, even monogamy. He just rejects the contract part of it. Likewise, a man can be married in the legal, normative way, but still have vibrant love-Eros-and-sex and open, honest communication with his partner, without becoming deadeningly co-dependent.
But then there's the question raised by the fact that the number of never-married men has doubled in the last few decades. That fact goes along with other statistics that show that fewer people are getting married in general, and at later ages, and having less children. I've written about this before, with a definite sense of optimism about its meaning. This is the "third factor."
As we human beings are evolving mentally, emotionally and spiritually, as we are moving from younger soul ages to older soul ages, we are becoming less and less dependent on rigid social constructs and controls to rule our day-to-day lives, and more and more able to follow our own individual inner guidance for direction. FULL PERMISSION LIVING! To quote myself: "Full Permission Living rests on the foundation of truth that all people are entitled to live pleasure-filled, spontaneous, lives without guilt, shame or oppressive inner rules and prohibitions. Indeed, we are meant to live with full inner permission to follow our natural inner guidance and our inborn pleasure instinct to seek out gratification in all of our actions and endeavors, and that such a way of living always benefits those around us and those that we love."
So, don't judge those single guys approaching middle age. Get to know them, you married folks, lest they hit you back with Eric Clapton's old lyrics: "Fore you 'cuse me, take a look at yourself."
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!
STROLLERS BANNED IN BARS! A NO-BRAINER, BUT NOT FOR THE NARCISSISTS!!
Yes! Yes!! YES!!!
Sanity at last.
The GOTHAMIST reports that stroller bans at bars in Brooklyn are expanding.
I have been writing about this HERE and on the Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn blog for years.
As a parent in Park Slope and as a psychotherapist for 30 years who has worked with scores of families and children, I have been staunchly against the narcissistic, vicarious acting out by adults who want to bring their kids into bars and fine-dining restaurants. It's not good for anyone - other patrons, the parents themselves and especially, it's not good for the kids. Children need parents who are real grown-ups, not sad excuses for them, parents who actually have lives separate from their kids, and the kids need adults who can demonstrate respect for others through their actions.
Finally!
Sanity at last.
The GOTHAMIST reports that stroller bans at bars in Brooklyn are expanding.
I have been writing about this HERE and on the Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn blog for years.
As a parent in Park Slope and as a psychotherapist for 30 years who has worked with scores of families and children, I have been staunchly against the narcissistic, vicarious acting out by adults who want to bring their kids into bars and fine-dining restaurants. It's not good for anyone - other patrons, the parents themselves and especially, it's not good for the kids. Children need parents who are real grown-ups, not sad excuses for them, parents who actually have lives separate from their kids, and the kids need adults who can demonstrate respect for others through their actions.
Finally!
Before You Jump Ship
It's Father's Day, and so, today's NY Times Magazine cover story is about parenting, specifically what is lately being called "equal parenting." ("WHEN MOM AND DAD SHARE IT ALL - ADVENTURES IN EQUAL PARENTING")
I would assume that there are fewer and fewer parents these days who would argue against the notion that parenting should be an equally shared responsibility and that child-rearing tasks shouldn't be divided up along prescribed gender lines as they once were. So, rather than write about what's already been written about a lot on this subject, I would like to write about the notion of "equal unparenting."
I've talked and written a lot about how over-involved the recent generations of parents (Baby Boomers and Echo Boomers) are with their kids, and the kind of narcissistic disturbances that can cause. I have also talked quite a bit about how important it is for children to have parents who are happy and fulfilled in their sex-lives and creative lives.
Now, let's get practical and radical and take it out of the box. Raising kids the way most people try and do it today, even with the shifts towards equality of tasking, is inherently dysfunctional. Two parents, living together under one roof with their kids full-time, while also pursuing a self-actualized lifestyle of gratification in love and work is tantamount to climbing Mount Everest or competing in a triathlon every day! And how many of you have done either of those things even once? (I actually do know a mother of three who competes in triathlons as a way of taking a break from the rigors of mothering!)
So, when faced with this daunting situation (and by the way, most first-time parents don't have a clue what they're getting into), what typically happens? Well, like on any sinking ship, the first thing you do is throw overboard the things that seem expendable in an attempt to stay afloat. Sex is usually at the top of that list. No time, too tired, too angry - "Yeah, we'll make a date with each other." Never happens. Well, maybe it happens once. Next to get tossed are any avocations or hobbies that you love, but which don't bring in any money. Writing? Painting? Ice climbing in the Pacific Northwest? Can't afford it. Exercise? Yeah, for the kids - soccer, Little League, karate, ballet. "Should we let the gym membership expire?" "No!" Gourmet cuisine? Yeah, remember when you always cut out the recipes from the Wednesday NY Times to sample? "Amy's Macaroni and Cheese" sure makes cooking easy, now, doesn't it? And it's organic!
What follows the tossing overboard period is the spirit-crushing feeling of loss and emptiness because it "wasn't supposed to be like this." You're depressed and overwhelmed. This is followed by the insidious, relationship-killing blaming of each other - for not doing your share of the equal shared parenting, for not initiating sex, for not making me care that I've gained weight...
Now it's bad. At this point, it's usually the point of no-return for a couple and the only two choices are split-up or hunker down. In truth, the healthier couples can't hunker down, so... Couples therapy? An affair? A trial separation? Well, here's where I come in and where it's all about EROS. If the in-loveness hasn't been killed off completely, if there's still an ember of desire and passion for each other left alive, there's a possibility that the relationship can be revived, but it's rare. And it's going to require breaking the log-jam you're in and breaking the mold of how it's "supposed" to be done, and couples having the courage and fortitude to do that is even rarer.
How do you go about it? You start with your desires, the callings in your heart and soul, the ones that won't go away that you sadly pine about in bed when you're not having sex. You need to retrieve the very things you threw overboard because those things were NOT AT ALL EXPENDABLE. They were the essential things to living a good life and being good parents. Yes. That's right. Your kids need YOU to play soccer more than they need to play it. Your kids need you to have TIME OUTS more than they do. Yeah. Instead of sending more money on McLaren SUV strollers, violin lessons or Wiis, spend it on a good babysitter and housecleaning person. Next - and this is a big one - spend some time alone. Real time. Not just a couple of hours. A couple of days. Go in on a small studio if you have to. You're going to have to spend the bucks if you get divorced anyway. Think about it. A lawyer, child support and maintenance is going to cost you a lot more than a babysitter, housecleaner and a small studio to have some private time in.
Finally, assuming the EROS still burns somewhere for your partner, yes, do make a date with each other - and keep it. But DO NOT talk about the kids or the house or anything other than what you're passionate about and sex, sex, sex. Talk about it, reveal your hidden fantasies and shameful desires and then DO IT! Do it with more gusto than you've ever done it before. Sex only gets better with age. That's right, better. Anybody who has ever told you otherwise should get thrown overboard.
Okay, that's it for now.
And Happy Father's Day!
I would assume that there are fewer and fewer parents these days who would argue against the notion that parenting should be an equally shared responsibility and that child-rearing tasks shouldn't be divided up along prescribed gender lines as they once were. So, rather than write about what's already been written about a lot on this subject, I would like to write about the notion of "equal unparenting."
I've talked and written a lot about how over-involved the recent generations of parents (Baby Boomers and Echo Boomers) are with their kids, and the kind of narcissistic disturbances that can cause. I have also talked quite a bit about how important it is for children to have parents who are happy and fulfilled in their sex-lives and creative lives.
Now, let's get practical and radical and take it out of the box. Raising kids the way most people try and do it today, even with the shifts towards equality of tasking, is inherently dysfunctional. Two parents, living together under one roof with their kids full-time, while also pursuing a self-actualized lifestyle of gratification in love and work is tantamount to climbing Mount Everest or competing in a triathlon every day! And how many of you have done either of those things even once? (I actually do know a mother of three who competes in triathlons as a way of taking a break from the rigors of mothering!)
So, when faced with this daunting situation (and by the way, most first-time parents don't have a clue what they're getting into), what typically happens? Well, like on any sinking ship, the first thing you do is throw overboard the things that seem expendable in an attempt to stay afloat. Sex is usually at the top of that list. No time, too tired, too angry - "Yeah, we'll make a date with each other." Never happens. Well, maybe it happens once. Next to get tossed are any avocations or hobbies that you love, but which don't bring in any money. Writing? Painting? Ice climbing in the Pacific Northwest? Can't afford it. Exercise? Yeah, for the kids - soccer, Little League, karate, ballet. "Should we let the gym membership expire?" "No!" Gourmet cuisine? Yeah, remember when you always cut out the recipes from the Wednesday NY Times to sample? "Amy's Macaroni and Cheese" sure makes cooking easy, now, doesn't it? And it's organic!
What follows the tossing overboard period is the spirit-crushing feeling of loss and emptiness because it "wasn't supposed to be like this." You're depressed and overwhelmed. This is followed by the insidious, relationship-killing blaming of each other - for not doing your share of the equal shared parenting, for not initiating sex, for not making me care that I've gained weight...
Now it's bad. At this point, it's usually the point of no-return for a couple and the only two choices are split-up or hunker down. In truth, the healthier couples can't hunker down, so... Couples therapy? An affair? A trial separation? Well, here's where I come in and where it's all about EROS. If the in-loveness hasn't been killed off completely, if there's still an ember of desire and passion for each other left alive, there's a possibility that the relationship can be revived, but it's rare. And it's going to require breaking the log-jam you're in and breaking the mold of how it's "supposed" to be done, and couples having the courage and fortitude to do that is even rarer.
How do you go about it? You start with your desires, the callings in your heart and soul, the ones that won't go away that you sadly pine about in bed when you're not having sex. You need to retrieve the very things you threw overboard because those things were NOT AT ALL EXPENDABLE. They were the essential things to living a good life and being good parents. Yes. That's right. Your kids need YOU to play soccer more than they need to play it. Your kids need you to have TIME OUTS more than they do. Yeah. Instead of sending more money on McLaren SUV strollers, violin lessons or Wiis, spend it on a good babysitter and housecleaning person. Next - and this is a big one - spend some time alone. Real time. Not just a couple of hours. A couple of days. Go in on a small studio if you have to. You're going to have to spend the bucks if you get divorced anyway. Think about it. A lawyer, child support and maintenance is going to cost you a lot more than a babysitter, housecleaner and a small studio to have some private time in.
Finally, assuming the EROS still burns somewhere for your partner, yes, do make a date with each other - and keep it. But DO NOT talk about the kids or the house or anything other than what you're passionate about and sex, sex, sex. Talk about it, reveal your hidden fantasies and shameful desires and then DO IT! Do it with more gusto than you've ever done it before. Sex only gets better with age. That's right, better. Anybody who has ever told you otherwise should get thrown overboard.
Okay, that's it for now.
And Happy Father's Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
