Quote: (11-22-2017 11:30 AM)Going strong Wrote:
Quote: (11-21-2017 10:48 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
Quote: (11-21-2017 09:49 PM)Going strong Wrote:
Many members here are saying that the kids will be traumatized (by the divorce), and never forgive their father.
Sadly, it is more complicated than that. And sadly, truth is, the kids of this Hollywwod (or Brit? he looks Brit) actor will become teens and young adults, and then they'll LOVE their (mostly absent) father.
Why?
Because he will give or leave them (in his will) tons of money.
We live in the 21st century, my friends. On them reaching 20 years or age, this rich actor will give a luxury car to each of his 4 kids, and they will love him more than middle-class kids love a caring father with no money.
21st centuries kids will love parents who give them tons of money, a car to get pussy or holiday in Cancun or an Iphone - meanwhile, the caring but poor parents will be despised and probably hated.
There's a difference between loving daddy and loving daddy's money.
I can only speculate about your own family issues, and I mean no offence by that. Why you would suggest that a child's love is bought with trinkets rather than earned with care and guidance is beyond me.
You didn't carefully read my post. I am referring to 21st century kids, this brand new generation.
I maintain that this new generation will be the most materialistic ever, it's obvious, and will love nothing more than money.
You are welcome though to keep a romantic idea of the beautiful 20th century family. But, have you not noticed that the new kids and teens are only interested in toys, smartphones, gifts, material things? Have you seen the new generation in churches, or reading intelligent books (or reading anything)?
The world we live in has a master, money. Intelligence and kindness are values that used to be preeminent, but have been displaced by the sheer power of money (and bullshit social media, that's another thing), in the minds of the young generation.
Are you raising a whole generation's kids, or are you raising your own children?
Newton's First Law applies to raising children: an object will continue in a direction it is pushed in by a force unless there is an opposing force to it. Where the parent does not provide an opposing force, such culture as there is will provide it instead. I'll concede it won't be easy to oppose the cultural forces against you, but if you're going to be a parent and you're serious about raising a kid into the sort of adult you believe to be right-thinking, you're going to have to provide that opposing force. Not because doing so is in support of your identity as a good parent, but because you believe in your soul that it's the right example to set for a child.
You point out the next generation of kids is likely to be materialistic. First question: since materialism is not inborn to a child any more than capitalism, communism, or asceticism is, who do you think
taught them to be that way? I'll give you a hint, culture might have pushed them, but the kids could only have moved because there was no opposing force involved in their lives to keep them from so being pushed.
There was no parent really there; there was only another overgrown child (or two, where the kid was fortunate enough to have two parents). There was no person there prepared to give over their own all-consuming need to create and maintain an identity for their children's sake. There was instead an epidemic of parents who wanted to brand their kids as college students but not actually teach them how to want, how to be adults. That generation of adults is now reaping what it sowed, just as their own parents reaped what they sowed and are now at war with Generation X to hold onto all the shit they acquired in the wake of World War Two.
None of these generational changes have much to do with how an individual child grows up: that is, always and everywhere, the responsibility and the fault of the parents and the parents alone. It was the Jesuits who said "Give me a child until the age of 7 and I will show you the man." Most children are with their parents until the age of 7, and you can see the men those parents generated.
Quote: (11-21-2017 09:49 PM)Going strong Wrote:
And giving it more thought... it is actually normal to love a father who give you lots of money in his will, or give you a brand new car at 18 to chase top-pussy.
Because if the father has this kind of money to give you, it means, the father has been careful and wise, has saved money for his children, has not spent all the money with whores or in casinos.
So matter of fact, there is nothing wrong in respecting a father that has been wise, industrious and modest enough to save money for the future of his family; it is a proof of love from the hardworking, clever father.
If resources is
all that a father gives you, he deserves no respect. That's literally trying to buy your children's love. A kid doesn't remember the toys he's given, he remembers the time and the love and the insight and the parenting.
Quote: (11-22-2017 03:21 PM)Going strong Wrote:
It is also my History-based belief that children do not need to see a lot of their fathers. Do you know that under the French kings, the children of noblemen were sent to countryside nannies, for years, seeing their fathers (and well, even mothers) very rarely, until they reached their teens. Then the fathers took them home again, to teach them war, religious and culture stuff.
And how did that work out for the French monarchy? Hint: there isn't one anymore.
Or let's look at a more recent example in the English experience, Prince Charles, if we're talking about distant fathers and whatnot. He had the whole stiff upper lip upbringing: fuck me, the kid was sent to Australia for two terms of his schooling, and even he called his school in bloody Scotland as "Colditz in kilts". He describes Elizabeth as a distant mother and his father a bully who forced him into marrying Diana. He, his brothers, and his sister all fucking sucked at forming lasting marriages, topped by the near-destruction of the monarchy that resulted from Prince Andrew marrying Fergie, let alone their poor selection of Sloane Ranger Diana Spencer.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm