« Moooooving Right Along | Main | Sacre bleu! »

June 25, 2008

Dating Rules = "Meddling"???

Whatever would we do without "researchers"? Funded by our hard-earned federal tax dollars, these brave truth tellers labor hard in the Stygian fields of academe to bring us important breaking news of which we might otherwise be unaware.

For instance who among us, if not for scientists willing to conduct experiments under field conditions few would willingly submit to, would have guessed the mere sight of bikini-clad women makes men (who, we are constantly informed by our readership, are so much more logical and rational than women, being ruled by their higher cerebral functions, go all twitterpated?

Yes, if not for the near-irrefutable evidence of modern "science", we too would not have believed it! Yet it would appear that sometimes even men appear to behave in a manner perhaps best described as hormone driven. Who would have thought this was possible?

Certainly not the Editorial Staff. For the past few decades or so, we have been far too busy pushing our outdated morality on our unsuspecting progeny:

Researchers have known for a while that closeness to parents is linked to less risky sexual behavior by teenagers.

Now, they're turning their microscopes on the dating rules parents set, with some surprising results: The limits you place on your teenager's dating may say more about your own love life than your teen's needs. Also, parents' satisfaction with their own life roles shapes the kind of rules they set.

Ah! As we suspected: parenting really is all about us, after all. It was never about our sons' welfare at all:

Parents who are involved in stable romantic relationships with spouses or partners tend more than other parents to set rules limiting teen dating behavior, such as curfews, minimum ages for dating, limits on places teens can go and explicit rules against sexual activity, says a new study of 169 parents and 102 teens by Stephanie Madsen, an associate professor of psychology at Maryland's McDaniel College. While the reason isn't clear, the author suggests these parents may hold more conservative beliefs in general; many of the rules involved sexuality.

Ironically, in what other researchers have called the "Romeo and Juliet" effect, such rules may tend to drive teenage lovers closer; teens of these parents reported closer, more positive relationships.

Parents who are unhappy, dissatisfied or insecure in love, however, go beyond limits and try to dictate or control how their teens treat their dates, the study found. These parents try to influence their kids to value certain things and act in specific ways. Parents would tell teens to open doors for dates, "act like a gentleman" (or a lady), or resist letting a date "walk all over" them. The goal may be to launch their teens on a romantic path happier than their own, Dr. Madsen says. But kids often regard this advice as intrusive, and again, it tended to have the opposite effect. The teens affected weren't particularly content with their dating relationships.

The research rings true to me. As a single working parent of two, my love life is near the bottom of my list of priorities. Like the parents in the study, I find myself prescribing behaviors to my teenage son, like "be a gentleman" -- advice he listens to respectfully. But, I suspect, he keeps his own counsel.

Raising boys with a military father who is gone much of the time is an interesting exercise. A woman knows little of what it is like to be a teen-aged boy, and yet a mother must be able (if her husband is gone) to talk to her sons of dating, of how to treat a girl, even - sometimes - about sex. If you don't take on these subjects, you yield the field without so much as a whimper to a world that doesn't share the values you want to pass on to your children.

I am suspicious of "researchers" who advise parents not to "push" their values on their children. Of course children will keep their own counsel. That is an inevitable part of growing up; of the separation process which begins when your kids journey towards adulthood. Little by little, they draw apart from you. They spend more and more time in their rooms; they stop confiding in you; they resist attempts to steer them in the direction you want them to go. This is all normal, natural, and - though as parents we find it alarming and often painful - healthy.

It is just the first step towards leaving the nest, and if we love them, we must let them go:

Love takes many forms. Love is having the faith and the courage to let go when your children need to strike out on their own. Love means trusting in their judgment (and your own long stewardship); it means recognizing that they are no longer babies, but young adults. It means releasing them gently, lovingly, gracefully; though every fiber screams they aren’t ready yet – that they aren’t listening to you, that they will screw things up if you don’t keep a hand on the old tiller. It means not saying “I told you so”, when you did. Again. And again. It means biting your lip, and your tongue, a lot. It means giving them the space to grow, as you did once. Love means standing a bit apart when they come home, though you long to crowd them with questions as you did when they were small; waiting for them to come to you. Loving it when they finally do.

Even though it took years. Boys are a slow crop.

And yet a wise parent does not let go all at once. It is not meddling to maintain an even tension on the rope which binds a child to home and hearth, paying it out at a rate that allows a child to make and learn from his own mistakes but hopefully avoid the life altering ones.

It's funny: I set few, if any actual "rules" in regard to dating. In fact, like my husband and I, my boys were interested in the opposite sex very early in life and I did little to discourage this: my view was that there is no specific age at which kids are "ready" to date. I did, however, spend an awful lot of time talking to my sons about dating, and I supervised their activities carefully during the early years.

Later on I took the view that, remembering my own youthful forays into the wacky world of dating, there was little likelihood I would have any actual control over their actions as most teens (rightly or not) view dating as an intensely private sphere in which parents are truly not welcome. But the fact that I had no control didn't mean that I had no influence:

A better way for parents to expend their energy, Dr. Madsen says, is to emphasize constant, warm oversight over just setting rules.

As a parent, I saw nothing wrong with giving my sons the benefit of my experiences. The difference, to me, was that I openly admitted to both of them that as teens who were converging on adulthood, the choice would always remain theirs. I stressed that they were still minors and that while they lived under my roof, certain things were expected of them. I also stressed the broad concepts of right and wrong which I thought it important for men and women to live by, and the consequences for them and their partners if they weren't careful and responsible.

The thing I find most interesting is this: my husband's and my family are somewhat unusual in that both of our parents met and began dating in high school. Their parents did the same. In fact, my kids' great-grandparents eloped when they were only 18.

My husband and I met and began dating in high school (though barely - we didn't begin dating until just before our senior prom).

And my sons married women they met and dated either in high school or the first year of college. That's a fairly unusual track record, and yet we placed absolutely no pressure on them in regard to dating.

Meddling? Or just pushing our values on them?

Or is it something else? Maybe we're just weird.

Posted by Cassandra at June 25, 2008 08:38 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2222

Comments

As a Mother Of Sons and One Princess, we mentor our children and we have imposed some restrictions to protect them. Some are reasonable: A curfew, a phone call home or in this age, a cell phone to be able to call home.
Being prompt, etc.

I prefer to think of morals rather than values, because IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion) morals exist to protect values. We taught our children about the birds and the bees and dating when they began to ask questions that showed they were thinking. So far, both of the oldest boys were reluctant to date as a couple and preferred group dates or double dating with another couple.

I kid you not: The eldest CLU turned 16 last week. In Mormon culture, this is the Age Of Dating A Girl. Not my lad. He called the young lady and arranged for a double date with her and her parents.

I asked him why. He said he just wanted to have fun without any strings or expectations and that
having her parents along would ensure that.

No, he didn't get this idea from me. This child is one who wants to be a husband and father, but when he is ready.

He doesn't want to get exclusive; he wants to focus on his life and his choice of career before he settles down...and looking around a bit isn't going to hurt.

The girl's parents were absolutely thrilled.

Posted by: Cricket at June 25, 2008 10:30 AM

I vote for weird. It helps explain the pre-dug graves in the backyard.

Posted by: spd rdr at June 25, 2008 11:31 AM

mr rdr!!!!

Frnt f th clsrm!

WHACK! WHACK! WHACK!!!

Posted by: Sister Mary Donklephant at June 25, 2008 11:40 AM

"As a Mother Of Sons and One Princess, we mentor our children and we have imposed some restrictions to protect them. Some are reasonable..."

...and the others? :)

Posted by: Grim at June 25, 2008 12:09 PM

"Swallow the nice GPS tracking device for mommy, sweetie."

Posted by: MikeD at June 25, 2008 12:34 PM

I love it.

Posted by: Cass at June 25, 2008 12:38 PM

I kid. I had a great set of parents who enforced behavior, even trying "to influence their kids to value certain things and act in specific ways. Parents would tell teens to open doors for dates, "act like a gentleman" (or a lady), or resist letting a date "walk all over" them." Oddly enough, I didn't do the exact opposite, nor were my parents in an unhappy relationship. In fact, after having been married for 46 years now, they're still very devoted to each other. It's just that standards were set, and they expected those standards to be met or exceeded, and we did.

Good parenting is not something to be found in some psychologist's book or some researcher's study. It's found within caring parents who want what's best for their kids. There's a great commercial on the radio about not having to be a perfect parent to be a foster/adoptive parent, and I think that's so true. Kids don't need perfection, they need parents.

Posted by: MikeD at June 25, 2008 12:39 PM

For instance who among us, (snip), would have guessed the mere sight of bikini-clad women makes men (snip) go all twitterpated?

Did someone say bikinis? This post is worthless without pictures. :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at June 25, 2008 01:41 PM

the craziness your writing abotu is not from good science... its from ideological science trying to prove ideological points. its why sociology is a dead science... (too many bad papers spoiled everything comming from it)... while still regarded by the state as a well for the right science they need, its total advocacy.

the ideological basis that causes this kind of thing si the feminists idea of "tabula rasa", the blank slate. the doctrine that says taht men and women are the same, and that the brain is not made and defeind by genetics but is totally abstract and defined by environment.

this doctrine says "humans have no 'natures'"

rather than define what was right and wrong in behavior on its own ethos. they decided to use science to do it. and so they asserted way before there was enough information to easily refute them, that we are the same. women like dolls because dad and mom force them. men like sports because dad tells them to. etc.


the past 40 years ahve been trying to pound this square peg into the round hole, and try to kill any science that contradicts their assertions.

like hanson saying we only have a little time to stop global warming. but we forget that when i was a kid, hanson said we have very little tikm eo stop a global ice age... by the way, oil was the cultprit that had to be stopped for causing both an ice age, and a heat wave that will kill us all.


well, tabula rasa is why 50/50 when deviated from must be oppression... and not personal choice.

its why they can require teh police to scale a 6 foot wall, but once a woman joins, they no longer have to do this...

its why, we cant use our common sense to say... hey! that wont work... which is why a 50+ year old woman was to escort a over 6 foot tall multi homocidal maniac uncuffed and free which resulted in her dead, the judge dead, a court reporter, and others shot.

the list goes on..

but its all from the blind assertions of ideology trying to seem precient but mistakingly taking the wrong side of the reality argument.

womens minds are made for the tasks that women need to do... mens minds are made for the tasks that men are made to do.

the thing that is in reference here has been in denial for a long time.

it goes against the left feminist and lesbian concepts that we are defined by our circumstances, not by biology.

so a male responding to naked women is not a natural program of the male mind to insure procreation... no no no... its a conspiracy of the patriarchy to objectify women...
[which i guess is why the women gave up those really raunchy outfits in the 1920s in favor of thongs, as there is no difference]

its why a small set of women think that its just peachy that they walk down the street wihtout their shirts becasue men can do that

its why 17 young girls can choose to get pregnant (pack or no pack) as they have been told men are slime, women are everything, the best thing in the world is a baby, it takes a tribe, and so on and so forth.


you can get a feel for this by reading work by susan pinker... a hormone doctor (endocrinologist), who went into medicine to prove that we are the same, and discovered that women are different (a lot of this going on, some are cool and report what they find, others like pinker are in the middle as they report honestly, but then try to jam the model into the hole in order to not have what happened to watson happen to her for daring to not carry the party line).


i ddidnt have time to go over it all... but there is a lot of bad science injected into the system by the left because manipuating science can grant power. lysenko had a lot for the time his ride was running.

well, same thing, even if its contradivtory.

so you have adorno defining the authoritarian mind (meanwhile all the authoritarian states have been left states).

you have the left declaring the blank slate to be science... and so bioilogy isnt destiny!


and the list goes on.

sorry this wasnt better written.

Posted by: artfldgr at June 25, 2008 03:30 PM

if you want to know where this comes from, read abotu Lukacs and hungary... (with kinsey ligitimizing it with his bad science, and margret meade seconding it)

Cultural Marxism
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html

In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.

Hungary's youth, having been fed a steady diet of values-neutral (atheism) and radical sex education while simultaneously encouraged to rebel against all authority, easily turned into delinquents ranging from bullies and petty thieves to sex predators, murderers, and sociopaths.


Gramsci's prescription and Lukacs' plans were the precursor to what Cultural Marxism in the guise of SIECUS, GSLEN, and the ACLU--acting as judicially-powered enforcers--later brought into American schools.

you see... if genetics determines who we are, and how we percieve the world, which it does, then so much of their propatanda, and society programs to make the new socialist man are just anti life.


from wiki:

Generally speaking, one can never decide whether a theory is true or not simply by examining what political or philosophical implications it might have. Nevertheless, some have been attracted to, or repulsed by, the notion of the "blank slate" for such reasons. On the one hand, the theory of a "blank slate" is attractive to some since it supposes that drastic innate mental differences between normal human beings do not and cannot exist; therefore, making racism and sexism illogical. On the other hand, the theory means there are no inherent limits to how society can shape human psychology. The opposing view is that human nature is primarily influenced by genetics.


you cant rewrite man and culture if you allow the transmission of familiy information that is contrary to the states will.

so what this is, is part of the attack on paretning, and fathers. its the attempt to get the women to turn kids over to the state and go on working and partying as good pets do.. while the state takes the kids and programs them.

without moms in the home, dads working to bring things in, the whole thing falls apart.

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

"It became increasingly clear to us that the institution of marriage `protects' women in the same way that the institution of slavery was said to `protect' blacks--that is, that the word `protection' in this case is simply a euphemism for oppression," -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 214.

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds.,

"For one of the implicit, if unadmitted, tenets of feminism has been a fundamental disrespect for men." -- Wendy Dennis

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... The demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, (Dutton Publishing, 1989)


"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx

you can read even scarier stuff if you read the schools textbook for reprograming. its written by havelock. its a manual for teachers and administrators to change children and get parents to allow the changes they are against!

bet you didnt know there were manuals in how do do this! the idea is to unfreeze them, move them to a new level, then freeze them.

about a year ago a teacher got in trouble by directly using a havelock example...

anyway... teh kind of thing they do is put chidlren into a situation they are not ready to handle... you are on a platform, there is a train coming... if you push your freind on the tracks and kill him, you save the life of 10 peopel you dont know... if you save your freind, then you let the others die.

children are not ready for this, so the dissonance cuases a unfreezing of morals isnce this question has no actual moral answer. thats unfreezing... now the teacher or change agent can inject morals they want through equivalence.

Exerpts from Charlotte Iserbyt book: the deliberate dumbing down of america

[teh book is available online sometimes]

RONALD G. HAVELOCK’S THE CHANGE AGENT’S GUIDE TO INNOVATION IN EDUCATION was published (Educational Technology Publishing: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973). This Guide, which contains authentic case studies on how to sneak in controversial curricula and teaching strategies, or get them adopted by naive school boards, is the educator’s bible for bringing about change in our children’s values. Havelock’s Guide was funded by the U.S. Office of Education and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and has continued to receive funding well into the 1980s. It has been republished in a second edition in 1995 by the same publishers.


there is a long history of these things, and they are all connected to the movers and shakers... luckacs stuff was imported by teh communist spy dewey...

heck.. even meade was tagged as a fellow traveler.

franze boas turned out to be a spy.. and he tagged meade... she did her seminal fake research...

the tuskeegee experiment was funded by whom..
why the same people that also funded the higland school which was closed for communist sedition after the people runnign it were caught buying houses in white neighborhoods and movinb blacks into them. when the whites didnt react racistly, they bombed the blacks (and lynched some too), so that they could "make hsitory"

boas and meade also tagged naiomi goldstein who was a cpusa authro... she later got married and became betty freidan...


so if you track the whole thing, from any thread, it always leads back to these few people who were funded by other sources.


now we have what they created. we have an education system designed by a communist spy, with it programs designed by gramsci kind of people, and others like havelock that produce how too manuals that explain how to do the work, but dont explain what they are making.

sigh.

Posted by: artfldgr at June 25, 2008 04:02 PM

hard to maintain values when these rad fem ideological useful idiots are the teachers.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=39783

its all a part of kinseys sexualization of children, meades sexualization of young women, and rad fem ideological teachings from the ivory tower...

but heck... lets just think its natural.. and that a parent can actually teach their kids wihout interference..

and when you have lawyers that do things like allow a child to go to court to oppose their parents grounding them..

well, children are and have the same rights as adults, no? and under parens patria, adults are no longer their keepers, but responsible custodians who can be punished by the state for nto following state dicta.

welcome to the new world a la socialism...

Posted by: artfldgr at June 25, 2008 04:19 PM

Grim, we are talking about teenagers. According to my son, I am braindead while I think he is in a coma. Now which view is more accurate? Yes, I am opening up a line of snark but the point is, depending on the child, even a curfew is tantamount to slavery.

They think I am horrible because I insist on the computer being in view when they are on it; it is password protected and they aren't allowed a MySpace account. I have never had to worry about their behavior at dances, or at other coed activities like service projects, etc. because the girls prefer my sons. They are gently spoken, well mannered and not really interested in a relationship right now.

Posted by: Cricket at June 25, 2008 06:10 PM

They want to get jobs, finish their educations and not worry about the stress of dating until they are about 21.

THEY came up with that; my nephews who live in Utah are the same way. My nieces are also not interested, which makes them all really popular when we have the Annual Crossing Of The Plains back to Utah and the cousins get together at a church dance or other activity. For those two weeks we are embedded, we carry boxes of green jello and recipes for the most interesting comfort food you have ever tasted. This ensures that we are on good relations with the natives.

Posted by: Cricket at June 25, 2008 06:14 PM

I home school my children and with each onslaught against the values we hold dear, we hold the line.
There have been times...oh there have been times.

Posted by: Cricket at June 25, 2008 06:22 PM

now we have what they created. we have an education system designed by a communist spy, with it programs designed by gramsci kind of people, and others like havelock that produce how too manuals that explain how to do the work, but dont explain what they are making.
sigh.

Posted by: artfldgr at June 25, 2008 04:02 PM

That comment just killed sixteen million brain cells with a future in sports-talk radio.

Posted by: spd rdr at June 25, 2008 07:07 PM

I was only smiling over your phrasing, Cricket. I have no doubt of you, neither you nor Cassidy. :) If I ever seem to say otherwise, it is either in play, or I have been not quite understood as I meant to be. :)

Posted by: Grim at June 25, 2008 07:10 PM

Wondering ........

Posted by: Arm Wrestler at June 25, 2008 08:44 PM

"That comment just killed sixteen million brain cells with a future in sports-talk radio."
Yeah, I know what you mean. And while sports-talk radio is ninety percent mental, the other half is physical. But just remember, I never said most of the things I said. Neither should you too.

Posted by: yogi berra at June 25, 2008 09:17 PM

I don't know. I started to write about my boys but I didn't want it to get too personal. I think we all have an idea of what we want for our children, and I think we have the right as parents to raise them with our values.

But at the end of the day, there are certain things beyond our control. That is the joy and the hurt of parenting . We really don't know how they will turn out. I can't help but think that is a good thing.

Fortunately, kids have a way of surviving our mistakes and transcending our wildest dreams.

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 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.

If we only knew, on the day they drew their first breath.

If we only knew how much we'd come to love them. We'd be scared to death :)

Posted by: Cass at June 25, 2008 09:31 PM

When someone asks you, A penny for your thoughts, and you put your two cents in, what happens to the other penny?

Posted by: Drive-by George Carlin at June 25, 2008 09:33 PM

That's why I responded the way I did. I knew you were teasing, but I also wanted to carry that a bit further, because to me, the perfect parent is the one who doesn't give up on themselves or their offspring. I know when I was 17 I knew everything and my parents were not only antediluvian, they were in another galaxy without any signs of intelligent life, to include themselves.

When I got married, I vowed I would not turn into my parents. FWIW, every family is dysfunctional to a certain degree, but we swore to ourselves we wouldn't make the mistakes our parents did. We were going to be reasonable, loving parents No Matter What.

Then we had our first child.

I am my parents...to a point.

I close with this: Raising children is like being pecked to death by a chicken.

Posted by: Cricket at June 26, 2008 12:16 AM

Without the company of biscuits, either.

Posted by: Colonel Sanders at June 26, 2008 12:33 AM

Men are aroused by seeing scantily clad females? Who'd've thunk it?!

I wonder how much grant money it took for those towering intellects to arrive at this conclusion. The mind boggles, I tells ya...

Posted by: camojack at June 26, 2008 01:12 AM

I agree that parenting is important. But I just can't call myself a good parent. I think I was negligent at times, ignorant at other times, experimenting the rest.

I do not take credit for my children turning out to be wonderful people. I think they did it despite me.

However, I never neglected their basic needs -- food, clothing, housing, schooling... but was I a "good" parent? Looking back, I can't say I was.

I think I'll be a better grandparent than I ever was a parent. And my daughters have already proved they are better mothers than I was.

Posted by: Donna B. at June 26, 2008 02:32 AM

I wonder how much grant money it took for those towering intellects to arrive at this conclusion.

A lot less than it'll take when the gummint decides they need to do a confirmation with a larger sample.

This debacle was probably submitted by the same bunch that proved, statistically, that, given the choice, kids would rather eat candy than carrots...

Posted by: BillT at June 26, 2008 02:32 AM

...who among us...would have guessed the mere sight of bikini-clad women makes men...go all twitterpated?

Next up, determining whether the sight of *thong*-clad women makes men go all twitterpated.

Go ahead -- test me.

Please?

Posted by: BillT at June 26, 2008 02:36 AM

Cricket, Donna:

I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Posted by: Cass at June 26, 2008 04:56 AM

Chinese parents used to have it real easy. The parents, well before their birth, would have already matched them up ("okay, settled, my firstborn son will marry your firstborn daughter, now let's talk inheritance"). See? Look, Ma, no dates!

Then you also have the situation where if you wanted a second or third or hundredth wife, you must get the consent of all the others. Again, quite simple, because very little in the way of dating required. In fact sometimes the wives will set it up for you. Fong Sai Yuk is a prime example :)

My father laid some ground rules for my sister; no darker-coloured folk, no lighter-coloured folk, no person who cannot eat pork, no non-Christian, no Vietnamese, Cambodians, Japanese, Koreans or Thai. He could have just come straight out said said he wanted a Chinese Christian SIL, not no, he had to go this convoluted way...

And so my sister up and got herself a Chinese Christian man. Who's shorter than she is. And she's 5'6" at most. And an Australian citizen.

I suspect he'd be happy if I didn't marry an aged harpy with a green card.

In all seriousness, however, I believe that the treat-this-young-woman-like-your-mother-or-your-sister thought process works wonders.

Unless he's got an Oedipus complex. In which case, you've got problems :)

Or, you know, the 10-rules-of-dating-my-daughter-while-I-clean-my-shotgun approach. That works wonders too.

Posted by: Gregory at June 26, 2008 07:22 AM

My buddy Norm used to greet his Only Daughter's dates from the living room, sitting on the couch, idly honing his survival knife.

The only words he ever said to any of them were, "Ten-thirty. Understand?"

She eventually married the only guy who had the courage to ask for a second date. It's been almost twenty years, now...

Posted by: BillT at June 26, 2008 10:18 AM

i am unsure how to answer the post on sports stuff in reference to my comment.

is it for my comment, or against. do they not knwo the facts, and so its like an idiot getting all humerous in french class when the teacher says le phoeke?

what do you know about dewey?

Dewey later was found to be running over 20 front organizations, and was the main author in the humanist manifesto.

you know... relativism, change change change, no god, etc.

the things that are a problem now.
ever read aldous huxley? know who is family members are, and that they started a precursor to the un for one world government?


deweys darwinistic look at things insured that we would all learn communist pragmatism. the pragmatism without morals that allows a person like stalin to act and not care about how much harm they cause, as humans are just better developed slime molds.


do a bit of reading as to the venona transcripts. they are what allow us to know what dewey was doing after he visited the soviet union.


we forget that it took the army to force parents to bring their kids to teh first state schools!!! instead of the schools the parents wanted!


lattimore who coined the term mccarthyism, turned out to be a confirmed spy. alger hiss. harry dexter white. and tons of others.. thousands


also.. if you knew about the frankfurt school, they settled in columbia and created the teachers college where they were able to teach teachers how to teach communism without ever saying it or doing it in a way that would be overt.


you only have to do a search to find dewey linked to lukacks, and hegel, and max horkenheimer, as well as theodore adorno, and normans, and onward.

care to read what the LEADER of the commnuist party usa wrote when she found out she was a useful idiot?

The Communist Party operates by infiltrating and subverting social institutions like the churches, schools, mass media and government. Its aim was "to create new types of human beings who would conform to the blueprint of the world they confidently expected to control." (162)

For example, Dodd reveals that the CPUSA had 1100 members become Catholic priests in the 1930's. It also subverted the American education system by taking over the teacher's unions and learned societies. Only people who accepted the "materialistic, collectivistic international class struggle approach" advanced. (98)

Involving women in the war effort fitted the long-range program:

"The party did all it could to induce women to go into industry. Its fashion designers created special styles for them and its songwriters wrote special songs to spur them.... War-period conditions, they planned, were to become a permanent part of the future educational program. The bourgeois family as a social unit was to be made obsolete." (153)

There was to be no family but the party and the state. Dodd helped organize the Congress of American Women, a forerunner of the feminist movement.

"Since it was supposedly a movement for peace, it attracted many women. But it was really only a renewed offensive to control American women... Like youth and minority groups, they are regarded as a reserve force of the revolution because they are more easily moved by emotional appeals." (194-195)

SUBVERSION OF U.S. COMPLETED IN THE 1930's

When FDR recognized Russia in 1933, he deliberately turned a blind eye to the CPUSA's massive program of espionage and subversion. Liberals denied that this took place and complained about a "witch hunt." Guess what? The "loony right" was correct. A new book (The Secret World of American Communism, based on newly opened Kremlin archives, confirms that CPUSA was a puppet of Moscow and the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were practically run by Soviet agents, Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White to name a few.

The war years saw the CPUSA actually renounce the class struggle and join the so-called "Roosevelt camp of progress" which included "progressive capitalists."

"The Communist Party now assumed the responsibility of establishing a rigid discipline over the working class. No employer was more effective or more relentless in checking strikes among the workers, or minimizing complaints...while wages rose a little during those years, they did not compare with the rise in profits and in monopoly control of basic necessities...war production was chiefly in the hands of ten large corporations...the Communists carefully muted such information." (153)

The war years saw amazing coordination between the Communist Party and America's financial elite. The elite financed a sophisticated propaganda agency called the Russian Institute located on Park Ave. across 68th Street from Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations. Here "famous names like Vanderbilt, Lamont, Whitney and Morgan mingled with those of Communist leaders. "(153)

At Roosevelt's insistence, Stalin "dissolved" the Comintern in order to make the CPUSA look like an American party. The CPUSA leader Earl Browder achieved national prominence and consulted with senior Roosevelt cabinet ministers.

The joint US-Russian war effort was to be the basis of the new world order. But, inexplicably, the policy changed and Browder instantly became a non-person. Apparently the financial elite had decided the time wasn't right for world government. A cold war would be much more lucrative. Dodd was told that in the future, the party would often find itself opposed not only to the government, but also to U.S. workers.

"I now saw that with the best motives and a desire to serve the working people... I and thousands like me, had been led to a betrayal of these very people.... I had been on the side of those who sought the destruction of my own country." (229)

Like frightened mice, the CPUSA membership scurried to adopt the new party line. Dodd tried to quit but was told: "No one gets out of the party. You die or you are thrown out." (197)

Eventually Dodd was expelled and smeared as "anti-Negro, anti-Puerto Rican, anti-Semitic, anti-labor and a defender of the landlord." (220). Sound familiar? After more than 20 year of tireless sacrifice, she was without family or friends. The party had been her family. Its "hates had become my hates."

"This is the key to the mental enslavement of mankind. The individual is made into nothing ... he operates as the physical part of [a] higher group intelligence... he has no awareness of the plans the higher group intelligence has for utilizing him." (158)


i would assume that the leader of the cpusa knows more than you and i about the games that were played.

she and others who realized and tried to run or warn us, make for rich reading and historical facts that later were confirmed (mitroken archives and other sources).


so you can decide what history you want to beleive, but if it doesnt match up with the real one, then your living the life of a person in anotehr world.

here is what she said about deweys new school system

The New York Times reported on March 8, 1954 that Bella Dodd: "...warned yesterday that the "materialistic philosophy," which she said was now guiding public education, would eventually demoralize the nation."


you can find copies of her book school of darkness... the banker thing while always a part of things, they are not the whole story. they are the aprt that she delt with more. and she delt with the big money men who wanted communism in the US.

however, if they had the control to the degree that she and otehrs say, this game would have been over way long ago.

so temper it with the fact that things changed after her death, and some of those things were enough to take teh sails out of the financiers. in fact such power things in the US went back and fourth 8 times before today. so what was a sure bet then is not such a sure bet now.

however, it only takes putting in the wrong person once after the other things hve been loostened enough to end the experiment in human freedom and now shut it dowen permanently.

In our enthusiasm we passed on to our students at Hunter what we had learned. We challenged the traditional thinking they had brought to college with them. We sent out girls to political clubs, too. Soon political leaders began to call Hunter to find out what the idea was of sending the “kids” to their clubs.

We did not stop it, however. We sent them in pairs to visit courts and jails, legislatures and institutions. When a socialist student asked if groups could visit the socialist clubs, too, we accepted the suggestion. We encouraged them to mix with all groups. Before long we were saying — and not yet realizing it was merely a rather meaningless cliché — that the radicals of today are the conservatives of tomorrow, that there could be no progress if there were no radicals.

In the days that have gone since we enunciated these statements so confidently I have had many occasions to see that this cataloging of people as either “right” or “left” has led to more confusion in American life than perhaps any other false concept. It sounds so simple and so right. By using this schematic device one puts the communists on the left and then one regards them as advanced liberals -after which it is easy to regard them as the enzyme necessary for progress.

Communists usurp the position of the left, but when one examines them in the light of what they really stand for, one sees them as the rankest kind of reactionaries and communism as the most reactionary backward leap in the long history of social movements. It is one which seeks to obliterate in one revolutionary wave two thousand years of man’s progress.

During my thirteen years of teaching at Hunter I was to repeat this semantic falsehood many times. I did not see the truth that people are not born “right” or “left” nor can they become “right” or “left” unless educated on the basis of a philosophy which is as carefully organized and as all-inclusive as communism.

I was among the first of a new kind of teacher who was to come in great numbers to the city colleges. The mark of the decade was on us. We were sophisticated, intellectually snobbish, but usually fetishly “democratic” with the students. It is true that we understood them better than did many of the older teachers; our sympathy with them was a part of ourselves.

During the afternoons and evenings I continued my work at Columbia. I had Carlton J. H. Hayes on “The Rise of Nationalism.” I studied closely A. A. Berle and Gardiner Means who wrote of the two hundred corporations that controlled America at the end of World War I. I read widely on imperialism and began to be critical of the role my country was playing. I discovered the John Dewey Society and the Progressive Education Association. I became aware of the popular concept of the social frontier. I also repeated glibly that we had reached the last of our natural frontiers and that the new ones to be sought must be social. There would be, we were told, in the near future a collective society in our world and especially in our country, and in teaching students one must prepare them for that day.

As a result of that year’s study of American history and national politics, as well as in the direct experience of my students and myself in local politics, I now began to tear apart before my students many respected public groups -charity, church, and other organizations -that were trying to better conditions in old-fashioned ways. This sort of talk had a destructive effect on myself, I now realize, and it had an even worse effect on my more sensitive students. If they followed where I led, there was nothing left for them to believe in. I had tried to wreck their former ways of thought and I had given them no new paths to follow. The reason was simple: I had none myself, because I really didn’t know where I was going.

Later when, in the Communist Party, I met one of these former students of mine, it was always with the feeling that I was responsible for her present way of life; it was through me that they had accepted this cold, hard faith they lived by.


Posted by: artfldgr at June 26, 2008 01:20 PM

"It is not a sign of good health to be well adjusted to a sick society." - Krishnamurti

Posted by: artfldgr at June 26, 2008 01:34 PM

"the 10-rules-of-dating-my-daughter-while-I-clean-my-shotgun approach. That works wonders too."
It seems to have worked out ok in that it is the approach I used with more than a few of my daughters young male suitors.

I too had no clues on parenting beyond what I knew that I would not do... which was everything that my parents did. Truth be told, I never gave much thought to being a father until I was made aware that I was to be one! Too preoccupied with Walkin' Boss, work, hobbies, life, the universe and everything.

After years of playing the role, I woke up one morning to realize that I was my old man. Funny how that happens.

Now that Walkin' Boss and I are empty nester's who no longer have any reason to go through the balance of our lives with the seriousness we used to maintain, we're now looking for payback on our kids, i.e. time with our grandkids. Yeee haaaa! =;^}

Posted by: bthun at June 26, 2008 01:54 PM

bthun:

Empty nesting is the best thing that ever happened to this lady :p I haven't had this much fun in years.

Enjoy. I dearly loved raising my boys, but I have to say that I love the freedom I have now.

Posted by: Cass at June 26, 2008 02:03 PM

Indeed M'lady. Indeed! =8^}

Posted by: bthun at June 26, 2008 02:21 PM

"Parents who are involved in stable romantic relationships with spouses or partners tend more than other parents to set rules limiting teen dating behavior.... the author suggests these parents may hold more conservative beliefs in general"

Or maybe the parents in "stable romantic relationships" understand what it takes to create such a relationship, and are simply passing that on to their children. It's not that they're conservative, per se; it's that they understand that making certain choices as a teen will set you up for good or bad relationships later on in life.

Posted by: LotharBot at June 26, 2008 05:50 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)