What strict parents actually teach
-
Depends on what you mean by "strict". I think the meme is about the parents who get angry over little things but don't actually pay attention to their kids much - the ones who just assume that their kids would not dare to misbehave. However when I was in high school, I also saw plenty of kids (often immigrants) who had successfully been taught to work pretty much non-stop. I think their parents watched them (or at least their grades) closely enough that they couldn't have gotten away with anything. It seemed to work well - they got straight A's, never got in trouble, and went to prestigious universities. I can't think of a single one I knew who burned out or rebelled (while in high school - I don't know what happened to them afterwards). However, the ones I got to meet were already filtered, with the low- and medium-achievers not admitted to that school.
Strict for strict's sake is bullshit. Holding your kids accountable for their actions, enforcing boundaries, and channeling their energy into productive ventures might be considered strict, but that's good parenting in my book.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
My parents were strict about things that didn't matter. They taught swear words and being gay was bad but never taught me anything about surviving life or making money or managing hobbies or anything having to do with self growth or independence.
They limited my ability to grow. Along with society at the time and then blamed me when for it when I became an adult and was socially dysfunctional.
It's weird... If you're not teaching your kids no one really is. They'll end up learning from entertainment or people taking advantage of them. But still people have kids like it's a set it and forget it process and then blame the kid/person for not knowing x thing.
-
office work skills
Sounds like a good stand up comedy bit
-
Aww, fawn! 🥹
Yeah, as a survivor of related experiences, finding out the latter two'd been recently added to this alliterative device was, frankly, a coldly epiphanous experience.
-
This post did not contain any content.
All extremely useful skills in work life.
-
strict ≠abusive
wrote on last edited by [email protected]My parents weren't abusive but I still learned all of these except 'manipulate to calm down'...
-
These are all invaluable survival skills, NGL.
It's the resulting FFF hairtrigger readiness that's fucking hell on the psyche, though.
Not if I constantly dissociate, self medicate, and avoid people to the point where I literally didn't process the threat.
-
Not if I constantly dissociate, self medicate, and avoid people to the point where I literally didn't process the threat.
Sounds like processing the threat happened, NGL.
-
As the other person said, it really depends on what people mean by "strict".
My parents were "strict" in that they enforced a bed time. Now I have better than average sleeping habits. So that worked out.
But I've also read about "strict" parents that, like, take doors off their kids rooms, or read the kids private messages, or other nightmares
Had my door taken off for playing my music too loud... Translation: We can't yell across the house for you to "come here".
-
Sounds like processing the threat happened, NGL.
I may just be stuck on an old one then.
-
Yeah, my parents made us leave our cell phones on the kitchen counter so they could read our texts every night, and they installed software on our computers that took screenshots every 5 seconds.
I wonder why I have issues with authority figures and privacy?
My folks were technology skeptics and limited access to screens. We had strict allotments of time to access electronics.
This taught us how to game the rules and make up arguments to justify our discretions.
They were also lawyers, so we walked into the first trap.
-
I may just be stuck on an old one then.
-
My folks were technology skeptics and limited access to screens. We had strict allotments of time to access electronics.
This taught us how to game the rules and make up arguments to justify our discretions.
They were also lawyers, so we walked into the first trap.
The video games in my house were downstairs, and one time I did a "Can I go downstairs?" instead of "Can I play video games?" when I knew they didn't want me playing more games. Thought it was a clever loophole. Only worked the one time, but got jokingly referenced for the next ten years.
-
This post did not contain any content.
That's not strict, that's abusive.
-
Anecdotal observation from college: Lots of people got hammered on a weekend, at least sometimes, but the people who couldn't draw a line and keep it from destroying their grades were mostly the ones whose parents kept them rigidly controlled at home. It seemed like those folks had no practice in drawing their own lines because their parents always drew the lines for them, so when they were on their own they went nuts. The preacher's daughter is a cliche with a lot of truth.
What does "the preacher's daughter" refer to?
-
This post did not contain any content.
They're not unlike law enforcement, in that regard.
Unrelated (probably), but i just researched this and want to tell people:
- The US Army & National Guard has a combined troop strength of around 1 Million soldiers. source They are typically under federal control or can be "activated" (in the case of the National Guard) to be put under federal control.
- The US has a total number of police officers & law enforcement of, also, around 1 Million. source Most of them are under state & local control.
I'm saying this because i have been wondering, in case states try to secede and trump sends all troops he commands to the states to stop them from doing so, what would be the likely outcome.
Sorry, it's a bit off-topic here, but the US situation is on my mind a lot these days.
-
What does "the preacher's daughter" refer to?
The "Preacher's Daughter" is a trope in a lot of media wherein the daughter of the local religious leader tends to be more likely to be a promiscuous troublemaker.
-
They're not unlike law enforcement, in that regard.
Unrelated (probably), but i just researched this and want to tell people:
- The US Army & National Guard has a combined troop strength of around 1 Million soldiers. source They are typically under federal control or can be "activated" (in the case of the National Guard) to be put under federal control.
- The US has a total number of police officers & law enforcement of, also, around 1 Million. source Most of them are under state & local control.
I'm saying this because i have been wondering, in case states try to secede and trump sends all troops he commands to the states to stop them from doing so, what would be the likely outcome.
Sorry, it's a bit off-topic here, but the US situation is on my mind a lot these days.
yeah we're all thinking about that
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ok but tbf those are all great skills to have
-
They're not unlike law enforcement, in that regard.
Unrelated (probably), but i just researched this and want to tell people:
- The US Army & National Guard has a combined troop strength of around 1 Million soldiers. source They are typically under federal control or can be "activated" (in the case of the National Guard) to be put under federal control.
- The US has a total number of police officers & law enforcement of, also, around 1 Million. source Most of them are under state & local control.
I'm saying this because i have been wondering, in case states try to secede and trump sends all troops he commands to the states to stop them from doing so, what would be the likely outcome.
Sorry, it's a bit off-topic here, but the US situation is on my mind a lot these days.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Depends on how many states we're talking about and their geographic distribution. 1M isn't enough to hold the whole country. It probably can't even hold New York City. It could probably hold New Hampshire.
Current US military doctrine suggests you need 1 soldier for every 3 people you're trying to occupy. This is especially true when you have to assume every civilian is a potentially armed insurrectionist, and the US has a lot of guns in civilian hands. That said, fascists tend to throw out hard won wisdom like this, and tells the army they aren't trying hard enough. For as much as they drone on about how they're a bunch of tough guys, they are complete shit at actually fighting a war. Here's a former US Army intelligence officer talking about the numbers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyBIqRunQ5Y
Oh, and while the existing military might follow orders to take over states "in rebellion", they're going to be doing a lot of malicious compliance. The way they did Trump's birthday parade proves it. They 100% phoned it in on purpose.
One of the side effects of Trump trying to move so fast is that he doesn't have time to purge the military and refill it with loyalists. That would take over a decade. Stalin did that to disastrous effect; the Winter War was only a technical win with catastrophic losses, and the later German invasion was barely held back. Hitler didn't really try to purge the Wehrmacht, with the Night of the Long Knives being mostly a purge of their own SS people.
Trump therefore has to rely on already loyal people with guns, which is mostly ICE, local sheriffs, and police. None of them are big enough to hold the whole country, either, or even a major state.
