How true, how true. That's why I like you Bob! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

rltraveled


Sometimes it depends on what you mean by "helping."

If by "helping" (in reference to children). you mean assisting them in growing and developing good life skills - problem solving skills, the abiilty to think critically, a sense of responsibility, a sense of empathy, and a work ethic to carry them through life. Then that is a GREAT thing.

If by "Helping" you mean making their life easy so they don't have to experience failure (not always winning and coming in first), disappointment (not always getting what they want), gratification (not learning how to do the tough things just because they need to be done, sometimes) - then, in the long run, that isn't such a great idea.

There are good lessons to be learned by coming in 2nd or 3rd or even last but being able to celebrate the person who came in first. It's a good life skill to learn how to deal with not having what you want all the time - if nothing else it might help keep you out of debt later <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. And, the hard things in life come no matter what, it's best if you're prepared and confident you can go through them rather than becoming a victim.


Even worse, they'll go out into the world without the self respect/esteem you get from doing things yourself and a job well done.


I think he means more in marriage than in raising children.

But, even then, the difference between healthy, normal, productive behavior and pathology is generally a matter of scale. "Codependency" isn't binary - it's not "On" or "Off." There's a scale -- you can definitely go too far into codependency. And, you can definitely go too far away from it.

Consider the core of the MB system: POJA: "Never do anything without the enthusiastic support of BOTH spouses."

Well, YOU are one of the spouses - so if you're doing things you aren't enthusiastic about, then you're not using the MB system. You're using a martyr system -- and I'll let you in on a little secret -- no one like martyrs. If you go the opposite direction and refuse to engage your spouse's enthusiasm, then you're being selfish.

Too much codependence = you choose to be miserable so your spouse can be happy
Too little codependence = you choose to be happy at the expense of your spouse.

Either way is the lazy approach to having a marriage. It's much harder to keep in balance than it is to go to either extreme - so you have to work at it.


It's all age dependent. If they're 2 years old - yeah, you do their laundry. But, not when they're 20 (or even say... 13 or 14).


Once again, it translates into what you consider "helping." Does that mean you fill the forms out for him so they're right? Or, does that mean that you look over his forms and make suggestions for where they might be improved, why, and let him make his own decisions about what edits he wants to make. If your son is entering college, then it's a good time to give him guidance on how to do these things (help him). I've never been a fan of the whole "toss 'em into the deep end and see if they learn how to swim" philosophy. But, at the same time, if he doesn't learn how to fill out a form properly now -- while the stakes are fairly low ..and he doesn't have a wife and 2 children that don't eat that night if he screws it up -- then when is there going to e a better time?


Start asking yourself if what you're doing is a life skill he'll need later. If it is, and your help involves ensuring he HAS that life skill to take into the world (balancing a check book, doing his laundry, cooking a nutritious meal, filling out a form or application) then you're on the right track. If your help involves doing it for him so he doesn't have to hassle (but then consequently doesn't learn how) then, you might want to change your approach.

Mys

edited for spelling and formatting.

rl, there is a big difference between enabling someone and helping them. Filling out forms, for an 18 yr old is enabling because it is something he needs to learn to do himself. He never learns to do it himself, so it is not helpful. On the other hand, a 2 yr old cannot fill out forms or do his laundry, so it would be a loving act to do that for him.

However, all that is a very different dynamic from a marriage. I would do my H's laundry as an act of love. I do lots of things for him, that he can do himself, as a way of showing care to him. That would be enabling in a parent-grown child relationship, but loving in a marital relationship.

myschae hit on something very key to this discussion that I think is worth repeating, and it very much mirrors Harley's principle of the Giver and the Taker:


In a buyers marriage, neither spouse sacrifices their happiness for the other. That only leads to resentment and an emboldened TAKER. Nor do we pursue our own happiness at the expense of the other.

Of course it wears you down. It is not reasonable to expect anyone to be a perpetual “giver”. I might even suggest that it is mentally unhealthy. Do your kids a great kindness by giving them the “right tools” so that they will be prepared for the uncompromising world that awaits them.

You ask where to draw the line? I suggest that you draw it where they can be successful at the things you want them to do. That usually means “small things” where even “they” won’t give much argument. Start with the small things and work your way up. Remember, they learned how to tie their shoes and wipe their butt. Place them into a position where your praise is meaningful to them. You may not know this but children really want to please their parents. They stop trying only when the hill seems too steep to climb. It is almost always the parents that make the hill too steep. So what do you do? Give them the tools, allow them to be successful, teach them to climb. Pick your fights carefully.

Your father’s objectivist philosophy is only a philosophical view and at that it seems misapplied. It does not tell a person how to behave but is better suited to why a person behaves as they do. If Ayn Rand were alive I’m sure she would disagree with me. Your father’s selfish interest at the expense of his moral responsibility (his children) is not a virtue in any major philosophy that I know of.

Mr. G