ShareThis Page

Living with Children: Overcoming bad parenting

| Friday, Nov. 3, 2017, 8:57 p.m.

By I was standing in the lobby of an auditorium in which I'd just spoken, talking with a small group of attendees, when a 30-something woman took me aside and told me that her parents were bad role models. One was verbally abusive; the other, distant and emotionally unavailable.

She tells me that because of her parents' negative examples, she yells a lot and is often insensitive to her children's emotional needs and asks, “How can I overcome that handicap?”

I've been asked variations on that same question more than I can count. The list of parental defects in question is short and predictable: alcoholism, addiction, abuse, a string of failed marriages, lack of affection, mental/emotional disorder, sociopathy, and abandonment (or a combination thereof).

Having a fair amount of personal experience with family dysfunction (my mother's second marriage, 10 on a dysfunction scale of 1 to 10), I have lots of empathy for people who grew up under such circumstances, but I also absolutely know (been there, done that) that childhood experiences of that sort are not reasons; rather, they are excuses. In other words, such circumstances, in and of themselves, do not explain why any otherwise responsible, reasonably intelligent individual is struggling with parenting issues. The person is struggling because they (a) have convinced themselves that their childhood is a handicap and (b) believe in the Freudian myth of parenting determinism.

First, (a): If a person knows that his/her parents were a mess, then the person also knows how not to be a similar mess. The negative, in other words, can easily be transformed into a positive. “My parents were bad role models” is a form of self-enabling. The problem is not the parents; the problem is the person's persistent use of their childhood to avoid personal responsibility. Said another way, the person describes their childhood as a handicap; therefore, it is a handicap. The positive, functional statement is “I know how to be a good parent precisely because my parents were such miserably bad parents.” The difference between being handicapped or not being handicapped is a choice, a difference of point of view only.

Then, (b): Sigmund Freud, the so-called “Father of Modern Psychology,” proposed that parenting produces the person. That amounts to a denial of free will. It also gives people permission to create soap operas out of their childhoods. Freud was, of course, just plain wrong. But the myth persists, which is why so many therapists make so much ado of their client's childhoods.

Putting (a) and (b) together: People believe their less-than-desirable childhoods explain why they are not the parents they want to be because they believe in parenting determinism, but the problem is their belief, not some inescapable cause-effect relationship.

So, to the mother's question, “How can I overcome that handicap?” I answer, “You change your way of thinking. Begin by celebrating the wonderfully paradoxical examples your parents set for you, and move on from there.

“It's a much better use of mental energy, believe me.”

Visit family psychologist John Rosemond's website at www.johnrosemond.com; readers may send him email at questions@rosemond.com; due to the volume of mail, not every question will be answered.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.