Living with Children: Why some believe they’re entitled | TribLIVE.com
More Lifestyles

Living with Children: Why some believe they’re entitled

To the many readers who recently asked: Yes, I do take requests, and yes, I will riff on the Perpetually Beautiful People Who Laid Out Mega-Bribes to Guarantee That Their Beautiful and Everlastingly Entitled Bratz Get into the College of Their Choice Scandal.

Why would anyone who’s been paying attention be surprised? When polls find that a majority of high school students believe that cheating on tests is acceptable if it means they might get into a better college, why would anyone be aghast at their parents paying big bucks to fudge transcripts and test results to guarantee their admission to said schools? And let’s face it, if more people made mega-bucks, this scandal would not be limited to people stalked by paparazzi.

There are three factors at work here (and I’ve already identified one of them): Entitlement, Self-Esteem and Co-dependency.

In order…

First, the parents and children in question come from two generations disproportionately populated by people who believe they are entitled … entitled to be entitled, even. The individuals in question believe three things that until recently were reserved to European royalty, toddlers, criminals and career politicians:

1. What I want I deserve to have. 2. Because I deserve it, the ends justify the means. 3. The rules do not apply to me because I am special.

This mentality, which defines a sociopath, began to spread in the 1970s as America’s collective parenting goal shifted from instilling self-responsibility and the work ethic — as in, preserving culture — to fostering success and happiness. That shift accounts for the dramatic increase over the same time period of children and teens in therapy and on psychiatric medications.

Second, the ongoing encroach of entitlement has been accompanied by the post-modern notion that high esteem for the self is a good thing and that parents should do whatever possible to guarantee that this psychological virus finds permanent lodging in their kids.

The mental health community tied self-esteem to achievement, so parents got busy helping their children achieve. When is the last time you heard someone brag about their child’s manners? Or his character? His morals? You probably cannot remember unless you are Amish. Come to think of it, Amish parents don’t brag about their kids, period.

Which brings us to the third factor: Parent-child co-dependency has also become ubiquitous in recent years, a symptom of which is parents who, when their kids do bad things at school, deny they are culprits or could even be culprits and say really dumb things like “My child has never lied to me!” and “My child would never do such a thing!”

Today’s parents feel their children’s pain (as opposed to understanding why their kids are in pain and after offering helpful suggestions, wish them well with it). That is the operational definition of co-dependency. At that point, you become their personal enabler and enabling is the primary feature of a co-dependent relationship.

Parents who are in co-dependent relationships with their kids are beyond being helicopters; they are now called lawn-mower and snow-plow parents. I call them “Cuisinart Parents,” because their lives and their children’s lives are blended together. Their children’s successes, failures, disappointments, frustrations, rejections, upswings, downswings — every swing in every way, in fact — are theirs as well. No wonder, some say, mothers take more anti-depressants than any other demographic.

My final word on the subject: We ain’t seen nothin’ yet. How about paying for your kid to get a prime job and then paying his or her salary? I’m not kidding.

Visit family psychologist John Rosemond’s website; readers may send him email; because of 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.