Jump to content
IGNORED

Conservative columnist John Rosemond


Petronella

Recommended Posts

This column has been making the rounds on Facebook. It solves the straw-man problem of this generation (*rolling my eyes*) putting children first by suggesting a method of instead ranking parents first. I thought of Free Jinger when I read it, because it reminds me of how Lori and Ken see marriage as requiring a dominator and a dominated; simply respecting one another isn't an option for them. This article has the same competition for dominance as its flawed foundation: if the problem is that parents are putting the kids first so much that the marriage is suffering (which according to him is true for the entire current generation of parents, not just for individuals actually in that situation), the solution is to reverse it and make the parents most important! Take that, kids! The idea of balance as a possibility isn't addressed at all.

I see this shared mostly in evangelical circles, mostly by women; and there seems to be a great feeling of relief. The supportive comments make me think four things:

1. The idea that *someone* has to be most important seems difficult to shift. The people excited about this column are just thrilled that maybe *they* get to be the more important person instead. Balance and meeting varied individual needs is not on the table.

2. But remember, it's *not* the excited moms who get to be "the most important" in this scenario; it's their *marriages*. I think this is key to the excitement this article is generating. It's a backdoor way for women uncomfortable with asserting themselves as a priority to assert their *couplehood* as a priority and by so doing *also* prioritize themselves, but without actually doing so directly.

3. The manifestation of "my marriage is more important than my kids" is mentioned in comments to the article as things like: going out to dinner with one's husband once a week while the kids are babysat. I am genuinely baffled how this makes the marriage "more important" than the kids, any more than, say, walking a kid to school every morning would make the kids "more important." My husband doesn't go to school and wouldn't need to be walked there if he did; my kids don't want a romantic date with me nor I with them. Surely this is simply treating the marriage relationship as a marriage relationship and treating the parent-child relationship as a parent-child relationship. It doesn't need to be framed competitively, and I'm sad that it is.

4. I acknowledge that perhaps if one's family schedule allows for only a small window of family-at-home time each day, then maybe it could become competitive in terms of who gets Mom's attention. Seems then that the bogeyman would be overscheduling, not the wrong person being king of the castle.

I think that the people excited about this article are actually seeking balance, not dominance, and actually manifesting balance, not dominance, but the insistence on maintaining the paradigm of dominance stands out to me. Also the way that "marriage" seems to be code for "mom as an adult" stands out to me. That seems to be the conservatively-sanctioned way for a woman to justify non-mom time.

This guy's Wikipedia page shows he has been controversial before. He is weirdly anti-therapy.

PS--My first thread! <3

 

IMG_8369.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Petronella said:

This column has been making the rounds on Facebook. It solves the straw-man problem of this generation (*rolling my eyes*) putting children first by suggesting a method of instead ranking parents first. I thought of Free Jinger when I read it, because it reminds me of how Lori and Ken see marriage as requiring a dominator and a dominated; simply respecting one another isn't an option for them. This article has the same competition for dominance as its flawed foundation: if the problem is that parents are putting the kids first so much that the marriage is suffering (which according to him is true for the entire current generation of parents, not just for individuals actually in that situation), the solution is to reverse it and make the parents most important! Take that, kids! The idea of balance as a possibility isn't addressed at all.

I see this shared mostly in evangelical circles, mostly by women; and there seems to be a great feeling of relief. The supportive comments make me think four things:

1. The idea that *someone* has to be most important seems difficult to shift. The people excited about this column are just thrilled that maybe *they* get to be the more important person instead. Balance and meeting varied individual needs is not on the table.

2. But remember, it's *not* the excited moms who get to be "the most important" in this scenario; it's their *marriages*. I think this is key to the excitement this article is generating. It's a backdoor way for women uncomfortable with asserting themselves as a priority to assert their *couplehood* as a priority and by so doing *also* prioritize themselves, but without actually doing so directly.

3. The manifestation of "my marriage is more important than my kids" is mentioned in comments to the article as things like: going out to dinner with one's husband once a week while the kids are babysat. I am genuinely baffled how this makes the marriage "more important" than the kids, any more than, say, walking a kid to school every morning would make the kids "more important." My husband doesn't go to school and wouldn't need to be walked there if he did; my kids don't want a romantic date with me nor I with them. Surely this is simply treating the marriage relationship as a marriage relationship and treating the parent-child relationship as a parent-child relationship. It doesn't need to be framed competitively, and I'm sad that it is.

4. I acknowledge that perhaps if one's family schedule allows for only a small window of family-at-home time each day, then maybe it could become competitive in terms of who gets Mom's attention. Seems then that the bogeyman would be overscheduling, not the wrong person being king of the castle.

I think that the people excited about this article are actually seeking balance, not dominance, and actually manifesting balance, not dominance, but the insistence on maintaining the paradigm of dominance stands out to me. Also the way that "marriage" seems to be code for "mom as an adult" stands out to me. That seems to be the conservatively-sanctioned way for a woman to justify non-mom time.

This guy's Wikipedia page shows he has been controversial before. He is weirdly anti-therapy.

PS--My first thread! <3

 

IMG_8369.JPG

I certainly hope people would not follow this guy's advice.  There's a time to make the adults most important and a time to make the kids most important.  And that varies depending on the people involved or the situations.  For the last 10 months, my kindergartner has been the most important as we take him to various appointments to work through a recent diagnosis and get him the help he needs as well as work with him at home.  I would be a horrible parent if I didn't put the needs of my child ahead of my own needs when he was clearly struggling.  People should do what works for their family and take it one day at a time.  If you feel the need to get away with your spouse and work on your marriage, then do it.  But putting your marriage before the kids in every way, everyday will leave you with upset and unhealthy children.  Sometimes, they need to be the most important people in the house too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many people I know who absolutely worship this guy. He doesn't seem to like children. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

There are so many people I know who absolutely worship this guy. He doesn't seem to like children. 

 

Bingo. Every time I read something by him, I wonder why he and his wife even bothered to have kids. He always make them sound like burdensome little bothers. He's also a big proponent of corporal punishment, BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also seen this posted on fb but not by fundies. Many were just old farts who can't get enough of "kids these days" type of posts. 

I've found that the boomer aged individuals who have grown children love to rag on kids these days and how parents coddle them. It's tiresome. Every generation does it. I just imagine them shaking their canes when posting these sorts of things screaming, "get off my lawn!"

I hope I don't fall into the same mentality when I'm older. Millennial bashing is so popular it's become cliche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this myself a couple days ago.  If this is the same guy I'm thinking of, he also believes in spanking and that every child should be completely potty-trained by age two.(I can't remember his exact words, but it was along the lines of "Still being in diapers at this age is an insult to their intelligence.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only seen this shared in my Facebook feed twice, both time by non-fundies. Not even Christians, come to think of it, just ladies my age. I barely looked at it. There's something to be said for keeping your marriage a priority and not letting relationships with the children supersede the relationship with each other. But I dislike some of the weird ideas we've seen before: dad ignoring children when he gets home (though I do usually get the first kiss....if I can beat the dog there), not allowing children to ever come in your bedroom, children staying quiet at the dinner table, etc.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marian the Librarian said:

I wonder why he and his wife even bothered to have kids. He always make them sound like burdensome little bothers. 

Yeah, his view of children seems to be that they are burdens parents are forced to endure so make sure they know they just aren't that important. If you bring kids into this world be willing to make sacrifices and treat them like actual humans, not burdens that need to be trained to bother you less. I think a lot of his advice is for selfish parents and the fundie type who feel obligated to have kid after kid but don't really want to parent. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

I went on to point out that many if not most of the problems they’re having with their kids — typical stuff, these days — are the result of treating their children as if they, their marriage, and their family exist because of the kids when it is, in fact, the other way around. Their kids exist because of them and their marriage and thrive because they have created a stable family.

 

He throws in this "typical stuff, these days" as a way to sound folksy and down to earth. But to this millennial, he's just sounding out of touch and unwilling to progress and adapt. 

Some marriages do exist because they got married with the intention to have children. It's part of being a family. You get married to start a family. Or you get married because you love that person and you want to start a family. Or you get married for a green card or you don't get married and have kids because you like kids and want a family. You can get married and not have kids. 

Quote

 

This issue is really the heart of the matter. People my age know it’s the heart of the matter because when we were kids it was clear to us that our parents were the most important people in our families. And that, right there, is why we respected our parents and that, right there, is why we looked up to adults in general. Yes, Virginia, once upon a time in the United States of America, children were second-class citizens, to their advantage.

 

Best put those kids in their place! Make sure they get some bootstraps and work themselves out of second-class citizenry purely by age! 

 

Quote

The most important person in an army is the general. The most important person in a corporation is the CEO. The most important person in a classroom is the teacher. And the most important person in a family are the parents.

 

This is false. The general is not the most important person. He (or she) can not win a war without an army. The CEO is not the most important person. The CEO doesn't make the product, she/he is not directly hiring or firing people (in large companies, usually). The CEO is responsible to a board, or shareholders, and to his/her employees. The teacher would not be teaching if there weren't children to teach. The teacher is responsible for the kids and their education, but they aren't there alone. There's a principal and above that there is a superintendent and a pile of administrators who bring home a paycheck for something. There is a school board and parents. Someone writes the textbooks. 

 

Quote

The most important thing about children is the need to prepare them properly for responsible citizenship. The primary objective should not be raising a straight-A student who excels at three sports, earns a spot on the Olympic swim team, goes to an A-list university and becomes a prominent brain surgeon. The primary objective is to raise a child such that community and culture are strengthened.

 

Actually, I think the primary objective in raising kids might vary from person to person. I'd like my hypothetical children to be happy, well-adjusted citizens who share some of my values yet are smart and challenge me to think about their future. I'd also like them to use their talents. If my kid was a superstar swimmer, you bet I'd be paying for coaching and spending all day at swim meets handing out bananas and bottles of cold water. If my kid was a robotics genius I'd suck it up and learn something about robotics and figure out how to get her to competitions out-of-state. Community and culture are strengthened when people use their talents and are happy. Happy people are nicer to each other and differences make a community and culture stronger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Marian the Librarian said:

He's also a big proponent of corporal punishment, BTW.

Why am I not surprised?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My marriage was never as important as my kids. When I divorced him after 20 years of emotional abuse, my kids were thrilled. They have great relationships with me and with each other, but have completely cut their dad off. Which, as a controlling narcissist, drives him absolutely insane.

No marriage is worth kids being treated badly by one of the parents. I did the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

Actually, I think the primary objective in raising kids might vary from person to person. I'd like my hypothetical children to be happy, well-adjusted citizens who share some of my values yet are smart and challenge me to think about their future. I'd also like them to use their talents. If my kid was a superstar swimmer, you bet I'd be paying for coaching and spending all day at swim meets handing out bananas and bottles of cold water. If my kid was a robotics genius I'd suck it up and learn something about robotics and figure out how to get her to competitions out-of-state. Community and culture are strengthened when people use their talents and are happy. Happy people are nicer to each other and differences make a community and culture stronger. 

I like the way you expressed this, Maggie!

Here are some disturbing quotes from his Wikipedia page:

Quote

Actions Taken Against Rosemond by State Psychology Boards

The North Carolina Psychology Board has taken action against John Rosemond on two occasions.[2] Rosemond was given a formal reprimand [3] from the North Carolina Psychology board in 1988 when he ran an advice column telling a parent that a child should stop receiving psychological therapy. The board took further action in 1992, after Rosemond stated in a column that a child sexual abuse victim did not need any therapy. According to official documentation,[4] Rosemond's advice against seeking therapy for a sexual abuse victim may have violated ethical standards. Due to that column, the board requested that Rosemond receive supervision and he complied voluntarily.[5]

In 2013, the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology was sued by Rosemond after the board threatened to take legal action if Rosemond did not stop giving psychological advice in states where he was not licensed.[6]

Criticism

Rosemond promotes what he calls an old-fashioned parenting philosophy and a traditional disciplinary approach as well as conservative politics. Rosemond, a psychologist, generally begins his presentations by telling his audiences that "psychology is a secular religion that one believes in by faith" and that psychology has done more harm than good to the American family. His claims regarding old-fashioned parenting and childhood have been criticized for relying on the good old days cliché and for implying, contrary to known evidence, that societal problems such as suicide did not exist in the past.[7]In other criticism, Rosemond has been described as closed-minded and simplistic and accused of dismissing new research simply because he disagrees with it while clinging to his belief that almost all childhood problems could be solved with his own parenting rules.[8] Rosemond has received criticism for his recommendations on toilet training[9] and spanking[10]because they contradict other parenting experts' recommendations as well as the official evidence-based policy of the American Psychological Association.[11] Rosemond's statements on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder also have been criticized for being inaccurate.[12]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He gives really, really shitty advice and I'm not sure why any newspaper keeps running his columns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasnt familiar with this guy but I googled him and he does sound odd. Personally, I just don't get the "spouse first" vs. "children first" competition referenced.  It's not a zero sum game; I can love them all. Some days my husband really needs me more and others one of the kids might, I've seen pieces in this vein before and they're just not my thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this, too! I was taken aback a few years ago on a kids/birth board...apparently like half of the women said their man comes before their children.!?! I was so confused. First off, why do we need to rank relationships by importance, anyway? Second, yeah my husband isn't dependent upon me to meet all his basic needs. He can take care of himself. My kids, who I chose to bring into this world with the agreement of my husband, need me to help them develop into healthy, happy people by make them safe and secure. Third, I think this is a bit of a slippery slope, but if I found out my spouse were harming my children, you better believe I'd be on the side of my kids. This kind of mentality is how communities end up hiding sexual abuse by parents (insert any case of this discussed on FJ here).

Thats not to say kids should "come first." I don't go around all day like their servant. But they shouldn't have to follow me around with no personal agency, either. 

End rant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spouse First! is pretty much de rigeur within Evangelical circles around here. It's right up there with Women Respect Your Husbands (and men, uh, try to love them, unless you feel disrespected).

In practice, it's pretty rare, no matter what claims are made. Moms have their lives (usually revolving around kids and girlfriends) and men have work. And porn addictions, alcohol abuse issues, the occasional affair, dude-bro "accountability" groups.

That's my experience of the Evang culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a tool!  :music-tool:It shouldn't be competition between a spouse and a child, every situation is different sometimes the children are first and sometimes the spouse comes first. :pb_rollseyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was on 60 Minutes where they did a profile of him.  He was talking about some abusive "discipline" techniques and then they asked his grown kids about them.  His adult children thought the techniques were terrible and should never be inflicted on kids.  I wish I could remember the techniques in question (spanking, I suppose) but it's probably been about 15 or 20 years since I saw that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosemond is an absolute turd.

Like the Pearls, Rosemond's leghumpers believe he has all the answers. Of course, if things don't turn out well for your family, it's because you did it wrong.

Not coincidentally, IIRC, Rosemond belongs to one of the Episcopal churches that fissioned off due the same-sex marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"Why?" I then asked. "What is it about your kids that (makes them most important)?" And like all good moms and dads of this brave new millennium, they couldn't answer the question other than to fumble with appeals to emotion.

Yes, God forbid there be any of that silly "human emotion" stuff in family life...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to read his column when my daughter was a child, some thirty years ago. At that time, his advice was often a bit conservative for my taste, but not overly rigid--until I read one column that struck close to home.

In it, he excoriated mothers and daughters who wore matching outfits (because "loosing of parental authority," or some such goddamn thing). The mom who wore the same preppy sneakers, shorts, and pastel golf shirt as her little girl was lumped in with the pair rigged up like Madonna.

And all I could think of was my eight-year-old getting excited to see matching mother-daughter Christmas outfits in the J.C.Penney catalog (floor-length pine green skirts and cream-colored blouses with lace collars). You can bet we had those outfits that Christmas. I felt sad for Rosemond that he was incapable of comprehending something so sweet and innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is still getting praised and passed around in my Facebook newsfeed, and the justification for it I read this morning is that millennials are spoiled and this is the solution. I am just dumbfounded.

This argument was made in response to me suggesting that finding balance in all the household relationships was more desirable than dominating, and that making one's marriage a priority (which is a good and important thing!) doesn't require denigrating and trivializing the parent-child relationship, or the importance of parent-to-child responsibilities. What's maddening about their answer about supposedly entitled millennials is that it's not even an answer to my objection or concerns. It's not even engaging with what I said. It's just, well, stupid. It's a stupid non-answer.

Their determined investment in having some sort of hierarchy is just bizarre. It must be very uncomfortable to have such a competitive worldview, either winning or submitting all the time.

Then someone who knows me chimed in with a "hear, hear" for the millennials-are-jerks comment. This person knows me, knows my thriving marriage, my happy, productive, delightful kids, and still sees fit to side with facile bullshit. Because she likes having a date night. As if I'm against date nights. As if having a date night requires putting your children under your feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually kind of surprised that he didn't throw in "everyone gets a trophy," which the other go-to criticism of millennials(FTR, I do believe it has its place, especially teams made up of very young or special-needs kids).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2017 at 9:55 AM, JermajestyDuggar said:

I've also seen this posted on fb but not by fundies. Many were just old farts who can't get enough of "kids these days" type of posts. 

I've found that the boomer aged individuals who have grown children love to rag on kids these days and how parents coddle them. It's tiresome. Every generation does it. I just imagine them shaking their canes when posting these sorts of things screaming, "get off my lawn!"

I hope I don't fall into the same mentality when I'm older. Millennial bashing is so popular it's become cliche.

This is particularly irksome coming from boomers, who are one of the most coddled of generations. Many had it rough, especially minorities and men who were subject to the draft, but lots of well-off guys found ways around serving in the military. They grew up in a period of prosperity, when higher education was accessible and relatively inexpensive. Lots of their parents followed Dr. Spock's advice to treat their babies as individuals. There was a lot of pressure for mothers who could afford to do so to stay home and focus on their kids.

I say all of the above as a boomer who is profoundly disgusted with many of my age group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.