Absolute Insanity: The Atheist Collins Family

[FluffySnowball]

50 minutes ago, Caroline said:

What a fool he is. I was at a bridal shower last weekend in a kind of fancy venue (It was a tearoom with lots of decoration everywhere, including hot teapots). There were several children there between the ages of 4 and 12. There was not an iPad or tablet in sight. The parents were attentive to their children, and when the kids got bored they were able to color in large coloring pages representing a bride and groom. This took planning on someone's part - to have the pages printed and to bring enough crayons for all the children. It was great and so nice to not see anyone at all on any version of an electronic device. 

The Collins parents are just plain irresponsible and lazy as well as cavalier. It should be fun to see how the deal (or don't ) with a bunch of teenagers some day. 

The bridal shower you attended sounds lovely. The location sounds like a dream to me, and the fact it was well planned and included children seems amazing... 

As for the Collins children, afaik their father was sent to a boarding school during his youth, so that might be in their future, too. Coming from Germany, where we don't have a boarding school tradition to speak of (there are a few but I don't know anyone who went there), boarding schools sound like sad places where children grow up far away from their families. However, in some circumstances, they might be better than a cold and dysfunction home. Also, my perspective on those types of schools might be inaccurate to begin with. I'm just not used to the idea that children don't simply come home every day after school. 

34 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

There are conflicting reports about Malcom's teenage years. Some report that he was sent to boarding school during his parents high-profile contentious divorce, other outlets report that he was sent into the "troubled-teen" industry and was possibly homeless for a period of time. Who knows. The gist is that it was rough.

This sounds absolutely horrendous. I feel sorry for the younger Malcolm. It seems to explain why he developed into the man he is today. However, it doesn't excuse his own abusive behaviour. 

Edited May 30 by FluffySnowball

[Hane]

And the mother wants to keep on having children despite multiple C-sections and a uterus that sounds as if it’s shot to hell already.

Amy Chua is reprehensible. I borrowed “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” from the library so I wouldn’t have to give her a cent. She was JD Vance’s mentor, and vetted law clerks for Brett Kavanaugh, advising the female ones on the “look” he preferred.

[noseybutt]

19 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

 

This sounds absolutely horrendous. I feel sorry for the younger Malcolm. It seems to explain why he developed into the man he is today. However, it doesn't excuse his own abusive behaviour. 

100%. 

His parents come from wealthy Dallas society. They had money and connections but not much in the way of love. It's not shocking that he has attachment issues. 

The unusual twist is the eugenics and desire to colonize outer space with his DNA and political aspirations that are decidedly not democratic.

The power hungry narcissism is on him. 

 

4 minutes ago, Hane said:

 

Amy Chua is reprehensible. I borrowed “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” from the library so I wouldn’t have to give her a cent. She was JD Vance’s mentor, and vetted law clerks for Brett Kavanaugh, advising the female ones on the “look” he preferred.

I am pretty sure she and her husband both have some PR firm on retainer to continuously scrub the internet and provide Google SEO. 

If you google either one of them, the results are very slick. Overly so.

 

[HereticHick]

4 hours ago, noseybutt said:

I suspect the family will have a religious conversion along the way. There's not going to be great options for socialization otherwise.

There will be a plunge into fundamentalism* and/or an ugly divorce.

*probably Christian fundamentalism, but there is the wild card of Jewish ultraorthodoxy.

I find it really difficult to read about this "natalist" movement while simultaneously reading articles about houses sliding into the sea and parts of India and the Middle East growing too hot to inhabit year-round.

[noseybutt]

5 minutes ago, HereticHick said:

There will be a plunge into fundamentalism* and/or an ugly divorce.

*probably Christian fundamentalism, but there is the wild card of Jewish ultraorthodoxy.

I find it really difficult to read about this "natalist" movement while simultaneously reading articles about houses sliding into the sea and parts of India and the Middle East growing too hot to inhabit year-round.

Interesting. He is very pro-Israel in his writings, mostly because he is enamored with their high birth rate.

I agree that the problem with the natalist movement is that there is no concern for sustainability. Elon Musk and other billionaires want high birthrates so that they have enough consumers to buy their products. But endless population and economic growth is at odds with the reality that most of the resources we currently rely on are finite.

[Pammy]

I'll jump in and say I approve of toddlers and screens (with headphones) in restaurants and other situations where a normal caring parent is catching a break and enjoying some grown up food and/or company. (I also think screens are a good tool when a parent is getting a haircut, having medical attention, consulting a lawyer, etc. so I get it if 'being interviewed by media' might fall under that category.)

In my time parenting young kids, when we were at restaurants, sometimes it was because it was a nice family occasion, and all the adults were engaging with the kids: and there were colouring pages, and drinks with straws and walks around (with an adult) while we waited. But sometimes we were at restaurants because I was completely wiped out, and couldn't stand the idea of going home to cook and be alone with the kids for the evening. Instead I chose a place that had food, and where I could chill -- because I needed that. And I sometimes accomplished it by aiming the kids at a screen. I don't think it did them any harm. Meals happen 3x per day, which is over a thousand meals per year. They don't *all* have to be warm, developmentally appropriate times of family togetherness.

[noseybutt]

1 minute ago, Pammy said:

I'll jump in and say I approve of toddlers and screens (with headphones) in restaurants and other situations where a normal caring parent is catching a break and enjoying some grown up food and/or company. (I also think screens are a good tool when a parent is getting a haircut, having medical attention, consulting a lawyer, etc. so I get it if 'being interviewed by media' might fall under that category.)

In my time parenting young kids, when we were at restaurants, sometimes it was because it was a nice family occasion, and all the adults were engaging with the kids: and there were colouring pages, and drinks with straws and walks around (with an adult) while we waited. But sometimes we were at restaurants because I was completely wiped out, and couldn't stand the idea of going home to cook and be alone with the kids for the evening. Instead I chose a place that had food, and where I could chill -- because I needed that. And I sometimes accomplished it by aiming the kids at a screen. I don't think it did them any harm. Meals happen 3x per day, which is over a thousand meals per year. They don't *all* have to be warm, developmentally appropriate times of family togetherness.

I actually agree with this.  A certain amount of screen time when parents want/need a break is absolutely okay. Mealtimes do not always have to be about family togetherness.

In this instance though the context is very different. The kids have the iPads slung around their necks and are wandering off with them unsupervised throughout the day. Dad is focused on the interview, not the children, for extended periods of time. Dad takes the young children to the restaurant to continue the interview. Then, when one of the kids tips the table, he "bops" the kid on the face. 

He later asserts that it's simply not possible to take kids to restaurants without iPads. 

Of course it's possible. Does it always have to be that way? No. 

[Pammy]

16 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

I actually agree with this.  A certain amount of screen time when parents want/need a break is absolutely okay. Mealtimes do not always have to be about family togetherness.

In this instance though the context is very different. The kids have the iPads slung around their necks and are wandering off with them unsupervised throughout the day. Dad is focused on the interview, not the children, for extended periods of time. Dad takes the young children to the restaurant to continue the interview. Then, when one of the kids tips the table, he "bops" the kid on the face. 

He later asserts that it's simply not possible to take kids to restaurants without iPads. 

Of course it's possible. Does it always have to be that way? No. 

Yes, this dad seems like a totally uninvolved inept parent, who probably rarely takes a caregiving role (in spite of him being 'in charge' of the kids after 18mos, I think that means he is 'in charge' of securing childcare for them, and maybe some morning or evening routines). He's not taking a break with the screens. He's taking a shortcut.

He should never have tried to do an interview about parenting *while parenting* -- because both of those things take a lot of attention... something he would know if he spent much time parenting. And, having chosen to try to do both things, he really shouldn't have been surprised that the interviewer was closely observing the parenting realities around them during the interview.

An ordinary parent (or one with a drop of intelligence) having been invited to engage with the media through an interview, would have secured childcare for most of the serious talk, and done a lovely demo of some very attentive hands-on parenting either before or after the 'serious' phase of the interview. That's what someone does when they know that it's 'impossible' to have a long, serious adult conversation in a restaurant with two toddlers, with or without i-pads.

And the violence is another kind of shortcut. Activating a child's core-level survival instincts through violence and fear of violence from their parents is *incredibly* effective. Kids who believe they are in bodily danger *do* find that their impulse to avoid pain will override almost all of their other impulses (including the impulse to learn, and the impulse to connect with others). That's not discipline, it's behavioural conditioning. And, yeah, I'm pretty sure it's how wild animals handle their young. That doesn't make it right.

But it's really clear that this is not an ordinary day for this family. They are using the i-pads not because they do that all day every day -- but because they outsource most of their own parenting. Dad, in particular, has no idea how to raise children because it's not something he does. They probably thought the i-pads would help because a short term distraction solves a lot of problems for parents who aren't that engaged. I only hope that they insist that whoever *actually* takes care of these kids has some sort of training or expertise. And warmth. I hope those kids love their nanny-family to bits.

[SoSoNosy]

That article made me physically ill; I had to just skim most of it.  Those poor, poor babies!  My kids grew up "eating out"; we spent a lot of time with my grandparents who loved to eat out.  But they had multiple loving adults giving them total attention and interaction  I honestly don't remember needing to vacate the premises because of an unhappy child, but they are grown so my memory may be faulty.

 

[noseybutt]

23 minutes ago, Pammy said:

Yes, this dad seems like a totally uninvolved inept parent, who probably rarely takes a caregiving role (in spite of him being 'in charge' of the kids after 18mos, I think that means he is 'in charge' of securing childcare for them, and maybe some morning or evening routines). He's not taking a break with the screens. He's taking a shortcut.

He should never have tried to do an interview about parenting *while parenting* -- because both of those things take a lot of attention... something he would know if he spent much time parenting. And, having chosen to try to do both things, he really shouldn't have been surprised that the interviewer was closely observing the parenting realities around them during the interview.

An ordinary parent (or one with a drop of intelligence) having been invited to engage with the media through an interview, would have secured childcare for most of the serious talk, and done a lovely demo of some very attentive hands-on parenting either before or after the 'serious' phase of the interview. That's what someone does when they know that it's 'impossible' to have a long, serious adult conversation in a restaurant with two toddlers, with or without i-pads.

And the violence is another kind of shortcut. Activating a child's core-level survival instincts through violence and fear of violence from their parents is *incredibly* effective. Kids who believe they are in bodily danger *do* find that their impulse to avoid pain will override almost all of their other impulses (including the impulse to learn, and the impulse to connect with others). That's not discipline, it's behavioural conditioning. And, yeah, I'm pretty sure it's how wild animals handle their young. That doesn't make it right.

But it's really clear that this is not an ordinary day for this family. They are using the i-pads not because they do that all day every day -- but because they outsource most of their own parenting. Dad, in particular, has no idea how to raise children because it's not something he does. They probably thought the i-pads would help because a short term distraction solves a lot of problems for parents who aren't that engaged. I only hope that they insist that whoever *actually* takes care of these kids has some sort of training or expertise. And warmth. I hope those kids love their nanny-family to bits.

He has the resources, and then some, to do all of the bolded. Which begs the question of why he didn't....

[Caroline]

7 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

The bridal shower you attended sounds lovely. The location sounds like a dream to me, and the fact it was well planned and included children seems amazing... 

My sister doesn't have children and likes things just so. She can do that because she's never had to deal with kids making a mess like they do in everyday life. She made a comment to me that she didn't think children should be allowed at things like bridal showers. I agree that some parties should just be for adults, but this was a family event, and some of the children will be part of the bridal party in a few months. I asked my sister how children are supposed to learn to behave at adult gatherings if they don't practice. She did agree that the parents and other adults were very involved with the kids and that the kids were all very well-behaved. All the children were girls and were wearing adorable summer appropriate dresses. I couldn't help but compare them with the Rod girls who never seem to have the right outfits for the occasion. 

[FilleMondaine]

12 hours ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

I think it's based on this book: Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. (link)  

 

If I recall the article, the mom watched a video of a tiger—like a fuzzy cat tiger. 
 

And the aforementioned Tiger Parents are also nuts.

[SisterCupcake]

9 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

Coming from Germany, where we don't have a boarding school tradition to speak of (there are a few but I don't know anyone who went there), boarding schools sound like sad places where children grow up far away from their families. However, in some circumstances, they might be better than a cold and dysfunction home.

In America, both can be true. I work at a boarding school in New England, USA, and it's a great place! Most of the girls (it's all-girls) here have a great relationship with their parents, checking in multiple times a day. Some come from dysfunctional homes where boarding school in better than home, but for the most part the school is just a fancy private school that allows students who can afford it (and some on scholarship who can't) to get a leg up on life and help foster independence.

[JermajestyDuggar]

14 minutes ago, SisterCupcake said:

In America, both can be true. I work at a boarding school in New England, USA, and it's a great place! Most of the girls (it's all-girls) here have a great relationship with their parents, checking in multiple times a day. Some come from dysfunctional homes where boarding school in better than home, but for the most part the school is just a fancy private school that allows students who can afford it (and some on scholarship who can't) to get a leg up on life and help foster independence.

Nowadays with cell phones I’m sure it’s much easier to talk to your parents all the time. Communication between kids and parents was probably very different in boarding schools when I was in high school. Beepers were a thing but I swear everyone said only drug dealers had beepers in my high school! That wasn’t true though.

[SisterCupcake]

12 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Nowadays with cell phones I’m sure it’s much easier to talk to your parents all the time. Communication between kids and parents was probably very different in boarding schools when I was in high school. Beepers were a thing but I swear everyone said only drug dealers had beepers in my high school! That wasn’t true though.

Yeah, we still have the old phone hookups in the dorms here, just with no phones attached. It's crazy, but a smartphone is now a required piece on the packing list since they use it to change their locations on an app so we know where they are when they're not in school.

[Ozlsn]

On 5/30/2024 at 11:35 PM, noseybutt said:

Their agreement though is that she hands the children to Malcom at 18 months and he takes over.

... except in the article 2 year old Torsten poops and she's the one who deals with it:

Then she breaks off, staring in horror at something she’s seen on the stairs. “Oh no! Toastie did that thing where he poops and then he takes his diaper off! Now he has poop on his hands.” She runs off to attend to Torsten.

I am dubious about a lot of their claims to be honest, but him doing the parenting from 18 months on is the one I believe least. Hands off to nannies/other caretakers, sure. If he did it himself I suspect he'd be... less enthusiastic about more children.

[Giraffe]

Him taking the kids at 18 months is bizarre to me.  With the rest of the stuff* it sounds like he's figured out kids are resilient enough by 18 months to survive his neglect and abuse. Regardless the reason these two sound like awful parents who shouldn't have custody of their children. 
*their bizarre parenting beliefs

Edited June 2 by Giraffe

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, Giraffe said:

Him taking the kids at 18 months is bizarre to me.  With the rest of the stuff* it sounds like he's figured out kids are resilient enough by 18 months to survive his neglect and abuse. Regardless the reason these two sound like awful parents who shouldn't have custody of their children. 
*their bizarre parenting beliefs

I think they meant to say, 18 months is when the nanny will take them. Malcom oversees the nanny. Maybe.

[Pammy]

1 hour ago, Giraffe said:

Him taking the kids at 18 months is bizarre to me.  With the rest of the stuff* it sounds like he's figured out kids are resilient enough by 18 months to survive his neglect and abuse. Regardless the reason these two sound like awful parents who shouldn't have custody of their children. 
*their bizarre parenting beliefs

I think it just means that she is 'available' to become pregnant every 18 months, having (supposedly) handed off her primary responsibility for the toddler. It's probably the end of breastfeeding (and babywearing? If they do that?) freeing Mom up to begin the next iteration of plan.

It probably means he does *absolutely nothing* for children under 18 months, and after 18 months he at least does what she asks him to do and accepts that he may have some type of responsibility (even though she probably provides a ton of care, just out of habit and competency). However, she probably never bothers to learn child development theories beyond 'her' phase, so she neither notices nor cares that Dad is absolutely not measuring up in terms of providing what kids need after they get old enough that she doesn't feel responsible any more.

It will probably all hit the fan very soon, unless their hired care is highly competent. A Mom with high goals and high standards for herself, her body, and her offspring -- with also a style of intelligence that consists mainly of cold logic --- isn't going to not notice that her husband doesn't seem to be remotely competent at the tasks she has passed to him. He seems to have successfully gas-lit her with pseudoscience and armchair philosophy for now. But I just think she will probably notice when the outcomes don't match the predictions.

[Ozlsn]

6 hours ago, Pammy said:

I just think she will probably notice when the outcomes don't match the predictions.

Or when the kids are verbal enough and pissed off enough to let them know what they think. Which is probably closer than they think. 

6 hours ago, Pammy said:

I think it just means that she is 'available' to become pregnant every 18 months

Also she'll probably notice if she can't have more children and he either trades her in for the next model or suggests an "open" relationship. 

[Pammy]

34 minutes ago, Ozlsn said:

Also she'll probably notice if she can't have more children and he either trades her in for the next model or suggests an "open" relationship. 

Oh, yuck. I think you are probably right. It's almost Roman: in the sense that a woman functions as 'soil' for a man's 'seed'.

My thoughts are again turning to the possibility that it's possible she was vulnerable to this partnership due to her Autism. Not that I don't think she's capable of decision making, or being responsible for the decisions she makes -- she doesn't seem disabled. I just wonder if he targeted her because she could be talked into things she didn't actually want on the basis of the logic lining up. If that works for him, I wonder what else he might talk her into, or who else he might target for the same treatment.

She's definitely doing almost 100% of the heavy lifting in support of his dream.

Edited June 2 by Pammy

[JermajestyDuggar]

52 minutes ago, Ozlsn said:

Or when the kids are verbal enough and pissed off enough to let them know what they think. Which is probably closer than they think. 

Also she'll probably notice if she can't have more children and he either trades her in for the next model or suggests an "open" relationship. 

I could definitely see this guy spreading his seed around with other women just like Elon Musk.

[anjulibai]

57 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I could definitely see this guy spreading his seed around with other women just like Elon Musk.

And he will totally convince her it's only logical for him to children with more women. 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

8 hours ago, Pammy said:

I think it just means that she is 'available' to become pregnant every 18 months, having (supposedly) handed off her primary responsibility for the toddler. It's probably the end of breastfeeding (and babywearing? If they do that?) freeing Mom up to begin the next iteration of plan.

It probably means he does *absolutely nothing* for children under 18 months, and after 18 months he at least does what she asks him to do and accepts that he may have some type of responsibility (even though she probably provides a ton of care, just out of habit and competency). However, she probably never bothers to learn child development theories beyond 'her' phase, so she neither notices nor cares that Dad is absolutely not measuring up in terms of providing what kids need after they get old enough that she doesn't feel responsible any more.

It will probably all hit the fan very soon, unless their hired care is highly competent. A Mom with high goals and high standards for herself, her body, and her offspring -- with also a style of intelligence that consists mainly of cold logic --- isn't going to not notice that her husband doesn't seem to be remotely competent at the tasks she has passed to him. He seems to have successfully gas-lit her with pseudoscience and armchair philosophy for now. But I just think she will probably notice when the outcomes don't match the predictions.

Yeah, that's how I saw it. It reminds of Michelle Duggar and her buddy system. The new baby was mom's buddy/jurisdiction for 6 months then passed off to one of the older girls. These people probably go with 18 months as Mom needs more time between c-sections.

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, Pammy said:

Oh, yuck. I think you are probably right. It's almost Roman: in the sense that a woman functions as 'soil' for a man's 'seed'.

My thoughts are again turning to the possibility that it's possible she was vulnerable to this partnership due to her Autism. Not that I don't think she's capable of decision making, or being responsible for the decisions she makes -- she doesn't seem disabled. I just wonder if he targeted her because she could be talked into things she didn't actually want on the basis of the logic lining up. If that works for him, I wonder what else he might talk her into, or who else he might target for the same treatment.

She's definitely doing almost 100% of the heavy lifting in support of his dream.

Once upon a time she was tight with Peter Thiel due to a high level job at PayPal. She is smart and accomplished. She describes herself as autistic but sees it as an identity, not a diagnosis, so it’s not clear if she was formally diagnosed. She does admit to a history of an eating disorder, and the way she talks about it indicates formal treatment (unlike the way she talks about autism).

I don’t think she is especially vulnerable. Well, no more than any woman who voluntarily associates with deeply patriarchal white supremacy world.