|
Post by Miculo on Mar 26, 2014 12:11:32 GMT
There seems to be an assumption of family closeness. It's true that some families are very close but I don't think it is a general rule and I think feeling that they are or wanting to portray them as being so might be more American than European. I base that on impressions I gained from meeting the American side of my wife's family who enthused so much about their family in The Old Country that it embarrassed her side of the family. On the face of it family seemed more important to them than we allow it to seem. It's quite possible that the only difference is how it's manifested though.
|
|
|
Post by alhod on Mar 26, 2014 16:38:44 GMT
especially my brother in law, the biggest barsteward who ever walked the earth! Do I detect a faint frisson of family disharmony? Glad I'm not the only one to dislike a family member! Perhaps one day if we sit down together with a couple of bottles of an appropriate nectar I will bore you rigid with the crap we had to put up with, accumulated over more than 30 years, until we got fed up with it, regained our own self-respect by refusing to lie down any longer and then really got the true colours flown in all their glory. The man is an unbelievably hyprocritical, self-opinionated, arrogant sociopath of the highest order. But perhaps I'm biassed Alan
|
|
|
Post by alhod on Mar 26, 2014 16:46:15 GMT
There seems to be an assumption of family closeness. It's true that some families are very close but I don't think it is a general rule and I think feeling that they are or wanting to portray them as being so might be more American than European. I base that on impressions I gained from meeting the American side of my wife's family who enthused so much about their family in The Old Country that it embarrassed her side of the family. On the face of it family seemed more important to them than we allow it to seem. It's quite possible that the only difference is how it's manifested though. My own experience, not only of our own family but several friends also, would tend to confirm that. I think we would all like to think that we have a harmonious, supportive and loving family network which is dedicated to preserving the sanctity of the family unit and uniting in the face of adversity and challenges from outside. The reality is different!!! Perhaps I should write a book - trouble is it would be rejected as too far-fetched to be credible. Alan (now descending quietly from soap-box whilst regaining some composure )
|
|
|
Post by 747 on Mar 26, 2014 16:55:45 GMT
I only gave my kids one piece of advice. That was, "if you intend to marry, find someone from a Dr. Barnardos Home".
Unfortunately, I have a loud, carrying voice and my In-Laws heard me.
Oh dear.
|
|
|
Post by alhod on Mar 26, 2014 17:07:07 GMT
" ... in our own lives the sacrifice of our true self to religion, country, and family is often deemed heroic. Accommodation to the true self is usually characterised as selfish and arrogant.
This particular theme of how we value ourselves within the family structure is extremely powerful. Even families that are on the higher end of the emotionally responsive food chain tend to view individual members, to some degree, as supporting players. Therefore, the primary function of the individual is to help hold the family illusion in balance. Whether a person is the star of the family, the rebel, the caretaker, or the scapegoat, there is often an unspoken yet very strongly held belief that if anyone steps out of his or her role into his or her own true identity, the family will collapse. Of course, what is really threatened is the collapse of the illusion, but that is precisely why any attempts at authenticity in a family may be met with hostility, both overt and covert." And, 'No', it's not from a psychology textbook, but from a book on screenwriting (INSIDE STORY: THE POWER OF THE TRANSFORMATIONAL ARC, by Dara Marks). It bears pondering on. That piece is indeed very insightful - a very apposite summary of the way in which families function, at least according to my own experience. The illusion of a cohesive unit is just that - an illusion. It works fine until something happens to burst the bubble which has for a variety of reasons been sustained by all involved. "Love" is probably a part of those reasons, whatever that may mean (cynic!!!). In fact, again from own experience, the illusion is sustainable only as long as there is a mutual benefit to be gained from the charade. Once that is pricked the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The fall-out is much more extreme than would be the case in a non-family unit (for example, a workplace or an interest group in a pastime) because in the family unit the foundations were put in place right from birth and as such are perceived as having a permanence not granted automatically to the other scenarios which are developed from a more mature and thus emotionally reserved position. Alan (or should I say Alan B, just to avoid confusion)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 18:27:01 GMT
" ... in our own lives the sacrifice of our true self to religion, country, and family is often deemed heroic. Accommodation to the true self is usually characterised as selfish and arrogant.
This particular theme of how we value ourselves within the family structure is extremely powerful. Even families that are on the higher end of the emotionally responsive food chain tend to view individual members, to some degree, as supporting players. Therefore, the primary function of the individual is to help hold the family illusion in balance. Whether a person is the star of the family, the rebel, the caretaker, or the scapegoat, there is often an unspoken yet very strongly held belief that if anyone steps out of his or her role into his or her own true identity, the family will collapse. Of course, what is really threatened is the collapse of the illusion, but that is precisely why any attempts at authenticity in a family may be met with hostility, both overt and covert." And, 'No', it's not from a psychology textbook, but from a book on screenwriting (INSIDE STORY: THE POWER OF THE TRANSFORMATIONAL ARC, by Dara Marks). It bears pondering on. That piece is indeed very insightful - a very apposite summary of the way in which families function, at least according to my own experience. The illusion of a cohesive unit is just that - an illusion. It works fine until something happens to burst the bubble which has for a variety of reasons been sustained by all involved. "Love" is probably a part of those reasons, whatever that may mean (cynic!!!). In fact, again from own experience, the illusion is sustainable only as long as there is a mutual benefit to be gained from the charade. Once that is pricked the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The fall-out is much more extreme than would be the case in a non-family unit (for example, a workplace or an interest group in a pastime) because in the family unit the foundations were put in place right from birth and as such are perceived as having a permanence not granted automatically to the other scenarios which are developed from a more mature and thus emotionally reserved position. Alan (or should I say Alan B, just to avoid confusion) I agree wholeheartedly but for one caveat. You say, " ...the illusion is sustainable only as long as there is a mutual benefit to be gained from the charade" (my underlining). I question the 'mutual benefit' aspect of that statement, because I believe that it is more beneficial and in the interests of all members of a family to individuate (to use the horrible professional jargon) and not simply play the roles which others place on or expect of them. That takes both courage and integrity, however, and is beyond the abilities of many people, apparently. Nevertheless, I do not consider that it is in one's benefit or interest as a human being not to develop one's full potential as an individual but rather to hide behind archetypes, stereotypes, and clichés.
|
|
|
Post by alhod on Mar 26, 2014 18:56:40 GMT
I certainly agree with you. In saying mutual benefit I realise in retrospect that I was thinking of the specific, somewhat complex situation which had arisen in our family over an extended period and involved not just the relationship between two members of the family but embraced several different relationships between various family members. It was a gradual breakdown in one of those relationships, compounded and aggravated by a dawning realisation of different factors and influences in other relationships which eventually led to a total implosion and rupture of the facade which had been maintained, it turned out, only by certain family members deliberately to deceive others. In a situation other than family it would probably not have happened because the truth would have been sought out sooner. Being family one tries to see all as good - back to that charade again. Hey, this is quite useful - I am actually starting to think about it from a different perspective than previously. Thanks Sean, Liam or whatever your real name may be!! Now, when can I start the book...........
Alan
now off to watch BBC News Channel - anyone else??
Apologies - I forgot for a while that this is Fruitcakes - sorry if this offended anyone looking for fun and frivolity.
|
|
|
Post by Miculo on Mar 26, 2014 19:01:05 GMT
As a spectator I found it interesting. I expect Barry doesn't mind when people do interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 19:05:06 GMT
I certainly agree with you. In saying mutual benefit I realise in retrospect that I was thinking of the specific, somewhat complex situation which had arisen in our family over an extended period and involved not just the relationship between two members of the family but embraced several different relationships between various family members. It was a gradual breakdown in one of those relationships, compounded and aggravated by a dawning realisation of different factors and influences in other relationships which eventually led to a total implosion and rupture of the facade which had been maintained, it turned out, only by certain family members deliberately to deceive others. In a situation other than family it would probably not have happened because the truth would have been sought out sooner. Being family one tries to see all as good - back to that charade again. Hey, this is quite useful - I am actually starting to think about it from a different perspective than previously. Thanks Sean, Liam or whatever your real name may be!! Now, when can I start the book........... Alan now off to watch BBC News Channel - anyone else?? Apologies - I forgot for a while that this is Fruitcakes - sorry if this offended anyone looking for fun and frivolity. It's Liam, if you really want to know. And we'd better change the subject now or the Boss will bar us for introducing serious topics and boring everyone else to death. Back to the motley...
|
|
|
Post by Kaytutt on Mar 26, 2014 19:24:39 GMT
I only gave my kids one piece of advice. That was, "if you intend to marry, find someone from a Dr. Barnardos Home".
Unfortunately, I have a loud, carrying voice and my In-Laws heard me.
Oh dear. We don't do homes anymore While I can very much identify with Alan's original comment about his Mother ( been there, done it and got half a dozen T shirts) the rest of it is way over my head! I thought I'd walked into a parallel universe. i love my immediate family (Hubby,kids, grandkids) unreservedly warts an' all. The wider family, I love one or two, I like most, I dislike some and some just no longer exist in my thinking. And that works for me
|
|
|
Post by 747 on Mar 26, 2014 20:01:37 GMT
Without wanting to seem like a contributor to a serious and sensible thread (like those other two tossers, with their airy fairy, highbrow monologues), I have a rather low opinion of my fellow Homo Sapiens (and loosely speaking, I include Gary in that group).
I trust everyone ....... but only once. If they mess up, they are relegated to my private sin bin and only very rarely get out of it. I know the faults and foibles of my own kids (which are only very minor as they were brought up in our image) but will do anything to help them. As for the rest of the world, well, they can do as they please as long as it does not affect me directly.
I take the view that it is not essential to have a large circle of close friends (I don't even have a small circle of close friends). I have acquaintances that I see now and again, we have a chat, then carry on with our lives. Most of the people we regularly speak to are other dog walkers that we meet. Forums are just about right for me, maybe I am just an unsocial old git.
So there you are ..... now piss off, the lot of you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 20:10:21 GMT
What d'you mean, you have no close friends? You called me one when you borrowed that 50 quid off me. If you're going to be like that, I'll have it back now.
|
|
caulkhead
Frequent Poster
Permanently Bewildered
Posts: 40
Type of Motorhome: One with a wheel in each corner
About you: Ginger Whinger
Likes: 14
|
Post by caulkhead on Mar 26, 2014 20:21:32 GMT
Was the bear tired then? Bit early I would have thought. Ouch!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by 747 on Mar 26, 2014 20:36:00 GMT
What d'you mean, you have no close friends? You called me one when you borrowed that 50 quid off me. If you're going to be like that, I'll have it back now. Have it back?
Are you trying to give me palpitations?
Sorry, I don't do 'back'.
Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Mar 26, 2014 21:11:56 GMT
:-[Off topic but did you know Dave (Penquin) has memory foam in his M&S slippers?
|
|