From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Subject: Re: Friendships
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:45:46 GMT

In article <188j1bINN7og@agate.berkeley.edu>, mvij@ocf.berkeley.edu (Pendragon) writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.200823.3594@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
> 
> >
> >What I mean is that when a youngster under 18 is seeing some people
> >who the parents think are not good influence for him/her, then that youngster
> >should stop seeing these people. (Parents decision is Final).
> 
> This is far too artificial a standard, this magic age of eighteen.
> 
> If 'Parents decision is Final,' then maturity is not gained.  Suspension
> of free will and learning through experience stunts mental growth.
> 
> An absolute discipline of 'parents decision is final' causes a hardline
> backlash from children of disobeying much more because all is perceived
> as unreasonable; or, in the more timid, it causes some to grow into
> clams without protective shells, exposed in the real world.
> 
> Finally, and this is key: parents do not always have a good understanding
> of the cultural context in which a child's decisions are made.  I can
> enumerate many examples of this at leisure (yes, I a lowly student
> am once again late for class), but the main point is that 'we know
> better' is not necessarily true when the basis for judgment is the
> Old World.
> 
> >If someone has become a legal adult (]8 or over), that person then has full 
> >rights and responsibilities of an adult.
> >
> >Adults are suppposed to be responsible for their lives and should have the 
> >freedom to make choices as they see appropriate. Friends are also chosen.
> >An adult's choice of friends may not be to the liking of his/her parents.
> >Parents should make their objections known preferably with reasons. If the 
> >adult still decides to continue seeing these 'friends', then the parents 
> >should yield.  (Adult's decision is Final).
> 
> 'Adult' is not necessarily 18, 30, or 12.  It is relative.  I am not
> arguing for absolute rights for children; family decisions naturally are
> made within a give and take context.
> 
> Manish
> -- 
>                                           /-\o /-()  -- -  --   -
>    Manish Vij    ::    '89 EX500          \_/ \\/ )  -- -    --
>    mvij@ocf.berkeley.edu                       |/_\  -- -  --   - 
>                                                 \_/.  .  . . ........

I see that you are objecting to the following points:

a) Age of 18 as the demarcation age for transfer of authority
b) Parent's ability to make decisions for a child under 18
   because of their basis being the Old World

First the age of 18 is used legally as the demarcation line into adulthood.
How far an individual has become an adult physically, mentally, spiritually
or emotionally by that time is certainly different for different individuals.
It is difficult to establish any hard age in absolute terms when an 
individual becomes mentally, spritually or emotionally matured.
In absence of such absolutes, legal absolute is used as the demarcation age.

You write: Family decisions should not be absolute but should be 
'give and take' deals.

I have not recommended absolute decision making. I said 'should do this'.
Note that I did not use 'must do this'.

Problem with 'give and take' deals is that not everybody is skilled in
the art of 'give and take'. It is basically a business approach applied
to family decision making and it does not take into account aspects of
love, affection, trust, care, concern, etc. unless one quantifies 
them into measurable items. The moment you quantify them into measures, you 
start thinking of them like money and there goes the human relations down 
the drain in due course of time. Love, trust, concern etc. are highly 
complex phenomenon which can not be modeled in simplistic terms of 
'give and take'.  You can not get love by loving someone, you may trust
someone, but he or she may ditch you. You may care for someone but that
someone could still leave you crying for help when you are sick and in need
for help. You may be concerned about your child, but your child may not
give a damn about you. 

It is the parent's experience of having lived much longer than the child,
it is parent's natural love and concern for well being of their child
who they 'produced',fed, cared and supported physically, emotionally,
financially etc. that gives them the right to make certain decisions for
their child until they feel that the child is ready to take responsibility
of his/her life.

Whether parent's experience is from Old World or New World is relevant.
However not everything in New World is different from the Old World.
People are people. They have similar dreams, desires, fears and concerns.
People in the New World are looking for Money, Power, Love, Fame, Happiness
and they fear Crime, Violence, etc., but such is the case in the Old World. 
To say that your parents who grew up in the Old World are not qualified
to make  decisions of the New World is a mistake. The fact that they came 
here and made it to the extent that they were able to  provide you the basic
needs of life like food, shelter. clothing, education etc. in the New World
is enough to show that they were capable of making basic decisions
about life in the New World.

The fact that a lot of them came to the New World as single and later married,
shows that they were able to decide about their marriage. The fact that
a large number of such marriages remained stable indicates that their
ability to make decisions about marrriage was not poor.

The fact that many of them are highly successful professionals or business
people in the New World is an indication that they know how to succeed 
in the New World.

Why can't those who could provide for basic needs, and are highly successful
as professionals, scientists, business men and women, those who could
make complex decisions about marriage and family in the New World, give you 
advice which is valuable for you to make your life in the New World ? 

Even though my parents live in India and have never ventured outside India, yet 
there have been many occasions on which I have found their words or advice
comforting or valuable in my pursuits. Should I 'write them off' just
because they have not ventured into New World ? My answer is No. In fact
there have been times that they knew something subtle about the New World 
that I didn't know after living here for so many years !

Am I ready to write them off ? My answer is NO. 

If I am not ready to write them off at the age of 35, what makes you think
you can write off your parents at the age of 12 ?

Now don't tell me I am a dummy.

Alok
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian