"Living with your parents is called childhood."

[Harmonium]

From Steve's twitter. What do you all think?


I laughed, he's got a point. I am 20 and still at home, but I should be out of here within the next year or two and very comfortable. I had a lot of resistance from my parents about letting me do what I want with my life all through my younger years, they got off my back a year or two ago, and now I've had room to create my own income the way I want to, which is really nice. Being able to provide for yourself without doing work you hate is something everyone should have, but I don't know if it can be that way. I consider myself very lucky to have found a path that doesn't suck so bad.

I've shifted quite a bit since I was a teenager drifting through highschool, failing everything not know what I was gonna do with my life. Providing for yourself (especially when it's easy and you don't compromise your morality or values) has definitely become something I respect a lot.

[Curtis2011]

Male development pattern:

Boys => "Guys" => Men.

Typically "Guys" are the 18-25ish age where you are still living off your parents, or still living with roommates, or something like that. Basically you are not fully independent yet but also you are growing more responsible and slowly gaining that independence.

[Dynamist]

I think that's more of a cultural idea.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Dynamist

I think that's more of a cultural idea.

Bingo. Not a problem in many cultures not our own.

[Harmonium]

The judgement may be cultural, but I think the value of caring/providing for yourself is universal.

[Dynamist]

Originally Posted by Harmonium

The judgement may be cultural, but I think the value of caring/providing for yourself is universal.

Well maybe. But how a person chooses to do so is a personal choice. Some people don't have issues living with their parents either because their parents don't limit them or their lifestyle. Others do. But the idea that it's "childhood", to me, is more of a cultural thing.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Harmonium

The judgement may be cultural, but I think the value of caring/providing for yourself is universal.

You see, in some other cultures, this value is taken one step further. Eg many Asian adults will stay with their parents, to care and provide for them, in their old age.

In American culture, the focus is on whether you are caring and providing for yourself, or not.

In other cultures, the focus is whether you are caring and providing for yourself AND OTHERS (including your aged parents) .... Or not.

[Vaganova]

The American idea that 'you're not a good person unless you're completely independent' has caught on throughout the rest of the world to varying degrees.

That's not necessarily a good thing, not necessarily a bad thing either.

It does get a little... bleh though sometimes.

It'd be nice if I could go back and live with my parents for a few months while trying to do school. "Lower your expenses..." "Okay..." I live in the cheapest apartment I could find in the area, eat nothing, and yeah, my phone bill's a bit high... and that's all my expenses. 70% of them is rent.

Sorry, mini rant.

[elucidate]

It's just not healthy past a certain point.

It's become so socially acceptable to stay with your parents well into your thirties and this is not good for anyone's mental health, IMO. It's not fair on the parents either. They spent the first 18 years raising kids, it's only fair they should be allowed the space to themselves again so they can get back to having a life again.

Obviously economics comes into it, and it's a way to save money for a home of your own, which I get...well, not really, I never wanted a mortgage or anything like that, but I can see why people do it. What's the point though if you all end up mentally unwell because of it?

Some people get along with their parents and that's great, but it's still better for your own mental health and sense of independence to get your own place as soon as possible.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by elucidate

They spent the first 18 years raising kids, it's only fair they should be allowed the space to themselves again so they can get back to having a life again.

That's American culture again.

In Asia, it's common for the old folks to like the idea of at least one of their adult children to stay with them. Not only that, for the adult's spouse, and their little kids, to stay there too. So that the old folks can see their grandkids and look after them every day.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by elucidate

. What's the point though if you all end up mentally unwell because of it?

This also seems to be a rather Western phenomenon - the notion that parents inflict mental illness on their children, and vice versa.

In contrast, the Asian norm is that a family staying together us a good thing, because you get to see your loved ones everyday.

[lookcloser]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This also seems to be a rather Western phenomenon - the notion that parents inflict mental illness on their children, and vice versa.

In contrast, the Asian norm is that a family staying together us a good thing, because you get to see your loved ones everyday.

I wish there was more choice in the matter, irrespective of which culture your're from.

If people in the West felt it was alright to live with their parents they should do so. If people in various parts of Asia wanted to move out at 18, that should be allowed too.

If I as much as mention something about moving out to my(Indian) parents, they'd think they screwed up as parents/they'd think I was a sex and drug addict/they'd think I want to disown them.

But I know that moving out would do great for me right now, but I gotta suck it up and live here till I find other means.

[Dimitri]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

That's American culture again.

Yes, caring for yourself, living independently, and parents inflicting mental illness are Western/American concepts. Labeling them as such, however, doesn't make these concepts flawed, misleading, or wrong. It doesn't mean that Asian culture is promoting better ideas for children and their parents.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In American culture, the focus is on whether you are caring and providing for yourself, or not. In other cultures, the focus is whether you are caring and providing for yourself AND OTHERS (including your aged parents)

Parents should easily be able to provide for themselves using their retirement fund or even better, having a passive income source.

You keep mentioning the fact that the parents have aged, but frankly, lots of people age and don't require frequent medical attention. If parents need their children to look after them daily and provide assistance wherever they go, then obviously they should've focused on their diet and exercise back when they were young.

Their children can help them out financially or visit them, but living with them is completely unnecessary until the parents are unable to take care of themselves. And that shouldn't happen until they reach a ripe old age, giving their kids enough time to live on their own and build their own lives. This depends, of course, on how old the parents were when they had the baby.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In Asia, it's common for the old folks to like the idea of at least one of their adult children to stay with them. Not only that, for the adult's spouse, and their little kids, to stay there too. So that the old folks can see their grandkids and look after them every day.

The adult children and their spouses would probably like some privacy and space. Another American idea? It certainly serves those who practice it. Why be cooped up in one apartment when both the parents and their adult children can have separate houses? Since this is very achievable in North America, adult kids are taking advantage of this.

And rightly so. Having a parents' influence over you is limiting. They may have completely different ideas and different beliefs about money, relationships, and health. They have a different outlook on life, a different attitude. Why make compromises when each person can have their attitude within their own house?

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This also seems to be a rather Western phenomenon - the notion that parents inflict mental illness on their children, and vice versa. In contrast, the Asian norm is that a family staying together is a good thing, because you get to see your loved ones everyday.

This "norm" also encourages kids to take over their parents' business even when they have no interest in doing so. Really, it comes down to this: living together with your parents means that the adult child has to please his/her parents in order to avoid conflict. If you follow right in your parents' footsteps, then all is well. The problem arises when you have different beliefs about reality, and you want to try something new, something that the parents wouldn't approve or attempt themselves.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

That's American culture again.

In Asia, it's common for the old folks to like the idea of at least one of their adult children to stay with them. Not only that, for the adult's spouse, and their little kids, to stay there too. So that the old folks can see their grandkids and look after them every day.

I'm European. My dad never moved out from his mom. She lived with us till she was 92. I lived with him till I was 23 and escaped. I probably wouldn't have minded as much if it wasn't for my emotionally unstable step mom. Brothers moved out at 30 and 34. One, only because he was getting married, and the other because was the oldest and didn't feel right. I moved out a few years later. My dad would have kept me around for another decade if he could. It's probably more of a control thing tho. Wanting to guide us through life, because if we fail, they fail.

America has an unhealthy obsession with moving out and the rest of the world has an unhealthy obsession with staying around. Again, I think it comes down to control. American parents either can't control their kids anymore, so guilt won't work. Or, they feel that the only way for them to learn, is to be on their own. I think Americans are less likely to fall for the " if they fail, it's our fault" line of thinking.

[justhopingandsearching]

I can actually see both sides of the issue (even though I'm an American). Funnily enough, I find myself preferring more and more as I get older the "Asian" style of families staying together.

We in the West focus too much on the negatives of a family instead of looking at the wonderfully positive aspects we attain from our families.

Personally, I want my future family (no kids yet) to stay together and form a cohesive unit. I want them to have the kind of relationship my sister and I have. We love each other, and in fact want to live together with our future families.

Why do y'all feel like you need so much "space?"

I find it kind of sad how families (in America at least) are so spread out and distant. Yes, we have the internet, but that doesn't replace face-to-face conversations.

[brendannz]

It seems a judgmental statement, to be honest..

It depends on your relationship with your parents, but most people I know in my town, in adult life don't enjoy living with their parents but have their parents as their back up plan. Ie. if they get kicked out of their flat, for whatever reasons, they just arrive back from being in another city/ country, or if they get fired and are broke, etc.etc.

I lived with my parents for about 9 months when I got back from overseas, and then saved up to buy a flat, now I'm paying off a mortgage.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

That's American culture again.

In Asia, it's common for the old folks to like the idea of at least one of their adult children to stay with them. Not only that, for the adult's spouse, and their little kids, to stay there too. So that the old folks can see their grandkids and look after them every day.

Side story: my friend who teaches 2nd and 3rd grade here in Seoul watched the movie Up with her class. The kids had a really culturally interesting reaction to the introductory story. When the couple was shown to be infertile, they were puzzled but not sad. When they were shown to grow old without fulfilling their dreams, no reaction. When the old man's wife dies, no reaction. When the old man, who is now an increasingly incapacitated childless widower, has to be taken to a home since there's no one to care for him (which is supposed to be a comic scene) the children started openly weeping. They definitely know and have internalized very young what is socially expected of them.

That said, I do witness a lot of negative consequences of parents maintaining such a strong hold on their offspring. I have seen nervous breakdowns and depressive episodes that were definitely mother / mother in law induced, I have seen mothers break marriages, I have seen situations of domestic abuse that were fueled by either party's parents.
I am sure an outsider living in the West would be able to point out the negative consequences of our conception of family ties.

[Acting Like Godot]

It is a very judgmental statement, because it assumes that if you are living with your parents, then you are a leech and you are not capable of taking care of yourself.

I guess this could be true in American culture. In many other cultures, it is not.

In fact, it is often the most resourceful, most capable and wealthiest adult child who stays with the parents. Why? Because he is best able to take care of them, AND himself, AND his spouse, AND his kids.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by brendannz

It seems a judgmental statement, to be honest..

It depends on your relationship with your parents, but most people I know in my town, in adult life don't enjoy living with their parents but have their parents as their back up plan. Ie. if they get kicked out of their flat, for whatever reasons, they just arrive back from being in another city/ country, or if they get fired and are broke, etc.etc.

This IS leech mentality, and that is perhaps why Steve's statement is justified in American culture.

Staying with your parents just because you're broke, fired, got kicked out of your own place etc etc .... is quite leech-sounding to me, even though, depending on the circumstances, it may be that the person doesn't have a choice other than to be a leech, or that his parents don't mind being a leech-suckee.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

It is a very judgmental statement, because it assumes that if you are living with your parents, then you are a leech and you are not capable of taking care of yourself.

I guess this could be true in American culture. In many other cultures, it is not.

In fact, it is often the most resourceful, most capable and wealthiest adult child who stays with the parents. Why? Because he is best able to take care of them, AND himself, AND his spouse, AND his kids.

It's usually the youngest that stays with the parents. Capable and wealthy? Living under ONE roof that is supported by 2-4 working people. Going out on your own, and making a life for yourself, with out living under your parents roof, requires being capable.

I don't know where you got your idea.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

America has an unhealthy obsession with moving out and the rest of the world has an unhealthy obsession with staying around.

My country, often known for its pragmatic yet innovative ideas, offers the following middle ground.

If you are a first-time home buyer, you can get a $40,000 grant from the government, if you purchase a home within a 2-km radius of your parents' home and live in it for at least 5 years.

This allows couples to have their own home, and yet incentivises them to stay near their parents, enabling frequent visits.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

My country, often known for its pragmatic yet innovative ideas, offers the following middle ground.

If you are a first-time home buyer, you can get a $40,000 grant from the government, if you purchase a home within a 2-km radius of your parents' home and live in it for at least 5 years.

This allows couples to have their own home, and yet incentivises them to stay near their parents, enabling frequent visits.

So the government gives people money, in order to promote their own ideals. What are those ideals based on tho?

I also don't agree with giving tax breaks for people who have kids.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

It's usually the youngest that stays with the parents. Capable and wealthy? Living under ONE roof that is supported by 2-4 working people. Going out on your own, and making a life for yourself, with out living under your parents roof, requires being capable.

I don't know where you got your idea.

From Asia. You're from Europe.

You are thinking of the following situation - the guy stays with his parents; gets married; still stays with his parents; has kids; still stays with his parents.

Sometimes it happens like that. Not always.

What can happen is that the capable, resourceful, rich guy buys a big, new house and moves everybody - his wife, kids, parents, family dog, maids, sometimes an unmarried sibling - under his one big new roof.

-------------

My personal example:

Currently I don't stay with my parents, nor with my wife's mother (her father is deceased).

I do own a very large house - 4 storeys, one basement, one 30-metre swimming pool, six bedrooms - which is way bigger than I need for my family of one wife, 2 kids and no dog.

I buy this big house, so that one day if my parents want to move in with me, they can, or if my mum-in-law wants to move in with me, she can.

If or when they move in, I support all of them. Essentially I will pay for everything - food, electricity, household stuff, etc etc.

Sounds like a burden? But then -- as I said, I am capable, resourceful and rich.

Well capable of supporting more than just myself: even though just supporting oneself alone seems to be the American standard for "capability".

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

So the government gives people money, in order to promote their own ideals. What are those ideals based on tho?

East Asian Confucianism.

However, the scheme is freely offered to all citizens even those of non-East Asian origin.

Hey, if you don't want it, don't take it. Nobody's forcing you.

[Andrew Brunelle]

I live in the same house as my mother. I pay rent, and we get along pretty well. I don't see it as childhood, but I can see some people who do live like Steve was hinting at. I'm sure there are plenty of 20-somethings that still live with their parents that act like children, and mooch off their parents, but I know that there are those who still live with one or both parents who are independent and make enough money to support themselves.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

East Asian Confucianism.

However, the scheme is freely offered to all citizens even those of non-East Asian origin.

Hey, if you don't want it, don't take it. Nobody's forcing you.

Well, it is forcing tax payers to pay into a system, even if they don't agree with it. No?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This also seems to be a rather Western phenomenon - the notion that parents inflict mental illness on their children, and vice versa.

In contrast, the Asian norm is that a family staying together us a good thing, because you get to see your loved ones everyday.

I wasn't saying the parents inflict mental illness on their kids, (although some do by way of negating and invalidating their feelings constantly). I was saying that it's bad for everyone involved. Past a certain point, if kids haven't left the nest and gone out into the world, arrested development sets in. It also sets up an unhealthy dynamic in the family in my opinion.

People aren't supposed to stay with their parents past a certain point. Just like everything in the animal kingdom, there comes a time when they need to head out on their own and face the world. If they don't, then they don't develop into full grown people.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In contrast, the Asian norm is that a family staying together us a good thing, because you get to see your loved ones everyday.

Can you honestly say that 10+ people all sharing a small apartment in china is a healthy option? They may eat well, but I think there lifestyles breed mental unwellness in some capacity.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Well, it is forcing tax payers to pay into a system, even if they don't agree with it. No?

Whatever. We have one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

[aelle]

It's an interesting divide in mentalities. I know plenty of migrants / expats (South East Asians, South Asian) living in Korea or Japan who matter-of-factly send money back home. Me, it's the opposite: every time we talk my parents and grandparents make a point to remind me that if I ever need (or want) money they will send me some! Which I have always turned down because, hell, I want to be responsible for my own potential financial ♥♥♥♥-ups.

I am not at all against the idea of helping financially my parents or grandparents, or moving back closer to them at some point to offer in-person help. But I have to admit that I come first. Also, they would feel ashamed if I were to support them too much, or if I were to sacrifice for them.

I think the Western mentality is definitely that older generations should be better off than their offsprings for their entire life, and shouldn't put themselves in a position where they would impose on their children. (Dimitri's post is a perfect illustration: old people are poor or unhealthy? They can only blame themselves). Any deviation is shameful, much in the same way that my friend's students would feel profoundly ashamed if they couldn't provide 24 hours a day to their old parents.