A Room of One's Own

Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


If you want to pick a fight, go ahead, but please don't
try to put words into my mouth and then pounce on them as if I've
subscribed to positions that I haven't.
I'm really not trying to pick a fight. I quoted what you said because
you said that I was misquoting you and I should go back and read what
was written. I did read what was written. I just wanted to show you
that I HAD.
But you continue to respond as if I said or meant
something different from what I said.

I know you didn't think you meant that, but that is what it meant to
me when you wrote it. I probably am taking it too personally, but I
felt that you rejected most of what I said as wrongheaded.

You did write

!And I surely wouldn't expect my parents to die
!with my childhood room still available in their home, nor would
!I even think to maintain my children's rooms after they were gone
!and married and with families of their own, as is apparently the
!case for Rosalie. (Obviously, it's her prerogative to do so and
!I don't have to understand it, but I don't think it's something
!that is *owed* to any normal, healthy child--not that she suggested
!it was a requirement.)

Which is pretty far short of affirmation.

Literally translated, those words said that my
expectations and your expectations differ--nothing more
or less. And I even followed it up with a caveat that it is
your right to have your own opinions and expectations that
do not require my blessing or understanding, not to mention
acknowledging that I understood you were not saying that it
was a requirement to preserve the room. All in all, I
think that was a rather conciliatory way of saying that
while we disagreed, I understood that there was room for
different people to feel differently about it.


My mom did have guests, but she would rather have her children and
grandchildren come and stay with her than any guests. If my mom had
indicated that she wanted to have unrelated guests stay rather than
me, I'd be very hurt.
Are you suggesting that *my* mother is indicating that
she'd rather have unrelated guests stay at her home than me? Or that
anyone who chooses to have a guest room rather than maintaining
their children's rooms into adulthood is being unwelcoming to
their children? Or is this just your personal interpretation
that for your family, remodeling is tantamount to rejection?

No I don't think your mother indicated any such thing. I'm sure that
she didn't

Then aren't you glad I didn't jump on you for insulting
me or my mother with that statement, and that instead I asked
which interpretation you meant? (Although I have to say it
begs the question of why you felt the need to share that comment...)

I feel guilty because ATM I can't have my children come and stay here
because my mom's stuff is still clogging up the rooms.
Is this perhaps a cause of your taking some of this
a bit personally?

The same could be said for you.

Well, although I didn't make any comments about your
character, you did call me "really cold," which I think does rather
verge on the personal. Just so we can be clear, I'm referring to:

Rosalie said:
Erika's attitude strikes me as being really
cold.

Any number of people have disagreed with me, but you are the
only one to call me cold. I have not taken any of your
statements of your opinions personally. I have taken your
personal comment about me personally.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Banty wrote:

But I had a similar impression, Ericka, if more from the amount of *emphasis* -
all this arguing against entitlement and about obligation. And using terms like
"shrine". And the sheer amount of type and length of paragraphs about the evils
of coddling grown kids. No, you never actually say that a room should be
converted over to an empty room once a kid leaves for college, but then you go
on to say you're not advocating that they be "stripped to the studs", as if
others were presenting that picture.

My goodness, damned if you do, damned if you don't! I was
simply attempting to be very clear what I was and was not saying--
in response to folks who appeared to have the impression that I
*was*, in fact, advocating such an approach!

But again, it's the going on and on in paragraphs about how elders and younger
sibs in cramped households need the rooms, ***when there's no one here saying
they should be denied***, that leads to a strong impression. Even if you've
never actually *said* anyone who keeps a room for a grown child to return to is
just enabling immaturity, it's how much energy you devote to responding as if
they did that rankles.

I didn't realize that responses were being weighed to
determine emphasis...I suppose I'll have to remember to be more
concise in the future lest I be misunderstood. Oops, guess it
was being too concise that got me in trouble in the first place.
Guess it's back to damned if you do, damned if you don't ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Rosalie said:
Erika's attitude strikes me as being really
cold.

Any number of people have disagreed with me, but you are the
only one to call me cold. I have not taken any of your
statements of your opinions personally. I have taken your
personal comment about me personally.

I didn't want say that YOU were cold - I was trying to say that I felt
it was a cold attitude towards one's children's place in the household
once they became adults.

You seemed to be the one that was front and center emphasizing that it
was normal and natural for the parents to want to redecorate etc.
although other people were also expressing similar thoughts. It
seemed to me that there were a number of people in agreement with you
and also with the idea that once a child became an adult there was no
further obligation on the part of the parent to supply them with a
place to live I don't agree with that. It never occurred to me to
think that. I found that idea quite surprising and somewhat
unsettling.

..

Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Rosalie said:
Erika's attitude strikes me as being really
cold.
Any number of people have disagreed with me, but you are the
only one to call me cold. I have not taken any of your
statements of your opinions personally. I have taken your
personal comment about me personally.

I didn't want say that YOU were cold - I was trying to say that I felt
it was a cold attitude towards one's children's place in the household
once they became adults.

You seemed to be the one that was front and center emphasizing that it
was normal and natural for the parents to want to redecorate etc.
although other people were also expressing similar thoughts. It
seemed to me that there were a number of people in agreement with you
and also with the idea that once a child became an adult there was no
further obligation on the part of the parent to supply them with a
place to live I don't agree with that. It never occurred to me to
think that. I found that idea quite surprising and somewhat
unsettling.

And while I think it *is* normal and natural for some
families to have a need or a desire to repurpose space vacated
by a child who's left home, and I do think that parents do not
have an *obligation* to continue to provide for their adult
children (though whether they have an *obligation* has little
to do with whether it is *desirable* or *appropriate* for them
to do so), I certainly respect your right to do whatever you
please with your rooms.

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Feb 17, 9:00 pm, Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Rosalie said:
(some snip)
It
seemed to me that there were a number of people in agreement with you
and also with the idea that once a child became an adult there was no
further obligation on the part of the parent to supply them with a
place to live I don't agree with that. It never occurred to me to
think that. I found that idea quite surprising and somewhat
unsettling.

I think the distinction here is around 'further obligation' -- to use
a somewhat analogous situation, my DDs have been responsible for
getting their own breakfasts since they were ~3. If they arise early
and are hungry, we always have milk in a small container, easily
accessible glassware, a bowl of hard-boiled eggs, and fruit. I don't
feel that I am under no obligation to feed them -- but also believe
that they have the physical and mental competence at that age to
fashion something edible if they're awake hours before anyone else.
This doesn't mean I never make breakfasts, which I do occasionally --
or that I expect they'll engage in self-service behavior if they're
ill.

I don't love them less because I'm putting out small glasses and hard-
boiling eggs the night before. I also don't believe that people who
are awakened by their 5 year old and immediately wake up and prepare
food love their children more. It's just a different perspective
regarding parental roles and fostering the physical and emotional
growth of our children.

Caledonia

In article ,
Caledonia says...

On Feb 17, 9:00 pm, Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Rosalie said:
(some snip)
It
seemed to me that there were a number of people in agreement with you
and also with the idea that once a child became an adult there was no
further obligation on the part of the parent to supply them with a
place to live I don't agree with that. It never occurred to me to
think that. I found that idea quite surprising and somewhat
unsettling.

I think the distinction here is around 'further obligation' -- to use
a somewhat analogous situation, my DDs have been responsible for
getting their own breakfasts since they were ~3. If they arise early
and are hungry, we always have milk in a small container, easily
accessible glassware, a bowl of hard-boiled eggs, and fruit. I don't
feel that I am under no obligation to feed them -- but also believe
that they have the physical and mental competence at that age to
fashion something edible if they're awake hours before anyone else.
This doesn't mean I never make breakfasts, which I do occasionally --
or that I expect they'll engage in self-service behavior if they're
ill.

I don't love them less because I'm putting out small glasses and hard-
boiling eggs the night before. I also don't believe that people who
are awakened by their 5 year old and immediately wake up and prepare
food love their children more. It's just a different perspective
regarding parental roles and fostering the physical and emotional
growth of our children.

Since my son's waking hours are different from mine on the weekends, and he'd
rather have the house to himeself on school mornings (he's not a morning person
, for a few years already he gets his own breakfast and lunch. We do sit down
to a dinner. It's just that I'm not going to make *five* meals, but I'm not
going to bend his habits around (he's 15) to save me that if there's another
option.

At five I made him breakfast, but he's *never* been an early riser. In those
days I got him up for school and got him out the door.

It's a matter of what works out given our situation and personalities. I *do*
provide easy-to-make microwave stuff for the lunches, or lunch meats, and always
have muffins or similar stuff on hand for the breakfasts.

Banty

Banty wrote:

In article ,
Caledonia says...

On Feb 17, 9:00 pm, Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Rosalie said:
(some snip)
It
seemed to me that there were a number of people in agreement with you
and also with the idea that once a child became an adult there was no
further obligation on the part of the parent to supply them with a
place to live I don't agree with that. It never occurred to me to
think that. I found that idea quite surprising and somewhat
unsettling.

I think the distinction here is around 'further obligation' -- to use
a somewhat analogous situation, my DDs have been responsible for
getting their own breakfasts since they were ~3. If they arise early
and are hungry, we always have milk in a small container, easily
accessible glassware, a bowl of hard-boiled eggs, and fruit. I don't
feel that I am under no obligation to feed them -- but also believe
that they have the physical and mental competence at that age to
fashion something edible if they're awake hours before anyone else.
This doesn't mean I never make breakfasts, which I do occasionally --
or that I expect they'll engage in self-service behavior if they're
ill.


When dd#1 was going to kindergarten, and then first grade, we were
living in Key West and dh left the house very early (like he had to be
at work by 6:30). Since we were first married and he went through
pilot training, we wives (in those days the pilots were all men) had
it emphasized to us that our men needed eggs in the morning or without
sufficient protein, they would crash burn and die. Which of course I
didn't want to happen. Except that dh didn't like eggs.

So I went through a period where I cooked him hamburgers for
breakfast. (ATM he makes himself turkey bacon in the microwave -
although he's been retired for some years now) Anyway at the point
when dd#1 was 5 or 6, he was getting up and leaving the house early,
and we had come to a compromise on breakfast. He actually did like
hard boiled eggs. So I would boil up a number of eggs and leave them
in the refrigerator, and he also had cold cereal. I would set the
table the night before, and he just had to get the egg and milk out of
the refrigerator and eat. That way I could sleep in.

DD#1 would wake herself up so that she could eat breakfast with her
dad, so I would set a place at the table for her too. Then she
could do what she liked until it was time for her to leave for school
about 7:45.

BTW she was sharing a room with her sister (dd#2 who was 2 years
younger) at this time. In a three bedroom house, dh and I slept in
one bedroom and she and her sister slept in the second bedroom, and
the third bedroom was the spare room. Eventually (in the following
year when she was in 2nd grade) the third bedroom became the babies
room.
I don't love them less because I'm putting out small glasses and hard-
boiling eggs the night before. I also don't believe that people who
are awakened by their 5 year old and immediately wake up and prepare
food love their children more. It's just a different perspective
regarding parental roles and fostering the physical and emotional
growth of our children.

Absolutely

Since my son's waking hours are different from mine on the weekends, and he'd
rather have the house to himeself on school mornings (he's not a morning person
, for a few years already he gets his own breakfast and lunch. We do sit down
to a dinner. It's just that I'm not going to make *five* meals, but I'm not
going to bend his habits around (he's 15) to save me that if there's another
option.

At five I made him breakfast, but he's *never* been an early riser. In those
days I got him up for school and got him out the door.

All my girls were early risers - my ds not so much so.

It's a matter of what works out given our situation and personalities. I *do*
provide easy-to-make microwave stuff for the lunches, or lunch meats, and always
have muffins or similar stuff on hand for the breakfasts.

DH and I are still like that. He shops and gets what he needs to cook
dinner and we do our own breakfasts and lunches. Works for us.

On Feb 17, 1:03 pm, Banty wrote:
In article ,
hedgehog42 says...

When I was away at college my sophomore year, my dad took a new job &
they sold the house & moved out of state. I found out accidentally
when I happened to call home and they were skedaddling out for the
open house . They hadn't planned on telling me until after my final
exams, to avoid "stressing" me. THAT was way more unsettling than
coming home the previous year and seeing my sister moved into "my"
room.

They said they didn't want to upset you until after finals, but apparently you
didn't hear about your sister moving in, either. I'd say what's upsetting is
being persona non grata suddenly.

Well, to be fair, I'd known on some level that the sister move would
happen -- it didn't make sense to have 2 sisters sharing one bedroom
and keeping my "shrine" untouched. It was a little unsettling actually
seeing it on that first visit back, but not upsetting, if that makes
sense.

But when the whole family was planning to move and I'd had no inkling
Dad was even interviewing elsewhere -- I did tell people home was
running away from kid, even though I'd already made arrangements to
stay/work in college town over the summer. I don't think they meant to
be hurtful -- I think they were just pretty much caught up in their
own lives. At least, I like to think so.

Our 21yo dropped out of college and is living at home, working many
hours and paying rent. Frankly, I prefer having her in a safer
neighborhood than she'd be able to afford on her paycheck (even with a
roommate), and she's close enough to be able to walk to work, (though
it's more challenging with the harsher winter we're having now), thus
avoiding car/bus expenses.

We didn't charge rent when she was a student, but it seems unfair *to
her* not to do so now. At this point, it enables her to see herself as
an adult contributing to the household rather than a freeloader, and
it's been good incentive to manage her money better.

Yep.

That's pretty much where I'd draw the line, and others I know IRL draw the line.
Kid is living home whole going to college or vocational school - no rent, even
if the I were are not financing the education. (If I am, it'd be dumb to pay
then take back room and board..) Kid working and living at home - time for a
more formal arrangement including rent and a percentage of groceries. And that
can't happen forever either, in normal circumstances (not past, say, 25 at the
outside). He's got an independant streak like I do; I'm confident he won't take
advantage just to hang around or buy a fancy car instead of striking out on his
own. If it gets to that, I'd lobby for him to go. Depends on the
circumstances, y'know.

I agree. She's not eating our food -- she works in 2 restaurants and
eats there for next to nothing . But it's fair that she helps provide
for water, laundry, electricity she uses and the larger bedroom that
could be her bro's. And I've told her it won't continue indefinitely
-- it's an interim measure to plan what she's going to do and save to
make that happen. I haven't told her she'll get her rent money back at
some point.

I like your friends' solution about the trade school. That idea may
come in handy as a bargaining chip at some point, so thanks.

Consideration of the period of higher education as different - it just seems to
be the common sense line that's widely recognized. For example, my firm would
allow me to keep him on my health insurance past a certain age *if* he's in
college.

Mine's now allowing up to 21 even if they're not in school (23 if she
is) which is a big change from even a few years ago, when the cutoff
was 18 if not in school. Friend's health insurance was up to 25 for
son if he was in school.

Lori

On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, Ericka Kammerer wrote:
hedgehog42 wrote:
We didn't charge rent when she was a student, but it seems unfair *to
her* not to do so now. At this point, it enables her to see herself as
an adult contributing to the household rather than a freeloader, and
it's been good incentive to manage her money better.

I certainly understand that position. It's like the
person who always takes you out to dinner but never allows
you to reciprocate. It puts you in a subordinate position,
and tells you that they don't see you as an equal or as someone
capable of extending hospitality.
[snip] If there's going to be a true adult
relationship, however, I think it's important to allow both
sides to contribute. That doesn't always take the form of
rent, but there has to be *something* so that both parties
contribute.

Right. Before she went to full time work -- she was looking, but part
time was all she could get for a while -- she was actively
contributing by cleanup, laundry, starting dinner, etc. Now she's gone
so much that the money is the better option. I prefer not to hear the
vacuum roaring at 12:30 a.m., and she actually has time to sleep.

Lori