"Risks", an experts views on families and risk aversion

[grahamg]

This professor (Professor Frank Furedi), is publishing a book on families and risk aversion, and if I can find an extract I'll post it for you.

Here though are some details about the man, and his previous published works relating to similar topics:

Professor Furedi is a sociologist, social commentator and author of several books. His research is oriented towards the study of the workings of precautionary culture and risk aversion in Western societies.


Research interests
Since 1995, Professor Furedi’s work has explored the different manifestations of the way that contemporary western culture attempts to give meaning to social experience. The current problems that society has in engaging with uncertainty have focused his interest on the workings of contemporary risk consciousness and loss aversion.

Author of over 20 books, most of his work in recent years has been devoted to the development of a sociology of fear and an exploration of the cultural developments that influence the construction of contemporary risk consciousness.

Although his work on different forms of social anxieties is strongly influenced by the insights of social constructionist sociology, his past training in field work and history bring to the study of social problems a historical and empirical dimension. Elements of this approach are outlined in Population and Development (1997), The Silent War (1998) The Culture of Fear (1997, 2002 – new revised edition 2007) and in particular, How Fear Works: The Culture of Fear in the 21st Century (2018). These texts examine the problematisation of different forms of social anxieties (race, population and risk) and have provided him with an opportunity to elaborate a sociological approach that synthesises the methods of historical inquiry with the insights of sociological investigation.

Furedi’s studies on the problem of fear has run in parallel with his exploration of the problem of cultural authority. Since his Authority, A Sociological History (2013) he has published a study a study The First World War: Still No End In Sight – which interprets this event as the precursor of today’s Culture Wars. His study, Populism And The Culture Wars In Europe: the conflict of values between Hungary and the EU, discusses the sociological implications of the tension between populists and anti-populist political currents.

Professor Furedi’s approach towards the contemporary challenges facing education, culture and intellectual life is outlined in the in the book Where Have All The Intellectual Gone; Confronting 21st Century Philistinism. He is now engaged on a sociological history of the Crisis of Identity.

https://www.kent.ac.uk/social-polic...logy-social-research/people/1988/furedi-frank

 

[grahamg]

You may not be able to access this article mentioning Professor Furedi's work, but here goes just in case:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...wned-generation-infantilised-millennials.html

Or you could try this clip:

 

[grahamg]

More from Professor Frank Furedi:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11405074

1. Listen - because you can learn from anybody.

I have learnt that it is a mistake not to listen to people, even people who you don't take seriously, because those who appear ignorant can surprise you with their insights into life. Even if you disagree with what they say, through listening you can learn what it is that leads them to adopt an erroneous conclusion. That's one way of learning about other people's experiences and about life.

A genuine listening strategy is surprisingly difficult to acquire - but it is well worth the effort.

2. Question everything

This is one of the things I found most difficult to do. It's very easy to fall back into old ways and repeat things you have done in the past. When I simply follow someone else's opinion or unthinkingly repeat what I thought previously, I quite often end up realising that I'm on the wrong track. However, through questioning my beliefs and those of others it soon becomes evident that what worked yesterday may be inappropriate in a different context.

Moreover, it's only in the course of questioning that you make progress in developing and refining your ideas. I have really come to appreciate Socrates. He was always annoying everyone by going to the market and asking questions. But those questions often led to greater clarity.

3. Rely on your intuition

We live in a world where we are bombarded by conflicting instructions through the media. As a father and a teacher I have been forced to rely on my intuition. I have learned to use my intuition even when people that I respect point me in a very different direction. Intuition is really your experience codified - insights gained through the working of your emotions and ideas. It doesn't mean you are always right but it does put you in the right direction.

4. Always reflect on your motives when you are dealing with your children

Parents make big emotional investments in their children so that sometimes they confuse their own needs with those of their children. It is easy to overlook the fact that sometimes what we want for ourselves is not what our kids need.

There is so much pressure to live our lives through our children. That's why we need to pause and have a reality check. We need to think about our motives by asking the question: "Am I doing this for them or for myself?" You may still end up doing something that meets your own needs rather than those of your child, but at least you will not be deluding yourself.

5. Things are never as bad as they seem.

This is something I learned later in life. I was a micro-manager, always meeting deadlines, imagining that everything that could go bad would go bad. It is only relatively recently that I learned that the situation is rarely as bad as you imagine. We have a tremendous capacity for resilience, for bouncing back and not allowing our disappointments to overwhelm us.

Often what happens depends on how we respond to a problem. We can make a drama out of a crisis and feel sorry for ourselves for the next 10 years or we can find a strategy for moving on and looking for new opportunities. Moving on, always moving on, has become one of the key principles guiding my daily life.

 

[jerry old]

Good stuff, but: Oh, whee, makes my brain hurt,

 

[grahamg]

Good stuff, but: Oh, whee, makes my brain hurt,

I know, sorry about that, but I struggle to know which bits to leave out, especially when one of the articles above started with "five things professor Furedi has learnt about life". .

 

[grahamg]

I found a Facebook placard displaying the following statement, posted by someone I know vaguely, who has been through divorce, (ditto her partner, who I like a lot):

Quote: If you marry someone who already has kids from previous relationships, those kids are NOW your kids, and should be treated as such!

TRUE or FALSE?

(I wonder what Mr. Furedi might think of that statement?). .

 

[Aunt Marg]

I found a Facebook placard displaying the following statement, posted by someone I know vaguely, who has been through divorce, (ditto her partner, who I like a lot):

Quote: If you marry someone who already has kids from previous relationships, those kids are NOW your kids, and should be treated as such!

TRUE or FALSE?

My answer is both yes and no.

Had I met and married a man who had babies and/or young children at the time, then yes, because I would have a hand in raising his children from the time they were young, so I would accept them as my own, but if I met a man later in life and his children were grown and out on their own, aside from having a relationship with them through my mate, I wouldn't classify the kids as my own, and chances are good they would see me in the same light.

Nothing more than me being a mate or partner of their fathers, and as far as them to me, nothing more than children outside of my relationship or marriage.

 

[fmdog44]

I found a Facebook placard displaying the following statement, posted by someone I know vaguely, who has been through divorce, (ditto her partner, who I like a lot):

Quote: If you marry someone who already has kids from previous relationships, those kids are NOW your kids, and should be treated as such!

TRUE or FALSE?

(I wonder what Mr. Furedi might think of that statement?). .

False, they are not your kids.

 

[MarciKS]

I think they should be but I know many step children don't take kindly to the step parents.

 

[Knight]

I found a Facebook placard displaying the following statement, posted by someone I know vaguely, who has been through divorce, (ditto her partner, who I like a lot):

Quote: If you marry someone who already has kids from previous relationships, those kids are NOW your kids, and should be treated as such!

TRUE or FALSE?

(I wonder what Mr. Furedi might think of that statement?). .

Can you contact Mr.Furedi to ask him since he is an "expert" ?

True or false limits the discussion. Can you think of some of the variables the question doesn't address?

Then can you express an opinion & what you base your opinion on?

 

[JaniceM]

Can you contact Mr.Furedi to ask him since he is an "expert" ?

True or false limits the discussion. Can you think of some of the variables the question doesn't address?

I can.. and it's one of the very very few times I agree with grahamg on anything... if the children have a living, biological parent who isn't a total bum, the stepparent should take second-place to the parent- even if the stepparent lives with the children and the other parent does not.

Also, addressing modernisms: stepparents are individuals a biological parent is legally married to- not somebody they're simply living with or 'dating.'

 

[grahamg]

Grahamg wrote: Quote: "If you marry someone who has kids from a previous relationships, those kids are NOW your kids and should be treated as such!" TRUE or FALSE
Knight wrote:Can you contact Mr.Furedi to ask him since he is an "expert" ? True or false limits the discussion. Can you think of some of the variables the question doesn't address? Then can you express an opinion & what you base your opinion on?

I'm not sure whether I can ask Mr. Furedi, but point four (in the third post on the thread above) gives some indication, about whether parents are always honest with themselves(?)
My opinions seem to be understood quite well in the previous post to this one, and I'll say more in response to other forum members, in order to avoid this post being too long. I agree the binary choice offered is wrong, (and the capital letters used as in "NOW" bothers me too, with no word on how the children or non resident biological parent feel about things). .

 

[911]

If I were to marry a woman with children, I would feel that they were not my children AND I am sure that they wouldn’t want to feel I was their Dad or probably would not want to call me Dad.

 

[grahamg]

False, they are not your kids.

The expert above asks parents, (or I'd guess stepparents?), to examine their motives, because he says they may not be being honest with themselves. I'd say there are plenty of instances where a stepparent, or potential stepparent, does everything in their power to convince a partner they are having an affair with, or wish to do so, will try to convince them they're acting in the children's best interests by breaking up their marriage, and they'll "treat the children as their own!"

I know of one guy who had given up his own son for adoption by the mother aged two, when their relationship broke down, (thereby not having to pay towards him), and then went on to convince a married mother of another two year old, that he would love and treat this child as his own, and become the "real father".

I witness extreme selfishness and disfunction in intact families between patents and their children sometimes, so the potential for self interest to trump all, when persuading a wife to abandon her marriage, is not to be wondered at as a possibility. .

 

[grahamg]

I think they should be but I know many step children don't take kindly to the step parents.

It must be a very hard job being a stepparent, (not a role I'd find easy, or be likely to volunteer for I admit), but the claim to be able to treat others children as your own is a bold one some make, and whether they can truly live up to it is another matter, even as you say, if the child concerned wanted them to pretend they could do so. .

 

[MarciKS]

Well they should be treated like they are their kid because they are essentially responsible for them. But if the child doesn't respond well then they will have a hard time of it for sure.

 

[grahamg]

Well they should be treated like they are their kid because they are essentially responsible for them. But if the child doesn't respond well then they will have a hard time of it for sure.

I believe their is an instinctive fear of our children being lead astray by anyone, before they are able to understand what may be happening to them, (even without considering any of the serious potential for abuses occurring).
If those in authority can ask a child whether they "love" the non resident biological parent, you can see just how far they reach into the lives of children. Is loving the none resident equal to being disloyal to the parent they reside with being one aspect, and stranger asking any child such a question is misleading them in my view too, (in line with "instinctive fear" I've mentioned, and a Canadian lawyer called Goldwater remarked upon the "need for privacy in close interpersonal relationships", so I think he indicated there is harm in officialdom sticking their noses into everything).
You obviously want your child treated well, and kept safe after divorce, but the situation is wide open for manipulation, as again Goldwater asserted in a quote I may be able to give you:
" There is a moral failure in smugly asserting children have rights, without taking into account their material and psychological vulnerability to manipulation and control", (or words to that effect).
Is the person saying, "If you marry someone who has kids from a previous relationship those kids are NOW your kids...." asserting benign intent, or a desire to form someone else's child in a manner you approve of, with the values you feel appropriate regardless of anything else? .

 

[MarciKS]

I believe their is an instinctive fear of our children being lead astray by anyone, before they are able to understand what may be happening to them, (even without considering any of the serious potential for abuses occurring).
If those in authority can ask a child whether they "love" the non resident biological parent, you can see just how far they reach into the lives of children. Is loving the none resident equal to being disloyal to the parent they reside with being one aspect, and stranger asking any child such a question is misleading them in my view too, (in line with "instinctive fear" I've mentioned, and a Canadian lawyer called Goldwater remarked upon the "need for privacy in close interpersonal relationships", so I think he indicated there is harm in officialdom sticking their noses into everything).
You obviously want your child treated well, and kept safe after divorce, but the situation is wide open for manipulation, as again Goldwater asserted in a quote I may be able to give you:
" There is a moral failure in smugly asserting children have rights, without taking into account their psychological vulnerability to manipulation and control", (or words to that effect).
Is the person saying, "If you marry someone who has kids from a previous relationship those kids are NOW your kids...." asserting benign intent, or a desire to form someone else's child in a manner you approve of, with the values you feel appropriate regardless of anything else? .

This is all assuming that the relationship is a healthy one. I didn't mean that just any relationship willy nilly could bluster through the childs life through beatings & brainwashing.

 

[grahamg]

This is all assuming that the relationship is a healthy one. I didn't mean that just any relationship willy nilly could bluster through the childs life through beatings & brainwashing.

There have to be assumptions made, unless you expect every parent and every child, where there might be a question mark, to be subjected to scrutiny into every aspect of their relationship, just to be absolutely sure there is not "beatings & brainwashing" going on.
When new, first time parents have responsibility for their child, and return from the maternity ward, the assumption is made they will do all in their power to care for their own child, (albeit a district nurse might call occasionally to offer advice).
In the fathers right movement one of the arguments made is that they would like to have the same rights to contact with their children, that the ex.'s new partner is afforded. No one so far as I know, is calling for new boyfriends to be scrutinised, "just in case" there is a danger they might administer beatings & brainwashing, the authorities simp!y assume the mother wouldn't introduce someone who was a danger, or that is the hope, and the assumptions being made in our society.

Moving on though, I see such appalling selfish behaviour in intact families, and parents or their children, (whoever is caring for the other), behaving as though "if they could do less, they would do", so far as the caring been shown, and absence of love on view. Given all that, it is little wonder perhaps, that UK authorities are so reluctant to allow statuary rights to be enacted for parents.
Sorry I've been on my fathers rights bandwagon again, maybe I should do as previously suggested, and try to contact Dr. Furedi. .

 

[grahamg]

My answer is both yes and no.
Had I met and married a man who had babies and/or young children at the time, then yes, because I would have a hand in raising his children from the time they were young, so I would accept them as my own, but if I met a man later in life and his children were grown and out on their own, aside from having a relationship with them through my mate, I wouldn't classify the kids as my own, and chances are good they would see me in the same light.
Nothing more than me being a mate or partner of their fathers, and as far as them to me, nothing more than children outside of my relationship or marriage.

I think your answer is fair, and in a sense you would have to either treat a young child you had a hand in raising as much as though they were your own, or in a sense persecute them for not being yours.
Bob Marley had five children with his wife, and four other children I believe, outside wedlock. After Bob's death his wife said she managed to change her view that she could never accept his other children into the family, and managed to do so.
A friend of mine formed a relationship with someone who was six months pregnant when he met her, (she'd had two other children from her first marriage, and had been unfaithful thus breaking up that relationship). Somehow a fairly stable family was for ed through these unpromising circumstances. My mate wanted to be seen as "the dad" to all three, but did not interfere in the real father of the older two children seeing him, and the baby, when she arrived, and whoever the father was didn't want to be involved, he did raise as his own, (he'd already got a daughter from his own first marriage living with him btw).
Apologies for long story, but my mate said of his role in those children's lives, was one where he had to discipline himself, in order to provide stability for them. I guess he'd give the same answer you gave therefore, (maybe I'll ask him?). .

 

[Pecos]

All these situations are unique in my opinion. I only have one data point for this discussion.

My second wife had a wonderful three year old daughter Tina and I adored that little girl. The little girl also loved her father who I came to respect and found easy to work with. Tina's mother proved to be a awful parent and if the little girl scraped her knee or became frightened by something, I was the one she came to. I also intervened when her erratic mother got carried away with discipline (and she was borderline cruel).

The little girl resolved the father vs step-father question all on her own by calling, and referring, to me as "My Pecos." I rather liked that. When my 14 year old son came to live with us for a couple of years, she was thrilled with having a brother, and they got along famously. My son also got to know Tina's father and went on camping/fishing trips with the two of them.

I had to step in several times to prevent Tina's mother from making life difficult for Tina's father, and she resented the fact that I returned part of his child support to him in the form of Savings Bonds for her education.

When I finally had enough of the mother (and living with her was awful), I forced the issue and spent the money to get custody of Tina moved to her father. It was quite a fight, but she was physically and emotionally abusive. It was one of the finer things I have ever done.

I always ponder my stupidity in not seeing what kind of person the mother was before I got hooked up with her. But people can fool you, and I did not see it coming. At some point her ability to rationalize bad behavior would have been a danger to me as well.

I suppose that getting Tina back with her father was one of my assigned roles in life as it had to be done and her father did not have the resources or will to do it. He passed away a few years ago, and Tina is now a mental health professional.

 

[JaniceM]

The expert above asks parents, (or I'd guess stepparents?), to examine their motives, because he says they may not be being honest with themselves. I'd say there are plenty of instances where a stepparent, or potential stepparent, does everything in their power to convince a partner they are having an affair with, or wish to do so, will try to convince them they're acting in the children's best interests by breaking up their marriage, and they'll "treat the children as their own!"

I know of one guy who had given up his own son for adoption by the mother aged two, when their relationship broke down, (thereby not having to pay towards him), and then went on to convince a married mother of another two year old, that he would love and treat this child as his own, and become the "real father".

I witness extreme selfishness and disfunction in intact families between patents and their children sometimes, so the potential for self interest to trump all, when persuading a wife to abandon her marriage, is not to be wondered at as a possibility. .

Re: first paragraph: the catch, though, is there are also instances in which the individuals are "honest with themselves"- it's everybody else they try to con.
When an outsider takes too much interest in children that are not their own, that itself should be a "red flag" for the parent they're focusing on to "run screaming in the opposite direction."

Re: second paragraph: whether individuals abandoned their own children, lost them, never had any, etc., one con can be a sob-story or a pity-ploy: "All I want is a Family!!!"

I've encountered all kinds of "ick" from these types- "Nobody could possibly love that child as much as I do!" to informing me it wouldn't be a big deal if I die, because "I'LL take/raise your kids!"

I'll also add- I don't know what it's like in your country, but from my experiences and others I've seen, for individuals with wrongdoing on their minds minor-aged kids represent one thing: $. From the actual parent's income to the ability to claim various government benefits that they're not legally or morally entitled to, all they need to do is 'set claim' to kids that are not rightfully theirs.

 

[JaniceM]

All these situations are unique in my opinion. I only have one data point for this discussion.

My second wife had a wonderful three year old daughter Tina and I adored that little girl. The little girl also loved her father who I came to respect and found easy to work with. Tina's mother proved to be a awful parent and if the little girl scraped her knee or became frightened by something, I was the one she came to. I also intervened when her erratic mother got carried away with discipline (and she was borderline cruel).

The little girl resolved the father vs step-father question all on her own by calling, and referring, to me as "My Pecos." I rather liked that. When my 14 year old son came to live with us for a couple of years, she was thrilled with having a brother, and they got along famously. My son also got to know Tina's father and went on camping/fishing trips with the two of them.

I had to step in several times to prevent Tina's mother from making life difficult for Tina's father, and she resented the fact that I returned part of his child support to him in the form of Savings Bonds for her education.

When I finally had enough of the mother (and living with her was awful), I forced the issue and spent the money to get custody of Tina moved to her father. It was quite a fight, but she was physically and emotionally abusive. It was one of the finer things I have ever done.

I always ponder my stupidity in not seeing what kind of person the mother was before I got hooked up with her. But people can fool you, and I did not see it coming. At some point her ability to rationalize bad behavior would have been a danger to me as well.

I suppose that getting Tina back with her father was one of my assigned roles in life as it had to be done and her father did not have the resources or will to do it. He passed away a few years ago, and Tina is now a mental health professional.

Sounds like you're one of the good guys... Bless you.. and I hope Tina still appreciates everything you've done for her!

 

[grahamg]

Sounds like you're one of the good guys... Bless you.. and I hope Tina still appreciates everything you've done for her!

There are good guys out there, BUT even where a parent/stepparent is doing overall a brilliant job, I agree with you on the argument in your previous post, some are out to con everyone, in both small matters and large, (perhaps Dr. Furedi was being deliberately conciliatory or politically correct, by phrasing his view in terms of people not being honest with themselves, human failing though that is).

I've known of cases where a mother told her child was "mamma", knowing full well " dada" was their first word, and she'd disliked their saying this first and commented upon it herself at the time, so no room for the excuse they were not being honest with themselves.

However, that is a small matter, whilst telling their child they "know everything they're thinking, and everything they're going to say before they say it" strikes me as being control freakery, so quite serious, especially if they then go on to say to the child, "we only want what you want" in relation to the nonresident parent, and "we know you don't want contact" or words to that effect. .

 

[JaniceM]

There are good guys out there, BUT even where a parent/stepparent is doing overall a brilliant job, I agree with you on the argument in your previous post, some are out to con everyone, in both small matters and large, (perhaps Dr. Furedi was being deliberately conciliatory or politically correct, by phrasing his view in terms of people not being honest with themselves, human failing though that is).

I've known of cases where a mother told her child was "mamma", knowing full well " dada" was their first word, and she'd disliked their saying this first and commented upon it herself at the time, so no room for the excuse they were not being honest with themselves.

However, that is a small matter, whilst telling their child they "know everything they're thinking, and everything they're going to say before they say it" strikes me as being control freakery, so quite serious, especially if they then go on to say to the child, "we only want what you want" in relation to the nonresident parent, and "we know you don't want contact" or words to that effect. .

(This is a quote from something I have here):
"Many people may be familiar with one particular form of bad parenting..: the approach of essentially nullifying a child's thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, by claiming the child does not really have those thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. The purpose was to convince a child that his thoughts, feelings, and beliefs were actually one-in-the-same as whatever his parent wanted him to think, feel, or believe.
And.. they are generally given positive reinforcements for compliance , and negative reactions if they refuse.
In other words.. they are prodded to give up 'their Truth' and 'their Reality' in favor of someone else's."


Accurate?