"In the parenting and family magazines that I read, the era of the 1950's is frequently used as a comparison to the domestic 'health' of families today. In a way, I am suggesting that if something worked then it should be used today. Technology doesn't fall into this category; I'm an engineer. Having Mom at home when the kids came home from school kept them out of trouble, doing their homework and keeping an eye on who they were associating with. Crime statistics, teen pregnancies, drop-out rates, gang violence, drug usage by teens, etc..., are indicators to me that more of the same 'laid-back or hands-free parenting' is only going to get us into more trouble. . . . Kids learn from their parents, and parents that do not accept their responsibilities will probably raise kids that simply rely on the government systems to further their own existence."
The 1950's obsession is a myth. People were just as dysfunctional then as they are now, they were just trained to hide it better. My mother grew up in the 1950's and her father would back-hand the kids without warning for minor infractions. My father grew up in the 1950's and his father ignored him completely. (And these were good families). Nobody was ever "Ozzie and Harriet". Even Ozzie and Harriet weren't "Ozzie and Harriet".
Children have problems when their parents control them without listening to them or accepting them as individuals and people. I see this with my Sunday-school students. There is a huge difference between the kids whose parents talk to them and encourage them, and the ones whose parents manage their behavior without really tuning in to who they are. Listening to your kids is not the same thing as being too friendly (my parents always treated me with respect but believe me, I knew who was in charge). Kids who don't feel like they can measure up don't feel safe talking to their parents about important things. I made enough mistakes but I always knew I could go to my mom and dad with something and they would love me anyway. My brother and I never drank, smoke, did drugs, weren't running around with rough kids, weren't out late, weren't having sex. We weren't anywhere near perfect by Grant standards--we could have been cleaner, we could have been "cooler", we didn't vacuum the cars much, etc.--but we turned out OK.
He's taking his "Broken Windows" theory to an extreme. Some sand and dog hair in the car isn't going to put anyone over the edge. There's a big difference between "not being a housecleaning fanatic" and actually living in filth (we weren't fanatics, but our house was never filthy). Life is way too short to waste it worrying about whether everything is exactly where it belongs, all the time.
I'm extremely disturbed by his refusal to wear his wedding ring, and I don't feel like he's actually made any progress in letting go of his perfectionism. He should have figured out the emotional validation thing a long, long, time ago; she's a person, not a robot.
Dr. Phil revisits the topic of what makes a good wife. Grant and Kelly first appeared on the show because Grant expected his wife to live up to his demanding standards. He wanted a cleaner house, better meals and a sexier spouse. After seven years, his constant criticism and disappointment had her ready to throw in the towel on trying to become the "perfect wife." Dr. Phil’s first talk with Grant and Kelly caused quite a stir as thousands of viewers wrote in choosing sides. How are Grant and Kelly now? Has Grant abandoned his critical ways and his expectation of having a Stepford wife? And why is he no longer wearing his wedding ring? Talk about the show here.
