Can anyone please explain the mindset of parents who allow “failure to launch”?

[Anonymous]

My coworker has two adults sons living with him and his wife. They both work full time and mom does everything (clean, cook, laundry). I always sense that the mom sort of likes having her sons in the house. So maybe failure to launch in some way benefits parents (even if it’s a psychological).

[Anonymous]

Most cultures have inter generational homes and don't consider it "failure to launch." Also, you don't have as much control over your kids as you think. Your kids may end up a big mess no matter what a great job you did raising them. What are you going to do then, kick them to the curb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many men have this problem?

The patriarchy? Not really joking.

Seems like the opposite. As it is dismantled we get more of it.

No, weird cousin Joe just stayed inside with Ma centuries ago so he wouldn’t get injured on the farm equipment or the train tracks or in the saber tooth tiger cave.

That would not be different than the scenario being talked about here.

Correct. So no, there is not more of it now, not due to shining a light on the patriarchy

Feel like I've read that a lot more men have dropped out of the workforce in recent years/decades. If they can't get the job they feel they are entitled to, they don't want to work.

They are good candidates for tough love then, help them plan their lives back to working and having a routine. But don’t give them free food, free housing and no obligations. That’s molly coddling

It would seem fair to do a graduated plan if a kid didn’t launch. What might that look like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many men have this problem?

The patriarchy? Not really joking.

Seems like the opposite. As it is dismantled we get more of it.

No, weird cousin Joe just stayed inside with Ma centuries ago so he wouldn’t get injured on the farm equipment or the train tracks or in the saber tooth tiger cave.

That would not be different than the scenario being talked about here.

Correct. So no, there is not more of it now, not due to shining a light on the patriarchy

Feel like I've read that a lot more men have dropped out of the workforce in recent years/decades. If they can't get the job they feel they are entitled to, they don't want to work.

They are good candidates for tough love then, help them plan their lives back to working and having a routine. But don’t give them free food, free housing and no obligations. That’s molly coddling

It would seem fair to do a graduated plan if a kid didn’t launch. What might that look like?

Same thing you do for SN kids, scaffold and habits, then take away the scaffolding one by one over time.

[Anonymous]

I just gotta say… i’m (pleasantly) surprised that most of the responses in this thread are shitting on OP… the understanding many are showing here is not what I’d come to expect from the ultra-competitive type-A personalities who have their kids’ lives and route success planned out from birth; thatl I normally see here.

+10000 to everyone who is showing compassion and understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most cultures have inter generational homes and don't consider it "failure to launch." Also, you don't have as much control over your kids as you think. Your kids may end up a big mess no matter what a great job you did raising them. What are you going to do then, kick them to the curb?

Many cultures who do this are a mess. People should be able to be independent or at least contributing to their own livelihood for half of their life at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Usually it is mental illness or some other disability that prompts a family to care about their child’s welfare. I suppose they don’t want to see him dead in the streets.

This.

My brother vanished 13 years ago after arguments about basic expectations. It has tortured my parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you know they “allow” this?

Because they haven’t kicked him out? Haven’t stopped paying for his phone/car/insurance/etc etc. Are you serious?

Yup.

For our kids they always knew they were heading to college. Since both were academically capable it wasn't an issue. But if one had decided they wanted a different path we would have been open to it. They could do technical school and a trade if that's what they really wanted to do. however, they grew up knowing that it's their job at 18 to either go to college, trade school or start working. You don't get to just sit at home and do nothing. We worked hard with our one kid who had adhd/anxiety/depression/etc to address it in late ES/MS/HS to make them the "best person they are capable of being". First year of college was challenging, then they switched majors and did well. Started a job 2 weeks after college graduation and doing well almost 2 years later.
If we had a kid with more serious issues, then we would have worked with them to find the right path---including therapy and medications, exec functioning coaching (I was able to do most of that for our one), etc to help them deal with their issues in order to be successful members of society. If CC or trade school was a good path, so be it.
All kids can live at home, but they must be doing something (school or full time employment) and if it's just working (and not attending college), then they would be paying rent, which we would save to give back to them later. I would want them to learn the financial aspects of their choices in life---that working at Target for 40 hours/week means you can only afford this apt and that car, etc. You have to learn to live within your means, but going to college largely can lead to better job options (or at least trade school and a AA in business because it's hard to be a plumber on the job when you are 50+, it's manual labor, much better to move on to owning your own business and managing the plumbers or hvac team)

but no way in hell would by 20 yo be living at home without going to school or getting a full time job. That's a recipe for failure to launch, it is only going to get worse

You don't have a child with a major disability or psychological issue.

Exactly!

If only, it was so easy to fix schizophrenia or bipolar I.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually it is mental illness or some other disability that prompts a family to care about their child’s welfare. I suppose they don’t want to see him dead in the streets.

This.

My brother vanished 13 years ago after arguments about basic expectations. It has tortured my parents.

Watch some movies about addicts. Even star in born.
You can literally do everything for them for zero payoff or improvement. You cannot your job, you can spend down your savings, you can hire the top psychologist and 12 month retreat clinic. Twice.

Zero payoff.

The mentally disordered person or addict has to want and drive the improvement. Not Mommy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many men have this problem?

The patriarchy? Not really joking.

Seems like the opposite. As it is dismantled we get more of it.

No, weird cousin Joe just stayed inside with Ma centuries ago so he wouldn’t get injured on the farm equipment or the train tracks or in the saber tooth tiger cave.

That would not be different than the scenario being talked about here.

Correct. So no, there is not more of it now, not due to shining a light on the patriarchy

Feel like I've read that a lot more men have dropped out of the workforce in recent years/decades. If they can't get the job they feel they are entitled to, they don't want to work.

They are good candidates for tough love then, help them plan their lives back to working and having a routine. But don’t give them free food, free housing and no obligations. That’s molly coddling

It would seem fair to do a graduated plan if a kid didn’t launch. What might that look like?

Same thing you do for SN kids, scaffold and habits, then take away the scaffolding one by one over time.

+1

They are a form of Special Needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My coworker has two adults sons living with him and his wife. They both work full time and mom does everything (clean, cook, laundry). I always sense that the mom sort of likes having her sons in the house. So maybe failure to launch in some way benefits parents (even if it’s a psychological).

I agree with this. My 30 something cousins work full time, make good money and live with their parents. One of them has a girlfriend he stays with sometimes and one doesn't date. My aunt absolutely loves having them at home because it makes her feel like she's still a young mother. She tries to commiserate with me about "cooking for boys" even though my boys are actually children!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My coworker has two adults sons living with him and his wife. They both work full time and mom does everything (clean, cook, laundry). I always sense that the mom sort of likes having her sons in the house. So maybe failure to launch in some way benefits parents (even if it’s a psychological).

I agree with this. My 30 something cousins work full time, make good money and live with their parents. One of them has a girlfriend he stays with sometimes and one doesn't date. My aunt absolutely loves having them at home because it makes her feel like she's still a young mother. She tries to commiserate with me about "cooking for boys" even though my boys are actually children!

Maybe she just enjoys being a mother. People who enjoy it don't just turn it off once their kids turn 18. People who were just going through the motions might be a different story.

That would gall me to compare cooking for adult kids to the relentless demands of feeding actual kids, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My coworker has two adults sons living with him and his wife. They both work full time and mom does everything (clean, cook, laundry). I always sense that the mom sort of likes having her sons in the house. So maybe failure to launch in some way benefits parents (even if it’s a psychological).

I don’t see this as a failure to launch. The kids have FT jobs and I would
Imagine are banking a ton of $$$s to be able to buy their own homes when the time is right. Assuming they are out dating and everyone lives independently, then it seems fine. Perhaps all the cooking and cleaning is overboard.

This especially makes sense in high cost areas. I also assume if the parents said hey, it’s time to go or they are selling the house and moving it wouldn’t result in a mental breakdown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cultures have inter generational homes and don't consider it "failure to launch." Also, you don't have as much control over your kids as you think. Your kids may end up a big mess no matter what a great job you did raising them. What are you going to do then, kick them to the curb?

Many cultures who do this are a mess. People should be able to be independent or at least contributing to their own livelihood for half of their life at least.

What cultures are you referring? The US was like this until the 1950s when the idea of the nuclear family (mom, dad and 2.3 kids living on their own) took on a life of its own.

You now read stories of the family “compound” coming back because the cost of housing, childcare and elder care is so expensive.

Usually, this is parents building an ADU where children come live, or the parents move into the ADU and the kids take over the house. Parents able to help with childcare and know they have family close by if they have an emergency.

This set up usually doesn’t involve kids never leaving…but maybe they are single until their 30s and everyone agrees the arrangement makes a ton of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cultures have inter generational homes and don't consider it "failure to launch." Also, you don't have as much control over your kids as you think. Your kids may end up a big mess no matter what a great job you did raising them. What are you going to do then, kick them to the curb?

Many cultures who do this are a mess. People should be able to be independent or at least contributing to their own livelihood for half of their life at least.

What cultures are you referring? The US was like this until the 1950s when the idea of the nuclear family (mom, dad and 2.3 kids living on their own) took on a life of its own.

You now read stories of the family “compound” coming back because the cost of housing, childcare and elder care is so expensive.

Usually, this is parents building an ADU where children come live, or the parents move into the ADU and the kids take over the house. Parents able to help with childcare and know they have family close by if they have an emergency.

This set up usually doesn’t involve kids never leaving…but maybe they are single until their 30s and everyone agrees the arrangement makes a ton of sense.

My father lived in a "family compound" like that -- several houses facing a quad. This was in the South. He left and never looked back. We never visited any of his relatives and lived as a strictly nuclear family. I really think, despite our idyllic suburban childhoods, that we missed out on a lot not having relatives around. It's just not healthy to live that way IMO. You see this all over DCUM -- the claws come out at even the slightest hint of overlapping with anyone else. Strange and pathological IMO, signs of an unsustainable society.