Campus Free Speech

Psychiatrist: Overprotective Parents Are Creating Easily-Offended College Students

Kids needs a dose of reality, not protection from it.

|

Psych
Dreamstime

Experts worry that overprotective parenting has its own drawbacks: it creates kids who can't handle failure, being alone, or making friends. But what if it also has something to do with the phenomenon of hyper-offended college students?  

My colleague Lenore Skenazy and I have previously expressed concerns that helicoptered kids turn into helpless teenagers. When college students demand protection from everything that bothers them, they are in a sense demanding a continuation of the coddling so many of them have received throughout their entire lives. 

Dr. Abilash Gopal, a psychiatrist and author, agrees. In a terrific article for The Huffington Post, he writes

Overparenting is widely recognized as a problematic approach to raising kids. For nearly a decade, studies have shown how the rise of the "helicopter parent" has been worsening children's anxiety and school performance in the K-12 years. Now we're witnessing what happens when the overparented child grows up, and it's a trainwreck that is painful to watch, but impossible to ignore. … 

It seems likely that many of the students at elite and liberal colleges who are complaining about the ways in which the world is keeping them down were once children raised by helicopter parents. The coddled child becomes the entitled teenager. The teen who expects his parents to fix his problems becomes the college student who demands that professors and administrators remove his obstacles. 

If we continue to walk on eggshells to avoid offending these hypersensitive young adults, we are empowering their victimhood status. If we continue to indulge their irrational demands, we are robbing them of the opportunity to learn how to function independently in the real world. If we continue to overparent our kids, we are in danger of raising further generations of adolescents that are missing three key virtues of character: self-reliance, self-confidence, and resilience. 

Gopal isn't just theorizing: he's handled cases where kids used their perceived victimhood status as a crutch, thwarting healthy emotional growth. 

His article echoes the claims made by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt in their groundbreaking piece for The Atlantic"The Coddling of the American Mind." We do young people no favors when our efforts to shield them from reality leave them incapable of coping with it. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

139 responses to “Psychiatrist: Overprotective Parents Are Creating Easily-Offended College Students

  1. I am shocked I tell you, shocked! Stranger danger led to safe spaces. I am not looking forward to what comes next.

    1. One could look at this through the eyes of an evolutionary biologists and state that am increase in neoteny is a natural trend in evolution. Humans are physically just infantalized monkeys. Look at baby chimps – they look like human babies. So, now college students are acting like five year olds. It’s just neoteny.

  2. Libertarian-wise; I don’t have a problem with overparenting as much as I have a problem with overparenting by proxy or in absentia.

    1. Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur.

      1. And ‘Overparenting is detrimental to children’s upbringing’ is tautological.

        My point wasn’t to question the research or besmirch anyone’s standing as a good libertarian as much as to point out that the worst part about helicopter parents, IMO, isn’t that they coddle their children as much as they insist *everyone* coddle their children in any circumstance and/or that everyone’s children be coddled. As libertarians, there’s (presumed consensus that there’s) little we can do about how they raise their kids as compared to how kids should be generally handled or how much influence their desire for coddling should have on others’ kids.

        Now that the science on overparenting is settled, what’s a libertarian to do?

  3. Gopal isn’t just theorizing: he’s handled cases where kids used their perceived victimhood status as a crutch, thwarting healthy emotional growth.

    I am reminded of a similar instance =


    Whining Student = Forty seven percent of the women in my graduating class who interacted with single-sex social organizations reported, by the time that they graduated, they had been sexually assaulted. ..!!.

    Vice President of the United State: Well, I think it indicates that there’s a real problem at Harvard*, and it’s the responsibility of the president of Harvard University and the administration to go in and investigate it

    *(clearly, the problem is *Harvard*, and not some change in the way students define ‘assault’)

    Government to College Kids = “Daddy’s going to fix everything for snookums”

    1. I give them more credit. These “offended victims” are no such thing and they know they are no such thing. They are simply reacting to stimulus response here. They know that can get what they want by acting out. They are not truly offended. They don’t feel unsafe. They want something, and we have given them the hammer with which to bludgeon that something out of us.

      The only reality they DON’T get is that their nice shiny hammer doesn’t work on most of the planet. And they will one day use it on the wrong people and end up with it up their ass.

      1. The only reality they DON’T get is that their nice shiny hammer doesn’t work on most of the planet

        I think that’s true now.

        I’m less sure that will be the case in 10 years.

        1. True criminals and repressive regimes aren’t going away in ten years. Yes the majority of the populous may succumb to pandering to these idiots but crooks will only see opportunity.

          As a matter of fact, I think I just came up with an evolutionary theory on the need for crooks…I will get back to you after I publish.

  4. INCONCEIVABLE!

    1. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

      1. Prepare to die.

  5. Can someone say “problematic?”

    1. Hitler.

    2. Jeebus on a pogo stick, but I am sick of that word.

      1. You’re problematic, sir.

        1. Wait till the counterculture makes being problematic “cool.”

          Maybe Dean will be R C Carlin.

  6. This guy’s patients are a trip.

    This reminds me of a former patient of mine, a male college student who I saw in weekly therapy. He had been raised by a tolerant family in a liberal community that accepted him for being gay. However, in childhood he complained of feeling oppressed and often acted out in anger. His parents and mental health clinicians validated his perception of being discriminated against unquestioningly, even though there were no significant events or trauma to substantiate his beliefs.

    During our sessions, this patient would express deep resentment for not being accepted. He claimed with outrage that on his college campus, “People might stare at me if I chose to wear a dress one day.” When I pointed out that he attended an extremely liberal college in the Bay Area, and that it was less likely that people would respond in an aggressive way if he wore a dress there, he could not be budged from his furious stance. He was unable to believe that the world could ever be accepting towards him, and that made him bitter and isolated. He dropped out of school shortly thereafter, stating that he could not feel safe in such a hostile environment. He was unable to make progress in therapy and ended up quitting prematurely.

    I am gay, won’t someone oppress me!!! How fucked up do you have to be to think the bay area is oppressing you because you are gay?

    1. I think its a factor of “You Get More of What You Reward” going overboard.

      People in places like San Fran take victimhood to such insane extremes that they start eating their own tails, ourobouros-style

      1. Being a victim is a way of feeling superior to others. That is an incredibly fucked up and unhealthy culture. But it is the culture these idiots have created.

          1. Bullshit under-representation of yachts! Boats need to be risin’ up and expanding their boat-consciousness!

      2. That is still one of the ugliest men I have ever seen. He needs to fucking moisturize. His face looks like a crocodile’s carapace.

        Crusty would

        1. There are differences between the races. Black guys can wear dred locks and still look clean and professional. Whenever a white person tries it, they look like a dirty hippie. Someone needs to explain to him that he is white and wearing dreds is just not an option. The genetic Gods are against him on this one.

          1. Go tell that to the Spartans.

          2. With the amount of white people who have worn dreds historically… I’d say it’s rather just that there are professional-looking black people who want to wear dreds, but the only white people who want to wear dreds are already dirty hippies.

    2. He was unable to believe that the world could ever be accepting towards him, and that made him bitter and isolated.

      Self-fulfilling prophecy. Act like an asshole, and people will treat you like an asshole. I suspect that much of what the SJWs complain about is a perfectly natural and predictable reaction to the way they act.

      They look around and see normals treating each other reasonably well. Then they look at how normals treat them, and go all “oppression!”, overlooking that they practically demand that people react negatively to them.

      1. I don’t even think it is that. I think people likely treat them well and kiss their ass. They look for reasons to feel oppressed because they want to feel oppressed. Being a victim is in their mind a way to be superior. If I am a “victim” I can feel morally superior to you my oppressor. The whole point is to find oppression even where none exists.

        1. Not only that, but being a “victim” gives them an automatic out to excuse their failures. The fucktard in the above story probably tells everyone he encounters, every chance he gets, about how he was so oppressed for being gay that he couldn’t even finish college. That way he gets sympathy from people who take his tale of woe at face value, but he also gives himself an excuse for being a total fuck up.

          I also suspect that his “tolerant, liberal parents” probably convinced him that the world is chocked full of homophobes and bigots to the point where he actually started to assume that everyone he encountered was a hateful bigot, no matter how matter how nice they were to him. I can’t even imagine a more sure fire way to fuck up a kid than that.

      2. I suspect that much of what the SJWs complain about is a perfectly natural and predictable reaction to the way they act.

        Not sure? I get a feeling of latent racist/segregationist beliefs from SJWs.

        I know one SJW who goes full on apoplectic/Incredible Hulk if a white person says, “Namaste!”, or has mehndi. I have a feeling their friends reinforce it, too.

        It’s like their happiness, mental stability, etc., is dependent upon other people living their lives according to the SJW’s rules. It reminds me of SoCons but I think it goes beyond SoCons.

        Did SoCons wake up in a rage at the thought of two men marrying each other?

        1. I would hazard a guess that most SoCons could interact courteously even with people whom they disagree, or even see as sinful. Sure, there are die-hard preaching types, but for the rest they actually have doctrinal messages concerning turning the other cheek and loving sinners but hating the sin. So there is some under-pinning to their position that allows, if not encourages, SoCons to be polite to those who are not like them or living their lives differently.

          SJWs don’t have that doctrine. They’re encouraged to call out behavior they hate; whether face-to-face or, more commonly, the cowards way online. THeir position isn’t about educating or trying to get people to change their minds, but to brow-beat into submission.

    3. A certain mindset produces behavior that is indistinguishable from the behavior of the emotionally disturbed. There seems to be a lot of explanation here to keep from saying “This kind of parenting is dysfunctional and produces personality disorders”. Personality disorders can’t be fixed.

      For those who don’t know: Each part of your personality develops during a specific stage in your development. Once it develops it is more or less set for life. If you don’t have the proper environment during the time of that development then it develops improperly, or may not develop at all. If it doesnt develop then it never will.

      What these people are doing is evil. They are literally fucking these kids up for life.

      1. I think Jung was right in thinking everyone has an archetype that we try and live up to. We are all actors on a stage playing some part we choose for ourselves. These people are getting these kids to choose being a victim and being miserable as their archetype. Their entire sense of self and self worth is based on the perverse pride that comes with being a victim.

        You are right. That is fucked up and down right evil.

        1. Hey, it worked for Christianity.

          They adopted a culture of victimhood that celebrated the martyr who died for his faith and as a result created a culture that ruled the world for a thousand years.

          In fact now that I am thinking about it it kind of terrifies me as there are a lot of parallels between the rise of Christianity and the rise of Social Justice Progressivism.

          Both married the creation of a cult of victimhood that appealed to the masses with a deference and even reverence for centralized authority that appealed to the ruling class, in Christianity’s case that created a growth model that was almost undefeatable for 500 years and was only stopped when it ran face first into the younger and more robust Islamic movement. and even then that halt was only temporary.

          1. They adopted a culture of victimhood that celebrated the martyr who died for his faith and as a result created a culture that ruled the world for a thousand years.

            That is completely absurd. Christianity adopted the idea that someone else died for their sins and allowed them to obtain God’s forgiveness by simply asking for it. Christianity offers a way out of victim-hood. SJW offers nothing only victimhood.

            You completely misunderstand Christianity. It is the exact opposite of what you claim.

            1. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.

              Turn the other cheek

              It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

              What are all of those but a celebration of the weak and downtrodden? In fact one of the central themes of Christianity (adhered to more by some sects than others but until the rise of the Joel Osteen ministry acknowledged by virtually all sects of the religion) was that it was a sin to seek earthly rewards and pleasures, virtue arose solely from seeking rewards in the afterlife.

              How is all of that NOT a culture that celebrates victimhood?

              1. Of course, there’s also the bits about free will and reaping what you sow and all that.

                “Blessed are the meek” sounds like the NAP to me.

                “Turn the other cheek” sounds like advice to give the other guy one chance to straighten up before you light him up.

                1. “Turn the other cheek” sounds like advice to give the other guy one chance to straighten up before you light him up.

                  I have an uncle who’s a Baptist minister. He has a story about some asshole once giving him shit about his religion. The guy supposedly hit him and said something like “Now, you’re supposed to turn the other cheek, right?” So my uncle did. The asshole hit him again. My uncle then proceeded to deck him. “It doesn’t say what to do after that.”

                  There’s also several other interpretations:

                  …at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was demanding equality.

              2. What are all of those but a celebration of the weak and downtrodden? I

                It is saying that you matter because you are a human being and loved by God not because you are rich or famous or powerful in this world. Telling people not to get their value from worldly success is not telling people it is good to be a victim.

              3. If you do not have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one…

              4. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.

                Meekness is not the same as weakness. It’s more closely related to humility, forgiveness, grace, and so on, traits for which SJWs are… not well known.

                Turn the other cheek

                Also a question of humility. A slap on the cheek is an insult, not a life-threatening assault. It’s a rejection of honor culture, and is closely related to other admonitions to value human life over personal property and avoid seeking personal vengeance. More to the point, it at least implies that people need to fucking suck it up and not dwell on even deci-aggressions like a slap to the face, much less micro-ones like someone looking at you funny.

                At any rate, Christianity has always been pretty clear about the fact that smug, over-educated, virtue-signalling jerks worked hand-in-hand with an oppressive state to murder Christ.

          2. It’s not an H&R thread until someone says something stupid a religion they know nothing about.

    4. “He claimed with outrage that on his college campus, “People might stare at me if I chose to wear a dress one day.” When I pointed out that he attended an extremely liberal college in the Bay Area, and that it was less likely that people would respond in an aggressive way if he wore a dress there, he could not be budged from his furious stance. He was unable to believe that the world could ever be accepting towards him, and that made him bitter and isolated. He dropped out of school shortly thereafter, stating that he could not feel safe in such a hostile environment. He was unable to make progress in therapy and ended up quitting prematurely.”

      It’s almost like left-wing victimology does extreme emotional damage to the people it’s meant to help and causes them to become terrible, pathetic failures. The fact that they are terrible and pathetic failures then reinforces the need for left-wing victimology and the cycle repeats.

      1. Yes. They get their identity and self worth from being failures. It is seriously evil and fucked up.

        1. I would like to point out the Jenner (bruce/kaitlen(sp) clearly does not suffer from the victim thing. Nor does Kristen Bell (she smacked the shit out of some asshole who grabbed her at an interview…go Princess Anna).

          I think Jenner really knows what he is worth and isn’t too interested in playing victim. hell he has an Olympic gold medal.

          1. Jenner just likes to pretend he is a woman. That doesn’t necessarily make him an SJW.

  7. I know the folks here like The Americans. Remember when the two kids had to hitchhike in the first season, they were picked up by a predator? Clearly, the series reflects the modern sensibilities, not the ones from the ’80s.

  8. Where does arresting parents for letting 12-year-olds sit in the car by themselves fit into all this?

    1. Government punishing parents who are not helicopter parents because victimized kids are easier to rule

  9. HEY EVERYONE! LOOK AT THIS MORAL PANIC!

    1. I don’t think it is a moral panic to think people like the shreeking idiot in this video need therapy and their parents methods of raising them were unsound.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0

      1. It is a moral panic when you a.) pretend the existence of idiot sons and daughters of the entitled are somehow a new phenomenon and b.) point to the existence of such as evidence that Hannibal is at the gates of Western Civilization.

        1. 1. This is a new. We are not talking about these people being stupid and entitled. We are talking about people. We are talking about adults who are so sensitive and neurotic they can’t function in anything except a conflict free environment. That is something new and beyond your typical idiot son.

          2. Something doesn’t have to be an existential threat to civilization to be a serious issue. As Gilmore points out below this is a real and common phenomenon that is becoming normalized.

          1. Respectfully, I disagree with both of your points as I have expanded upon below.

            1. Respectfully, I think you are kidding yourself. The kids this guy describes are in serious trouble. And they are representative of a significant portion of this generation. That is a big deal.

              1. nahh…when a plane crashes in the Andes the vegetarians on board will still go cannibal.

                I am not long term worried. Each generation thinks the next is stupid. It is a form of collectivism. But underneath it all the vast majority will be simple cogs in the machine, consume, fuck, reproduce, and die. This is no exception.

                1. Each generation thinks the next is stupid.

                  And sometimes they are right. Civilizations do die.

                  1. Ours is nearly planetary at this point. A Fall of Rome scenario (and I would like to point out that that is a perspective without “perspective”) is not only unlikely but would require large scale shit-goings-on. X-class flare direct hit, GRB from greater than 1000ly but less than 10,000, aliens blowing shit up, all out nuclear war (Not one or two regional conflicts). Hell, the single greatest deaths of humanity haven’t really “ended civilization” (plague, WW1, WW2, the Macarena though it was close). Countries and states fall and people do die. But most go on. We have 7 billion now so my arrow of evidence seems to be pointing up.

                    p.s. I fucking hate it when I have to be the optimist. John you dirty bastard.

                    1. Of course, there’s a difference between the Fall of Rome and the global collapse of human population.

                      I would say we are just as vulnerable to the (prolonged) collapse of a major society now as we have ever been. Rome didn’t fall in a day. It took a long time. No reason that can’t happen to us, “globalization” notwithstanding.

                    2. My point is “society” lacks the same geographically bound distinction it once had. The states of Europe can fall without us even knowing, being replaced by a new entity. I just don’t think a large scale “the end is nigh” scenario can come out of our youth being morons. There is too much inertia, technology, and non-morons. And today, technology has made it so that non-morons need not sail across a deadly sea for 2 months to “rebuild”.

    2. isn’t part of the criteria of a proper “Moral Panic” that the actual incidence of the phenomena are in fact rare-to-non-existent?

      i.e. “Rainbow Parties”, “Bath Salts”, etc.

      Yes, we know you work at a college, and “not all kids are like this“…

      but enough are that they have become commonplace, not some supre-rare-thing being wildly overblown by excess attention

      Even this kind of college-kid hypersensitivity isn’t the norm (and i dont think it is)… the thing that matters is how it has become normalized. its a kind of behavioral phenomenon which people are supposed to accept as de rigeur, rather than aberrant

      1. Well, there are over 4000 colleges and universities with 17-20 million students among them all. If this were a trend I think there would be more than just a handful of stories every month regarding all of this.

        1. Not every instance goes national. For everyone that ends up on the internet there are likely hundreds that you never hear about.

          1. Yeah, but “you never hear about it” isn’t evidence. And it falls into the same category as all the campus rapists, daycare satanists and other bogeymen that no one can prove but, gosh darn it, you “just know” are there.

            1. But you assume that everyone we don’t hear about is normal. Since we don’t know, why is that any more likely than everyone being like this? You certainly never heard of this kind of craziness going on in decades past. It seems to have come from somewhere. And it is happening at campuses all over the country and of all different types of colleges. I don’t think it is unreasonable to call it a trend.

              1. I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable, I just think that it’s ultimately inaccurate. I also think that the availability of a platform for any malcontent amplifies what would be ignored in decades past.

            2. Thank you Susan. Well said. And there are closer to 5000 degree-granted post-secondary institutions in the States. Many of them are Bible-Belt teacher’s colleges where all sorts of wacky shit happens; knowing his audience, I’m sure Robby saves those stories for his The Daily Beast work.

              1. So lets say that this kind of crap is only representative of 10% of the student population. Isn’t ten percent of American college students, including many at our most selective universities, going bat shit insane kind of a big deal?

                I know the other 90% are great and all. But 10% have lost their minds and are in need of clinical help.

                1. I think even 10 percent is a little high, but this shit has been in academia for the entire history of our civilization. Read C.S. Lewis. Read Cicero. Aristophanes made fun of Socrates and his fellow eggheads in “Cloud Cuckoo Land” all the way back in the 5th century BC. I don’t think anything has changed.

                  1. I have read the Clouds Mulatto. And maybe my translation redacted the scene where Socrates warned his students against microagressions.

                    Yeah, this kind of stuff has happened before, but it wasn’t in ancient Athens. it was in China and the people suffering from this kind of insanity were known as the Red Guards. I don’t understand how you can just dismiss this.

                    1. The original Red Guards were denounced by their school’s administration and only became powerful when given support by Mao. I’m not sure that’s the most apt analogy.

              2. “Many of them are Bible-Belt teacher’s colleges where all sorts of wacky shit happens”

                You’ll have to excuse me if I’m more concerned with the insane behavior of people at elite universities than the insane behavior of people in the Bible Belt who will never come within 1000 miles of running an important institution.

                I agree with you that the vast majority of students aren’t like this, but the reason it’s a concern is because the problem is worse *among people who will soon be in positions of authority.* Moreover, their concerns are taken so seriously by administrations, that they’re doing a lot of damage to American colleges, despite being a small minority.

                1. “Moreover, their concerns are taken so seriously by administrations, that they’re doing a lot of damage to American colleges, despite being a small minority.”

                  To expand on this, people lose their jobs and students wind up in serious trouble based on the demands of these lunatics. It’s all well and good to say ‘The children of the entitled always behave like this!’ but that isn’t much comfort to all the people whose lives are ruined by SJWs who demand scalps based on imagined offenses.

                2. Moreover, their concerns are taken so seriously by administrations, that they’re doing a lot of damage to American colleges, despite being a small minority.

                  Right, which is the same point i keep making which is repeatedly ignored.

                  I don’t care whether the victim-mongers are 10% of the college population or 2%; as far as i’m concerned it doesn’t matter at all.

                  My concern is you have everyone in power falling over each other to cater to them…hence my point about the Veep.

                3. I agree with you that the vast majority of students aren’t like this, but the reason it’s a concern is because the problem is worse *among people who will soon be in positions of authority.*

                  I’m confused. I’ve been assured several times a day on these fora that these youth are condemned to a life of coffee shop janitoring because they didn’t STEM. Now you’re telling me that they are our future leaders?

                  1. I’d say a large number of dumb people who happen to have Ivy League degrees wind up gaining positions of power in Washington, D.C.

                    I’m not saying they’ll run fortune 500 companies, but if these ideas are treated seriously by people in D.C. (and Joe Biden coming out and talking up fake rape stats would be evidence that they are) then why wouldn’t some legitimately incompetent Yale student be able to slide right in to the DC power structure?

                    1. Also, you probably shouldn’t bring up the ‘THEY DIDN’T STEM’ criticism with me, since I’ve never made that argument. I love the humanities and my main criticism is that the humanities have been dumbed down in a lot of ways. They’re important subjects if they’re treated vigorously, and the problem today isn’t that the humanities themselves are useless, it’s that a lot of humanities courses are complete jokes that everyone realizes are easy As.

                    2. I’d say a large number of dumb people who happen to have Ivy League degrees wind up gaining positions of power in Washington, D.C.

                      Again, I don’t see how this is any different than the status quo since time immemorial.

                      Also, you probably shouldn’t bring up the ‘THEY DIDN’T STEM’ criticism with me, since I’ve never made that argument.

                      It’s not all about you, man! 🙂

                      I love the humanities and my main criticism is that the humanities have been dumbed down in a lot of ways. They’re important subjects if they’re treated vigorously, and the problem today isn’t that the humanities themselves are useless, it’s that a lot of humanities courses are complete jokes that everyone realizes are easy As.

                      Well said. If anything, the humanities are the cure for the problem. The whole point of the discipline is to be exposed to the history of human thought and to engage with those thoughts that challenge your beliefs in a rational manner. That having been said, even if our liberal arts schools were churning out little Adam Smiths, government being what it is is only going to incentivize the venal and incompetent to seek employment with them.

                  2. I thought it was more “they can’t do anything more productive than coffee shop janitoring, but will gravitate toward positions of (petty) authority.”

                    1. can’t do anything more productive than coffee shop janitoring, but will gravitate toward positions of (petty) authority.

                      I think that’s the entirety Bernie Sander’s resume.

        2. If this were a trend I think there would be more than just a handful of stories every month regarding all of this.

          I don’t think there’s any question its a “trend”.

          i accept it is probably just a kooky 10% that makes a lot of noise, who will quickly lose their captive audience upon graduation and have to adapt to a-far-less-giving-a-shit ‘real world’.

          my point is just that these people are mostly still being told that they are “normal” for making themselves into perma-victims. hence my point about VP Biden patting crazy-girl on her head and saying, “Yes dear, they’re ALL rapists, aren’t they?”

          1. Meh. They’ll get kicked in the ass by reality and the politicians will always find someone to pander to. I’m not disputing that there are a bunch of dummies running around, mind, I just don’t see that this merits any more than mild concern.

            1. fair enough.

              And i’m not sure there’s anything here OTHER than ‘mild concern’ really…., contra HM’s claim that we’re all predicting the end of the world and collapse of Western Civ.

              (maybe some are = i’m more of the view that the impact will be subtle at best, if unpleasant)

              I had an incident *way way way* back in the late 1990s where a crazy-chick in the office felt people were always “dismissing” her opinions, and within months of being hired had filed a half-dozen discrimination complaints against everyone she interacted with.

              Fortunately i worked for a british firm based in the US, and they just told her to pound-pavement and that was that. They were small enough to get away with it.

              Now? I’m pretty sure that woman would have had everyone’s scalp before she left with a settlement.

              That’s basically what i see coming from all this. Complaining gets rewarded = so find things to complain about.

      2. but enough are that they have become commonplace, not some supre-rare-thing being wildly overblown by excess attention

        Do you have non-Soave/Skenazy empirical evidence for this? Considering that I’ve pointed out, with evidence, on 3 separate occasions that Soave flat-out lied about the implementation of a speech code at the University of New Hampshire, I don’t consider him a trustworthy source (Oh, the irony!)

        he thing that matters is how it has become normalized. its a kind of behavioral phenomenon which people are supposed to accept as de rigeur, rather than aberrant

        Please! The priorities of the average college student haven’t changed: Get drunk, get laid. Do people like the ones Robby describe exist? Of course. Are they the existential threat to truth, justice, and the American way that Robby and some of the commentariat portray them as? Fuck no!

        1. Do you have non-Soave/Skenazy empirical evidence for this?

          i read the papers, I read the blog @ FIRE, , and many of the same stories Soave/Skenazy cover are echoed in other media. I’m not saying they don’t make hay out of minor incidents, but unlike you i haven’t seen many of these minor incidents turn out to be “faked” at all.

          I think its a little weird to suggest that “there’s no real evidence” after years and years of rape-culture hysteria, speech-codes, and the number of campus-protest crises that have occurred even in the last 6 months. that seems to be similar to the counter-case being made in the debate McWhorter et al had on “free speech being threatened” on campus = one side simply said, “There’s no problem at all”.

          To be clear = I don’t think anything is an “existential threat to truth, justice, and the American way”.

          Can something ever at least be concerning without being a threat to the fabric of society? I’m not sure what your standard is for allowing criticism = either its a communist-plot to overthrow America, or its “no big deal” and should be ignored?

          1. I think its a little weird to suggest that “there’s no real evidence” after years and years of rape-culture hysteria, speech-codes, and the number of campus-protest crises

            Now you’re mixing up several different phenomenon. My original post is poking fun at the popular narrative in these parts that the majority of college kids are hyper-sensitive snowflakes who shriek at any challenge to their beliefs, unlike us who lived during the Age of Titans. The threat, via overzealous enforcement of Title IX, of rape-culture hysteria is real. Similarly, some campus-protests fall under legitimate grievances but implemented poorly; whereas, others are prolonged hissy-fits given too much credence by all involved. In all of them, don’t you agree that these protests were squeeky wheels as opposed to reflections of actual popular sentiment?

            Can something ever at least be concerning without being a threat to the fabric of society? I’m not sure what your standard is for allowing criticism = either its a communist-plot to overthrow America, or its “no big deal” and should be ignored?

            I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be criticized. They should be criticized and satirized. But yes, get some perspective, they aren’t a “big deal” and should be seen as constituting a “News of the Weird” beat as opposed to challenging Trump as Reason’s newest obsession.

            1. don’t you agree that these protests were squeeky wheels as opposed to reflections of actual popular sentiment?

              I don’t know.

              I may have the opportunity to speak to some people (parents, students) @ Duke over the weekend, so maybe i’ll ask them how they perceived the recent Building Occupation Kerfuffle.

              1. “Closing the Allen Building while these negotiations go on has presented a significant disruption to students, faculty, staff and visitors, and cannot continue indefinitely,” the release said. “As a result, the university will only continue negotiations after the nine students voluntarily leave the Allen Building.”

                9 students. Not that 9 students squatting in a building isn’t a pain in the ass, but I went to the University of New Hampshire for my undergrad. For the 4 years I was there, every year there was a small-scale riot after the hockey championship, complete with an over-turned car or two. It never made the news. This is just the ‘art fag’ version of the frat boy riot.

                1. Again – i still think you’ve misunderstood my point from the beginning.

                  Its not the number of people involved. Its how their gripes/grievances are catered to, and the legitimacy that’s been granted to their insanity.

                  Its not about *them*, iow. Its about how they’re seen.

                  In your case of the rioting fratboys, it never made news because it was understood as being trivial.

                  These people aren’t treated as trivial.

                  1. These people aren’t treated as trivial.

                    I agree, by some at least. And the breathless reporting by Soave and Skenazy of every drama queen calling attention to him or herself on campus aren’t helping matters in that department. Nevertheless, outside of the socio-political wonk-o-sphere/A.M Talk Radio crowd, no one gives a shit. They certainly aren’t seen as “normal” and their behavior isn’t/won’t be tolerated outside of campus. That college isn’t ‘the real world’ is cliche. There are stupid venal people everywhere; some go to college and some don’t. Yet the world (and the Dude) abides.

                  2. I’m with Gilmore. Its not that there’s a minority, maybe (we don’t know) a tiny minority of batshit insane students.

                    Its that the administration and large swathes of the university community treat them as moral leaders who should be taken seriously and catered to to.

        2. Are they the existential threat to truth, justice, and the American way that Robby and some of the commentariat portray them as? Fuck no!

          Aren’t they already being accommodated with the sexual assault/title IX investigations, and couldn’t that translate to them expecting to be treated in a similar way in the workplace?

          1. That Crusty and when they are some day judges and legislators, do you really expect these people to have any respect for due process?

            1. That is the only aspect that worries me. Accommodating their mindset could easily affect my liberty.

              1. And their mindset is being accommodated way too much right now.

        3. Well, I hope you are right. I think the kids are probably alright.

        4. A group of students got a University Chancellor to resign over claims of 3 utterly unverifiable and frankly even if true trivial cases of racial “injustice” and you are trying to down play this as a joke?

          There were clearly enough students who even if they personally are not victimized in this way BELIEVE in the ideology behind such victimization that it is becoming a problem.

          It is kind of like with the terrorists and Islam, sure most are just normal people going about their day loving their family and trying to put food on the table for them, and yeah the terrorists make up maybe 1% of the population as a whole but they are not the only problem, the 15 to 20% of the Islamic world that actually agrees with the goals and motivations of the terrorists and lends them both tangible and intangible support in their mission are also part of the problem.

          Well, yeah most college students are fine and the extreme victimhood proggie crowd is maybe only 1% of the student body but their goals and motivations are supported by a good 25 to in some places 50% of the rest of the student body and that is a problem.

          1. A group of students got a University Chancellor to resign

            No, if you’re referring to Mizzou, football got a university chancellor to resign. Which happens all the time, it’s in the job description of a chancellor or president to fall on his sword over stupid shit.

            It is kind of like with the terrorists and Islam…

            So your solution is what? Institute a college PATRIOT Act? Drone them? Require a GED for the job of patting college students down before they enter a lecture hall?

            1. No, ridicule, mock mercilessly and proactively seek out any and all places where this belief system festers in our culture and eradicate (using ridicule, satire, and mockery combined with proactive discrimination against any who espouse it) it till it is driven from this earth.

              If you think someone on here is proposing a government or military solution you might just be on the wrong board

              1. If you think someone on here is proposing a government or military solution you might just be on the wrong board

                If you think those questions were sincere, perhaps you should park the satire-mobile until you learn how to drive stick. Nevertheless, I never said such behavior shouldn’t be mocked; I merely said we shouldn’t act like the Late Pants-Shitting Brooks downthread and think every over-sensationalized Robby story is a portent of the second Shoah.

            2. “No, if you’re referring to Mizzou, football got a university chancellor to resign. Which happens all the time, it’s in the job description of a chancellor or president to fall on his sword over stupid shit.”

              Well, if his supine display was supposed to protect the school, it… didn’t seem to work, judging by the dropping enrollment.

        5. Are these idiots an existential threat to our way of life? Probably not. Are they likely to be future bureaucrats and lobbyists? Certainly. Are they presently pushing nonsense on campus that destroys lives? I admit I am not sure how much blame goes to the SJW idiots and how much to our present bureaucrats pushing title IX witch hunts.

          Regardless of the danger level from the twerps, the point of this article was that coddling kids leaves them less able to cope with disagreement or conflict. In other words whether they will damage our society in any significant way is secondary to the fact that overly protective parents are screwing up their kids.

          1. Short version a swat in time might stop title IX

              1. I don’t want their dogs killed you monster!

    3. “Play them off.”
      “But HM, they wont let go of the microphone and they keep storming the stage demanding attention and safe spaces.”
      “Play them off! It’s just a small minority.”
      “But HM, this is happening in our Ivy League!”
      “JUST, play them off. La la la, can’t hear critique, la la la, non issue.”

  10. “People might stare at me if I chose to wear a dress one day.”

    “Man that is ONE UGLY GIRL… oh, wait.”

    I had a real-life conversation on this topic, long ago.

    “I DO respect his ‘right’ to wear a dress. Just don’t pretend it trumps my right to laugh at him.”

  11. Well, well. I know Dr. Gopal, in fact he used to work for me. That’s all I better say without giving away my secret identity.

    Nice work, Dr G!

    1. Hitler?

    2. Hitler?

  12. “Did I ever tell you to eat up? Go to bed? Wash your ears? Do your homework? No. I respected your privacy and I taught you self-reliance.”

    Henry Jones would have been locked up and the Nazis would have had the ultimate weapon.

    1. What a frothing madman, affording replicated versions of himself the same respect he would desire from others. Glad that never caught on.

      Where’s my facebook? I need my parenting complaints affirmed by other failures…

  13. I’m shocked an article like this was allowed on HuffPo. I’m less shocked it only has one comment.

    1. I was really hoping for some major derp in the comments. The lack of the Huffpo super users commenting on that article is very disappointing. How dare they deprive me of their idiocy!!

      1. There was an article the other day saying sanders would be the nominee even though Hillary has more delegates cause party insiders will use polls now of him vs trump.

        The comments were pure delusion. Some wanted him to implement his policies via executive action

  14. I am suddenly reminded of my college dayze. I spent a fair amount of time down at the ol’ athletic center, playing pickup basketball. There were a lot of regulars, and we knew each other pretty well. Lots of (heavy) contact; fouls were seldom called. Every now and then, some new kid, likely a hometown high school basketball hero, would show up and start whining and calling fouls and accusing us of being hacks and butchers and bullies and meanies. The universal response:

    SHUT THE FUCK UP AND PLAY, OR FUCK OFF.

    Some of those guys stayed and became regulars, and some never came back.

    We’d probably be expelled or forced into counciling, now.

    1. That was always our rule on the court, unless it was a SERIOUS injury risk or blatently obviously intentional only pussies called fouls.

  15. So your typical sanders supporter?!

    Aren’t his cult following coming from middle class and upper middle such that the government becomes their new mommy and daddy. Things aren’t as terrible as they make it

  16. I’ll just note that the commenters here are normally very, very skeptical about any findings of a psychiatrist or psychologist unless those findings comport with the commenter’s preconceptions.

    1. Sure and they should be. But when the guy’s findings also comport with about three stories a week out of college campuses, there is perhaps reason to be less skeptical than normal.

    2. I don’t really think so here in this instance….this is something that is observable pretty frequently and also in my personal experience. The coddling is detrimental here. I didn’t have to hear from a shrink to see this.

    3. Holy shit!

      You are a genius!

      It appears that people here are skeptical of those they disagree with but agree with those who support their beliefs! Wow!

      This must be the whole place on the whole internet (let alone the Outernet) where this happens!

    4. Well, we’re skeptical of “findings” that fly in the face of common sense or are obviously pushing a political agenda, yes.

      Call that confirmation bias if you want, but I will continue to require a higher level of proof for assertions that don’t comport with my personal observations of reality.

      1. Not to mention this does not fly in the face of common sense nor does it appear to be pushing any political agenda

  17. counciling

    D’OH!

  18. “Who? Hitler? Bah! That guy’s just a harmless nut, and his ‘followers’ will soon tire of his speeches and shenanigans.”

    1. For every Hitler, there are a lot of harmless nuts in the world spouting similar bullshit.

  19. For every Hitler, there are a lot of harmless nuts in the world spouting similar bullshit.

    True. You don’t know who is which until afterward. So we might as well make fun of everybody.

  20. Want to meet a girl? Welcome to http://goo.gl/mxiosK
    the Best adult Dating site!

  21. So we might as well make fun of everybody.

    Now that I can get behind.

    1. Hey, the anal sex thread is up there.

  22. I think it’s more the schools and their hypersensitivity and political correctness than it is the parents.

  23. “People might stare at me if I chose to wear a dress one day.”

    Boo fucking hoo.

    Yeah, they might. They might also stare at the guy with the blue and orange Mohawk and the guy with loops in his ears through which a tennis ball would fit. They absolutely stare at me every time I go out in public and they have to look up at me. Hell, I’m so big little kids have cried when they saw me.

    People tend to stare at things that are out of the ordinary. Suck it up, Buttercup.

  24. I don’t think these two phenomenon are really that closely related.
    The problem is that the students being hypersensitive and demanding safe spaces are generally from various disadvantaged and minority groups, whereas I think helicopter parenting is mostly a white middle-class phenomenon. It just doesn’t fit. Does anyone really think that black and Hispanic mothers are keeping their kids indoors and following them to the park so they can’t play unsupervised? Um, no.

    It’s possible that overparented white kids might end up morphing into morally intolerant SJWs, but there’s not as easy to see a connection between helicopter parenting and being a moralizing busy body, as there is between helicopter parenting and being hypersensitive.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.