Teen Parents/ Parenting

[Nihilianth]

Who said they 'must'? I don't "follow the law to a 'T'", why should they?


"One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. "
Martin Luther King

Just because "a law is a law" doesn't mean it's good, adequate, reasonable, or beneficial. I've raised humans, not slaves.


I'm not interested in your disputes from other threads.


This is veering off topic, but while I'll conceed there are almost always reasons for rules, whether they are "good" reasons- and especially who they are "good" for- is highly subjective.



I've taught them to respect people, not institutions- including governments, religions, laws, and traditions. And I've taught them to respect people's actions more than their attributes. And I've taught them to respect themselves first and foremost. I don't believe anyone "deserves" more respect than anyone else does simply because they were born first.


Exactly, that's why you're the one with the responsibility- including the responsibility to teach the kid what you know so they know it too. Where did I say otherwise?


Not on their own. But contrariwise, they are not dim little robots that are only capable of ignorant obedience. It's like the old apprenticeship system. A master blacksmith doesn't take on a young apprentice assuming he can forge a master blade, but neither does he have the boy do nothing but pump the forge bellows for 10 or more years and then expect him to be able to shoe a horse the next day. You make them do what they can- maybe even a little more than you think they can- every day, so their abilities and skills improve.


Do you have those statistics, or are you just borrowing a science-y sounding word to lend your statement credibility?


Yes, convenience. It is too expensive- in terms of manpower, time, and effort- to determine each person's limits on an individual basis. Some people can handle alcohol at a very young age- my kids have tried it and they don't care for it. Some adults, even into their twilight years, are demonstrably unable to handle it at all. Some farm kids drive around their private property as early as ten- as my father did. As an insurance worker, I assure you there are thousands of adults that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a motor vehicle. Same with every one of your other examples. there is a reason these "age limits" vary so much from country to country, state to state, county by county- sometimes even city to city.

Don't mistake ad-hoc social age limits for biological facts about development.


Wait, who is the six year old here? I can just see your little fists balled up when you say that.


Where did I say otherwise?


Why so late? I let my kid go to California with a friend and his family when he was eight.


What sort of thing "deserves punishment"?


And why can't you do that without the "punishment"? What form of "punishment" do you mean? What do you think the "punishment" accomplishes?


You keep mentioning "negotiation". You have even suggested that it is the only alternative to "punishment"- by which I gather from the context you mean corporal punishment- is mollycoddling and bribery (another false dichotomy- why are spankers so fond of this fallacy?)

Where have I suggested either "negotiation" or bribery?

I'm not arguing against any of this word-for-word. It is all entirely subjective. You raise your kids how you will, I raise my kids how I will. If I want to spank my kids once in a while when I deem it necessary, the government and society needs to but-out. If I want to raise my kids to respect their elders, and those n "higher places," I will do so.

I think t is entirely appropriate to teach kids to respect those who are, A) older (meaning an older generation,) and B) those who have already accomplished something in life.

You may not feel obligated to "follow the law to the T," and feel as though you should be able to talk to anyone however you want, but a judge in a court of law sure as heck would never see it in that light. If you ever do happen to find yourself in court, I hope, for your sake, you address the judge as "Your Honor" if he requests that you do so, even if you are not being out-right rude towards him/her. I also hope you have a DAMNED good excuse/evidence for not "following the law to the T." Imagine, if you will, if everyone single driver on the road decided to "not follow the law to the T." (There are already far too many drivers who don't do it to begin with!) Good luck saying to an officer, "But officer, I am a human, not a slave! There was nothing wrong with me cutting through that parking lot stall!" or, "But officer! I am late, and I am only human. Please don't give me a fine for running that stop sign back there, and going 15 MPH over the speed limit." If you plead "not guilty," I hope you don't say the same thing to the judge. I hope you address the judge with the proper respect based on the authority he is endowed with. I would you would treat the judge with more respect than your own child, who is an authority of nothing at all.

 

[Piscivore]

I'm not arguing against any of this word-for-word.

Of course you're not. You don't have any resposnse to most of it that doesn't highlight the weaknesses of your assertions.

It is all entirely subjective. You raise your kids how you will, I raise my kids how I will.

Actually, it is not all subjective. There are studies that indicate some parenting techniques are more productive than others, and some, even the "traditional" ones, may be harmful. Your underlying assumption they are equivilent is not correct.

If I want to spank my kids once in a while when I deem it necessary, the government and society needs to but-out.

Unless it actually harms the child.

If I want to raise my kids to respect their elders, and those n "higher places," I will do so.

I think t is entirely appropriate to teach kids to respect those who are, A) older (meaning an older generation,) and B) those who have already accomplished something in life.

You can teach them anything you like. Since my kids are older than yours, and will have a head start on "accomplishing things", yours can kowtow to mine like good little proles, I'm okay with that. Somone has to be a minion.

You may not feel obligated to "follow the law to the T," and feel as though you should be able to talk to anyone however you want, but a judge in a court of law sure as heck would never see it in that light. If you ever do happen to find yourself in court, I hope, for your sake, you address the judge as "Your Honor" if he requests that you do so, even if you are not being out-right rude towards him/her. I also hope you have a DAMNED good excuse/evidence for not "following the law to the T." Imagine, if you will, if everyone single driver on the road decided to "not follow the law to the T." (There are already far too many drivers who don't do it to begin with!) Good luck saying to an officer, "But officer, I am a human, not a slave! There was nothing wrong with me cutting through that parking lot stall!" or, "But officer! I am late, and I am only human. Please don't give me a fine for running that stop sign back there, and going 15 MPH over the speed limit." If you plead "not guilty," I hope you don't say the same thing to the judge. I hope you address the judge with the proper respect based on the authority he is endowed with. I would you would treat the judge with more respect than your own child, who is an authority of nothing at all.

Since you don't seem to understand that there are continuums of behaviour vs. ideals, cost/benefit analyses can be applicable to behaviour, and don't seem to think in anything but binary terms, I think we're done here.

 

[Nihilianth]

Of course you're not. You don't have any resposnse to most of it that doesn't highlight the weaknesses of your assertions.

No. Because most of your responses were completely and utterly subjective.

Actually, it is not all subjective. There are studies that indicate some parenting techniques are more productive than others, and some, even the "traditional" ones, may be harmful. Your underlying assumption they are equivilent is not correct.

Which studies? Obviously, there are parenting techniques which are more productive than others. I never said they were not.

It is incorrect and wrong-headed to think that just because one technique is effective for one set of parents and kids, that same technique will be effective for another set of parents and kids.

Personalities play a HUGE role in how effective any particular technique can be. I don't have the kind of personality to think it's "ok" to negotiate with your kids. If I tell them to do something, I have good reason for telling them to do it. I am the adult in such a relationship.

Unless it actually harms the child.

What, in your opinion, constitutes "harm?" A cracked head, a welt, or just a red spot where the kid has been swatted?

Obviously, i didn't make that statement to mean the government should butt-out if a parent threw their kid across the room head-first into a radiator because they said something back to them.

You can teach them anything you like. Since my kids are older than yours, and will have a head start on "accomplishing things", yours can kowtow to mine like good little proles, I'm okay with that. Somone has to be a minion.

Do you know how to read:

A) older (meaning an older generation,

Did I also mention that people have to "kowtow" to anyone? I gave the example of a judge. Obviously, the judge's ruling is absolute and final (unless you successfully appeal any decision.) Any sort of talking back or rudeness towards a judge will result in him slapping a charge of misconduct in the courtroom on you.

So, are your kids some kind of judge serving in my district or on the Supreme Court of which they will face some day? OOHH!! I didn't think so! But nice try!

Since you don't seem to understand that there are continuums of behaviour vs. ideals, cost/benefit analyses can be applicable to behaviour, and don't seem to think in anything but binary terms, I think we're done here.

UH, what? this is just plain stupid. (You spelled "behavior" wrong btw!)

But if you want to run after attacking me first, that's your prerogative. But only strictly "going by the books" without thinking for yourself and having the ability and skill to come up with contingencies on the fly and knowing your INDIVIDUAL CHILD, as opposed to knowing what some child did in some study, is not only mentally dull, but it is lazy, irresponsible, and actually kind of droll.

Now, if you will, I have a ton of experience with children. No amount of cost/benefit analyses, behavioral studies or any other such studies can always come into play, when you are dealing with children. Humand are incredibly unpredictable. Particularly so, human children.

In fact, I am thinking of a movie. There was a recent movie which was just filmed around the area that I am from. The movie is called "Runaway Train," with Denzel Washington. The movie is about Denzel, who is a railroad engineer, taking a rookie out for the first time. The rookie kid only goes "by the book," but Denzel knows from real experience just how far and how fast to take a train....just how easily he can maneuver his train into a siding, and how closely the entire thing will fit in that siding in case of an emergency. In short, his experience has given him the ability to rely on his well-establish instincts.

Same is said for all professions. Look at baseball. You may know the technicalities of every single pitch. Doesn't mean you have the proper ability to throw any of them. You may know the technicalities of upsetting better's timing. doesn't mean you have the ability to do so, even if you had the ability to pitch any given pitch.

Convention says that several changeups and curveballs in a row will really devastate a batter's timing on trying to connect with a fastball. That doesn't mean a good pitcher will strictly follow what the "books" say.

Another example: The Army trains their soldiers to throw grenades in a strange overhead fashion, keeping your elbow straight. That is the way the Army handbook says you must ALWAYS throw a hand grenade. Hehehe, I have several very close friends who have served in the Army. My brother served in the Navy. Two of my real good buddies served in Iraq, and my brother was stationed in the Persian Gulf around the time the USS Cole was bombed.

According to my friends who were in the Army, when you are down and dirty, in the trenches in the middle of a firefight, a lot of your training takes over. But the best soldiers have other contingencies. Throwing a grenade like a baseball will not only go much further, but will be much more accurate than throwing one like the Army teaches. But the Army's way allows you to stay behind cover easier. Even though the Army handbook says you must ALWAYS throw a grenade the way they specify, and the way you are trained to do, doesn't mean it is always the best way of throwing a grenade. True story: My buddy George was patrolling in a town outside of Falujah. All the sudden, he heard AK fire all around him. He instantly reached for a grenade, while at the exact same moment he saw tracers coming his way from the left, but was kind of far away. As he grabbed the grenade, he had no choice but to throw it like a baseball. Luckily, he was a great outfielder. He knows how to grab a round object at the same exact instant of setting himself up to throw it as efficiently, accurately, and quickly as possible. The enemy only was able to get one burst from his weapon, before he was killed by the thrown grenade. U know him well enough to know for an absolute fact that he was probably able to throw and release that grenade quicker than if he hit the ground first. Even so, he wasn't terribly close to cover, and out in these desert towns, the ground is flat.

My point is that developing a reliable instinct through experience is far more helpful than reading about it in a book or on paper. In the heat of the moment, you rarely have the time to think back and evaluate any given situation. This is why most employers would much rather hire the person with the experience over the person with the education. Obviously, the person with the experience AND education is the most valuable candidate for a job. But experience still trumps written papers. Especially with children.

 

[Meadmaker]

As I said upthread. I don't consider a quick, light swat to the bottom "spanking" (or, when they are older, a light slap to the back of the head). Especially with younger kids, sometimes you just need to get their attention: like if they are dawdling or about to do something dangerous. Stevie-boy is talking about wailing on a kid with a belt. That's a whole different category.

Well if that's the case, my kid has never been spanked, but there are plenty of contributors to this thread who would say that the swat to the butt is, in their opinion, in exactly the same category as the series of smacks with the belt.

In my own case, I approve of the former and I disapprove of the latter, but I don't disapprove of the latter very much. I wouldn't take away a child from a parent who uses such techniques.

This the failure I see. You've turned the situation into a struggle between competeing ideologies. A struggle that implicitly makes the kid an equal, and the only reason your "side" wins out is because you are bigger and stronger. What happens when the kid is a teenager and he (or she) is bigger and stronger? What's going to happen when your wife has to lay down the law to him?

It's not a struggle between ideologies. It's a struggle between personalities, and, yes, I win for the (almost) sole reason that I am bigger and stronger. When that is no longer the case, when he is a teenager, the (almost) kicks in, because, in reality, it is not just that I am bigger and stronger, but that I have control over material resources, and he depends on me for access to those resources. In other words, if he wants food, clothing, and consumer goods above and beyond the minimum that I am required to provide by law, it would be wise for him to obey my rules.

It would be nice if, in most cases anyway, there was also a good reason that it is in his best interests to obey my rules for other reasons, and I do my best to try and communicate those reasons to him, and will continue to do this in the future. However, ultimately, the bottom line is all about power. He must do what I tell him to do because I have power over him. On his eighteenth birthday, that all changes, although we might enter into a new phase of voluntary cooperation, e.g. "I'll pay for your college, but here are the strings attached."

What "spanking", "grounding", "time outs" and other forms of punishment do is show a kid that force is the reason to follow a rule. It's far more important to get them to understand why the rule exists,

That's all well and good, but what happens when they don't understand why the rule exists, and decide it's ok to break it, but that there is, in fact, a darned good reason the rule exists. What then?

If you tell me that never happened with your kids, I'll call you delusional.

 

[quadraginta]

Well if that's the case, my kid has never been spanked, but there are plenty of contributors to this thread who would say that the swat to the butt is, in their opinion, in exactly the same category as the series of smacks with the belt.

In my own case, I approve of the former and I disapprove of the latter, but I don't disapprove of the latter very much. I wouldn't take away a child from a parent who uses such techniques.









It's not a struggle between ideologies. It's a struggle between personalities, and, yes, I win for the (almost) sole reason that I am bigger and stronger. When that is no longer the case, when he is a teenager, the (almost) kicks in, because, in reality, it is not just that I am bigger and stronger, but that I have control over material resources, and he depends on me for access to those resources. In other words, if he wants food, clothing, and consumer goods above and beyond the minimum that I am required to provide by law, it would be wise for him to obey my rules.

It would be nice if, in most cases anyway, there was also a good reason that it is in his best interests to obey my rules for other reasons, and I do my best to try and communicate those reasons to him, and will continue to do this in the future. However, ultimately, the bottom line is all about power. He must do what I tell him to do because I have power over him. On his eighteenth birthday, that all changes, although we might enter into a new phase of voluntary cooperation, e.g. "I'll pay for your college, but here are the strings attached."



That's all well and good, but what happens when they don't understand why the rule exists, and decide it's ok to break it, but that there is, in fact, a darned good reason the rule exists. What then?

If you tell me that never happened with your kids, I'll call you delusional.

How about pets? Do you think it's a good idea to swat your dogs and cats? Maybe a little bit of the belt every once in a while?

 

[Meadmaker]

How about pets? Do you think it's a good idea to swat your dogs and cats? Maybe a little bit of the belt every once in a while?

I usually try to answer every question directed at me under the assumption that it's a sincere question, but this one is not worthy of reply.

 

[Meadmaker]

. There are studies that indicate some parenting techniques are more productive than others, and some, even the "traditional" ones, may be harmful.

I don't believe this statement, although I'm willing to be proved wrong.

The few that I have read have failed to account for a whole host of other factors, and have been very selective about what outcomes are beneficial.

For example, upthread someone said that the APA says you shouldn't spank, and the only more or less objective criteria measured in the outcome is that people are angrier if they were spanked as children.

And? That's bad? All by itself?

Moreover, did they account for other shared social or economic factors that might be correlated with spanking versus not spanking? Could it be that poverty or Chrisitanity makes people angry, and those factors are correlated with spanking?

When I have seen real studies, as opposed to articles about "studies have shown" with no footnotes, the results been ambiguous, or the research sloppy, or some combination.

 

[quadraginta]

I usually try to answer every question directed at me under the assumption that it's a sincere question, but this one is not worthy of reply.

I am being completely sincere. In many ways dogs and cats function at the equivalent of a two year old's cognition. Co-existing with them in a home requires quite similar issues of training and communication.

Do you swat your dogs and cats to teach them what behaviors you expect from them?

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you swat your dogs and cats to teach them what behaviors you expect from them?

Do you think it would work?

I don't own dogs, and it wouldn't work for cats. There's no point.

 

[quadraginta]

Do you think it would work?

I don't own dogs, and it wouldn't work for cats. There's no point.

Within the context of this discussion I don't think the question is whether or not it would work, but whether or not it is the most effective and appropriate training technique in both the short and long term, and whether pain as aversion training is the only practical alternative.

 

[Meadmaker]

Within the context of this discussion I don't think the question is whether or not it would work, but whether or not it is the most effective and appropriate training technique in both the short and long term, and whether pain as aversion training is the only practical alternative.

Even within the context of this discussion, I don't think that's the issue at all.

I don't care if what a particular parent does is "the most effective" or "the only practical alternative."


The very use of those terms suggests a level of knowledge that, frankly, I don't think anyone has. I don't think anyone knows "the most effective" method of getting children to turn into a particular sort of adult, nor what an ideal adult would look like, anyway. Even if they did know such a thing, I suspect that implementing that magical "most effective" method would require skills not possessed by a typical parent.

Even if a spanking isn't the "best" way to deal with a situation, it might be the best way that a particular parent knows how to deal with a situation, and it's better than doing nothing.

 

[Piscivore]

It's not a struggle between ideologies. It's a struggle between personalities, and, yes, I win for the (almost) sole reason that I am bigger and stronger. When that is no longer the case, when he is a teenager, the (almost) kicks in, because, in reality, it is not just that I am bigger and stronger, but that I have control over material resources, and he depends on me for access to those resources. In other words, if he wants food, clothing, and consumer goods above and beyond the minimum that I am required to provide by law, it would be wise for him to obey my rules.

That sounds horrifying. Tyranny is the best you can do? I've gotten my kids respect and cooperation because I've demonstrated I've got their best interests at heart, even when I'm acting against their desires- and I've given them as much freedom as possible that didn't interfere with their safety or their development.

Given that I would categorically reject a government that derived its authority from force or coercion, I'd hardly ask a child to accept my authority on those terms.

As I said upthread, I'm not interested in teaching my kids to be obedient for obedience's sake. I want them to lead, not follow. I want them to think, not conform.

It would be nice if, in most cases anyway, there was also a good reason that it is in his best interests to obey my rules for other reasons, and I do my best to try and communicate those reasons to him, and will continue to do this in the future.

I guess I'm luckier than most, then. I don't think I'm anything special, so it must be my kids are just that much more advanced than the average.

However, ultimately, the bottom line is all about power. He must do what I tell him to do because I have power over him. On his eighteenth birthday, that all changes, although we might enter into a new phase of voluntary cooperation, e.g. "I'll pay for your college, but here are the strings attached."

How sad. Are there any other adults you feel it is acceptable to manipulate in this overt and crass manner, or do you just feel you need to be inherently superior to these particular ones?

That's all well and good, but what happens when they don't understand why the rule exists, and decide it's ok to break it, but that there is, in fact, a darned good reason the rule exists. What then?

Then they'll suffer the consequences I'd already explained to them. And that doesn't mean consequences I impose- the universe does a good job of imposing consequences all on its own.

If you tell me that never happened with your kids, I'll call you delusional.

Of course it has. It's the primary reason they cooperate so well with us now. A smart kid won't touch a hot stove if you tell them it will hurt them after they didn't listen about eating too much candy. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Piscivore]

I want to clarify what I said above, specifically the parts that seem to be emotional appeals ("horrifying", "sad"). Authority is something that is either given by the subordinate, or taken by the nominal "superior".

Authority that is based on force (i.e. "I am bigger and stronger"), or coercion ("I have control over material resources, and he depends on me for access to those resources"), or bribery ("I'll pay for your college, but here are the strings attached.") is authority taken. And that kind of authority is spurious and fragile. As soon as the subordinate either becomes stronger than the ersatz superior, ceases to depend on the bribes or resources with which he is compelled, or simply no longer fears the artificial consequences of disobedience, he will rebel.

Our history and culture is filled with examples. And they are tragic when they involve parent/child relationships. Look around this board, how many posters who are estranged from their parents.

This is what I find horrifying and sad.

 

[Meadmaker]

That sounds horrifying. Tyranny is the best you can do?

When all is said and done, yes. Don't get me wrong. You've described how you've raised your kids and the values you have tried to instill in them and it sounds very familiar, because it sounds exactly like what I do. The only exception is that I insist that, ultimately, I am the benevolent dictator. If my son doesn't agree with me, or does not understand the reason for a rule, he still has to follow it. As a small child, I told him he must remain in my sight while we are in the park. He might not understand the danger that he will be abducted by a child molester, but he does understand the danger that dad will be very, very, angry and there might be some punishment, of whatever sort, associated. As a teenager, he might not understand the fact that staying out late on dates might lead to an unwanted pregnancy, but he will understand that he isn't going to be able to drive the car for the next month unless it is in the garage when the clock strikes twelve.

I have actually had a couple of conversations with him, at a young age, where I patiently explained the reason behind a rule I imposed, but he still responded with "Why?" and then I said, in a very patient, kind, voice, "Because I am much larger and stronger than you, and the law allows me to hurt you if I feel like it." That worked every time.

Then they'll suffer the consequences I'd already explained to them. And that doesn't mean consequences I impose- the universe does a good job of imposing consequences all on its own.

That's all well and good, if those consequences aren't too severe. If they happen to involve injury, or, god forbid, fatality there's a problem.

A good illustration of this came from an anecdote I read on these very pages. A woman described how, as a young girl her father was very strict, and she learned unquestioning obedience to his commands. One day, she heard her father tell her, "Don't move a muscle." She froze, not because his order made any sense to her at all, but because she knew that disobedience to dad's orders resulted in severe, sometimes painful, consequences. Her father then picked up a stick, with which he pushed away the poisonous snake that she had nearly stumbled upon.

The universe could indeed have imposed a consequence on that girl, but because she feared her father, it didn't have to.

I'm not nearly as strict as the father from the anecdote. My kid would probably get bitten by the snake.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

A good illustration of this came from an anecdote I read on these very pages. A woman described how, as a young girl her father was very strict, and she learned unquestioning obedience to his commands. One day, she heard her father tell her, "Don't move a muscle." She froze, not because his order made any sense to her at all, but because she knew that disobedience to dad's orders resulted in severe, sometimes painful, consequences. Her father then picked up a stick, with which he pushed away the poisonous snake that she had nearly stumbled upon.

I love it when people on the internet lapse into parable. It reminds my of my youth ... and church. That wasn't very convincing either.

The universe could indeed have imposed a consequence on that girl, but because she feared her father, it didn't have to.

Other kids might have listened to their father because their experience had taught them that the old fart often knew what the hell he was talking about. Fear of retribution isn't the only tool in the tool box. Often it is the least persistent.

I'm not nearly as strict as the father from the anecdote. My kid would probably get bitten by the snake.

There's more than one lesson you can take away from that thought.

 

[Piscivore]

When all is said and done, yes. Don't get me wrong. You've described how you've raised your kids and the values you have tried to instill in them and it sounds very familiar, because it sounds exactly like what I do. The only exception is that I insist that, ultimately, I am the benevolent dictator. If my son doesn't agree with me, or does not understand the reason for a rule, he still has to follow it. As a small child, I told him he must remain in my sight while we are in the park. He might not understand the danger that he will be abducted by a child molester, but he does understand the danger that dad will be very, very, angry and there might be some punishment, of whatever sort, associated.

Well, my kids did understand that danger, and they understood the instruction that if anyone tried to make they leave the park that they were to hit, kick, pinch, bite, and scream, scream, scream. And that applied at the bus stop, or at school, or any of the many other times they might not be under our immediate shadow. Bad guys don't just happen when you're around, so your "rule" serves your fear, not their safety. They also understood that they could go have fun with their friends without constantly fretting about our line-of-sight or if we were paying attention to them at all times, and that they had no punishment to fear from us because of what someone else did.

As a teenager, he might not understand the fact that staying out late on dates might lead to an unwanted pregnancy, but he will understand that he isn't going to be able to drive the car for the next month unless it is in the garage when the clock strikes twelve.

Really? That's just pathetic. You plan on having a sixteen year old child that dates, yet doesn't know about sex. You waiting to explain that that icky sex stuff to him on his wedding night there, sport?

I have actually had a couple of conversations with him, at a young age, where I patiently explained the reason behind a rule I imposed, but he still responded with "Why?" and then I said, in a very patient, kind, voice, "Because I am much larger and stronger than you, and the law allows me to hurt you if I feel like it." That worked every time.

Why didn't you just tell him why? Or was that the best you can do?

That's all well and good, if those consequences aren't too severe. If they happen to involve injury, or, god forbid, fatality there's a problem.

A good illustration of this came from an anecdote I read on these very pages. A woman described how, as a young girl her father was very strict, and she learned unquestioning obedience to his commands. One day, she heard her father tell her, "Don't move a muscle." She froze, not because his order made any sense to her at all, but because she knew that disobedience to dad's orders resulted in severe, sometimes painful, consequences. Her father then picked up a stick, with which he pushed away the poisonous snake that she had nearly stumbled upon.

So, you know what that's worth.

The universe could indeed have imposed a consequence on that girl, but because she feared her father, it didn't have to.

I'm not nearly as strict as the father from the anecdote. My kid would probably get bitten by the snake.

Mine wouldn't- because as quad said, my kids know I'm not an idiot or a bully. And you know what? My kids aren't idiots either... so if they tell me to "freeze" I'm going to figure there's some danger I don't perceive and not get all puffed up and indignant that they're defying my authority.

And you know what- sooner or later the girl in your story won't fear her father. If she'd been bullied enough, she'd have done the opposite of what he says, just because he says it, to prove he can't bully her no more.

Fear is a powerful tool for the weak minded to use on a weaker person, but ultimately a poisonous one that will bite you back.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Mine wouldn't- because as quad said, my kids know I'm not an idiot or a bully. And you know what? My kids aren't idiots either... so if they tell me to "freeze" I'm going to figure there's some danger I don't perceive and not get all puffed up and indignant that they're defying my authority.

Another anecdote, and not a second-hand one, either.

When my two boys were around four and seven years old we lived in a residential community which was almost stereotypical. No through streets, 1/4 and 1/2 acre lots, neighbors all knew each other and each other's kids, kids playing ball in the road, trick-or-treating on Halloween, etc., etc.

One day they both came running into the house yelling that I had to come and see the elephant.

That's right. "The elephant".

Further efforts at questioning were not a help. In between the jumping up and down they both insisted there was an elephant in the neighborhood. A real one.

So I walked with them a couple of blocks to their friend's house ... and there it was, along with a pony and a chimp, all in their friend's back yard. It turned out that the friend's father was buddies with the owner of a small circus which happened to be passing through town for the county fair, and this happened to coincide with his son's birthday. So they had loaded up a small trailer and brought over a baby elephant and it's little companions.

What I took away from this (along with some cotton candy for the missus) was that I had good reason to pay attention to my boys, and treat them with the respect they deserved.

 

[Piscivore]

Another anecdote, and not a second-hand one, either.

When my two boys were around four and seven years old we lived in a residential community which was almost stereotypical. No through streets, 1/4 and 1/2 acre lots, neighbors all knew each other and each other's kids, kids playing ball in the road, trick-or-treating on Halloween, etc., etc.

One day they both came running into the house yelling that I had to come and see the elephant.

That's right. "The elephant".

Further efforts at questioning were not a help. In between the jumping up and down they both insisted there was an elephant in the neighborhood. A real one.

So I walked with them a couple of blocks to their friend's house ... and there it was, along with a pony and a chimp, all in their friend's back yard. It turned out that the friend's father was buddies with the owner of a small circus which happened to be passing through town for the county fair, and this happened to coincide with his son's birthday. So they had loaded up a small trailer and brought over a baby elephant and it's little companions.

What I took away from this (along with some cotton candy for the missus) was that I had good reason to pay attention to my boys, and treat them with the respect they deserved.

Seconded. And a cute story.

 

[Piscivore]

As a small child, I told him he must remain in my sight while we are in the park. He might not understand the danger that he will be abducted by a child molester, but he does understand the danger that dad will be very, very, angry and there might be some punishment, of whatever sort, associated.

Something else occurs to me about this: You are abdicating your responsibility to be alert and attentive to the child by threatening to punish him if he strays out of sight. How is he supposed to know what you can see? If you are so frightened, you should be keeping an eye on him.

Also:

As a teenager, he might not understand the fact that staying out late on dates might lead to an unwanted pregnancy, but he will understand that he isn't going to be able to drive the car for the next month unless it is in the garage when the clock strikes twelve.

Are teens some species of mogwai, that can only get pregnant after midnight? This is the stupidist reason for a curfew I've yet heard. My kids understand they have a responsibility to get enough sleep so they can be awake and attentive the next day at school, and that is enough. On weekends, they spend the night at friends houses frequently (my daughter is trying to start a theatre group, and my son's friend is spoiled rotten and has every videogame system known to man. ).

 

[Toke]

Are teens some species of mogwai, that can only get pregnant after midnight? This is the stupidist reason for a curfew I've yet heard. My kids understand they have a responsibility to get enough sleep so they can be awake and attentive the next day at school, and that is enough. On weekends, they spend the night at friends houses frequently (my daughter is trying to start a theatre group, and my son's friend is spoiled rotten and has every videogame system known to man. ).

That reminds me of 20 years ago in highschool when one of the girls were complaining about her silly parents would not let her stay over with her boyfriend.
What did they think went on in the afternoon?
With 17-18 year olds?

There must be some "keeping up appearance" involved.