Teen Parents/ Parenting

[Nihilianth]

I find the characterization of me as "authoritarian" extremely amusing. I hesitate to speak for him, but I suspect Nihilanth feels the same way.

I could not have said what you have said better myself. Though, I would like to add:

If I tell my kids to do something, like you I expect them to do it without much argument. IF there is time, I will explain to them the reason for my decision in a reasonable manner. If there is no time, like if I am late for a meeting, or getting them to their game game or what have you, there is no time. If they disobey and act like a jerk about it, I'll smack them to get their attention. Much like how you give a puppy a good whack to grab their attention. (Yes. You can hit your pet dog, especially if they are a puppy. I have had several dogs I have raised from puppies. Two rottweilers, and a couple of retrievers. None of my dogs ever bit anyone, never jumped on anyone or anything, and ALWAYS obeyed and stayed at my side.)

Later on in the day, when things are settled down, I will sit down and have a talk with my kids, asking them why they were hit, and why they might have deserved it. I want them to also tell me why I made the decision I did. This is a great way to make sure they understood what the consequences of their choices and actions were, and what my position was.

Like you, I merely only intend to arm them with the tools they need when they get older. These tools include "responsibility, respect, and accountability."

When they turn 18, I expect them to make their own decisions about whether to move on to college, or stay at home to work while paying room and board. When they turn 18, they are, for the most part, going to be on their own. All rules will be lifted, except for taking care of household needs such as cleaning their rooms, doing their dishes, and the like. They will be allowed to come and go as they please. If they are drinking underage, I will not keep them from doing so. They will have the law to deal with like all other adults have.

If they do decide to go to college and it is a local college, they can are most certainly welcome to stay at home and continue on as kids under my roof.

This all depends on our relationship when they are older. If they have the same relationship with me as I have with my father, I will probably be very lenient. If they are very good kids who never get into trouble, respectful, and courteous and so forth, without going to college, there are many other options and decisions I am wiling to make.

But like I said before, the "right" or rather "best" decisions a parent makes, depends on the children, the parents, and their relationships. Making such blanket statements as "you should NEVER spank your kids!" is unhelpful, and doesn't take individual personalities and inter-personal relationships into account.

 

[Emet]

Much like how you give a puppy a good whack to grab their attention. (Yes. You can hit your pet dog, especially if they are a puppy. I have had several dogs I have raised from puppies. Two rottweilers, and a couple of retrievers. None of my dogs ever bit anyone, never jumped on anyone or anything, and ALWAYS obeyed and stayed at my side.)

I'll let others address your posts about children, but I will respond to this.

You could not be more wrong about dogs, regardless of your experiences as mentioned. You will not be able to find a veterinary behaviorist that agrees with you that it is smart or useful to hit or smack a dog of any age, either to get its attention, or as a means of punishment.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Actually, "Authoritarian" is a recognized parenting style in Psychology and sounds quite similar to what some here are advocating:

Authoritarian Parenting
In this style of parenting, children are expected to follow the strict rules established by the parents. Failure to follow such rules usually results in punishment. Authoritarian parents fail to explain the reasoning behind these rules. If asked to explain, the parent might simply reply, "Because I said so." These parents have high demands, but are not responsive to their children. According to Baumrind, these parents "are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation" (1991).

Linky.

 

[Piscivore]

I'll let others address your posts about children, but I will respond to this.

You could not be more wrong about dogs, regardless of your experiences as mentioned. You will not be able to find a veterinary behaviorist that agrees with you that it is smart or useful to hit or smack a dog of any age, either to get its attention, or as a means of punishment.

Maybe there is help for these guys.

 

[RPG Advocate]

Consistency, decisiveness, and believability. If you are inconsistent, the kid never knows what to expect, and lives with anxiety as a result. If you are indecisive, then everything is subject to negotiation, and your home is full of constant strife. By "believability" I mean that if you say something is going to happen, good or bad, you have to go through with it. This is more important for "good" things, but if you say there will be trouble, and there isn't, that's also bad. As with consistency, the kid doesn't know what to expect if he can't trust you, and that creates stress.

I object to "consistency" and "believability" on the same grounds: it doesn't matter if you "consistently" and "believably" spank your child, prevent him from going outside, or deny him dinner as a punishment. The things you're doing are still inexcusable.

I disagree 100% when it comes to your explanation of "decisiveness." A child should be able to negotiate most rules and decisions as soon as he is able to understand the concept of negotiating. A negotiated ruleset will have a way higher compliance rate because the child actually has buy-in. Granted, there are a few critical rules (e.g. "you have to go to school") that can't be negotiated, but these are limited.

Second, what's the goal of a good parent? Piscivore said he wants to "turn them into" responsible adults. It sounds a bit manipulative to me, but that's just me. At any rate, that's not my goal. My goal is to keep him alive and safe, and educate him so that when he becomes an adult, he'll have the tools he needs.

The problem is that in many cases, the amount of structure parents believe is necessary to keep children alive and safe is vastly overestimated. Aside from the very young, children should be free to do what they like unless their actions harm others. If they hurt themselves, then that's inherently punishing, no need to add external punishment. But wait! Aren't there pedophiles lurking around every corner waiting to snatch any child that goes astray? Not really. In a study performed in 1999, only 115 children were kidnapped by strangers in the entire country. (source)

Of those two, which sounds more authoritarian?

From what the two of you have said, I'd say you're more authoritarian. The impression I get is that you impose more rules than he does and demand more unconditional compliance of the rules that are set out.

What's lacking from the above is any indication of how often this happens. In my case, it's rare.

For something like that, even once is too much. A child should never have to fear his parents. As I said, that can cause psychological damage, since the child can't escape from an intimidating parent like he could from someone outside the home.

There isn't much need for it. When there is, though, I don't back down. If I did, that would be the "indecisive" that I said was associated with being what I consider to be a bad parent. My kid and I could argue all day long about whether or not we ought to do something that I think was a bad idea. What would we accomplish? A lot of time wasted, and a lot of stress, and probably some hurt feelings, because most people when they argue like that end up saying hurtful things when they try to make a point. (They use words like "horrific" and "pathetic" and all sorts of negative characterisations.) So, in my house, we don't do that.

The implicit assumption here is that the parent is always right. I expect this infallibility stuff from the Catholic Church, not skeptics. In any dispute, the child should be given the opportunity to make his case. It builds argumentation skill and assertiveness. Hell, the child might actually have a better argument than the parent. It's well known that children who are denied a voice by authoritarian parenting styles are more likely to have social problems in adulthood. I'm living proof.

I don't get all holier than thou on him and try to persuade him of my correctness. Why bother? I tell him, but if I've run out of time or have explained things sufficiently, and he still isn't buying it, I have to use my own judgement instead of trying to explain my reasoning until a twelve year old gets it. (Or four, or eight, or seventeen, and of course the exact details of the conversation will vary at each of the ages.) When it's all said and done, I inform him that it really doesn't matter who is right. We can't both get our way, so I'll get mine. He gets that, and it cuts short the argument.

Why should you always get your way? How arrogant is that? Another possible result is a compromise. Most children except the very young will be reasonable if you treat them reasonably.

Is it working? Piscivore seems to think that I'm doing something wrong, and it seems I am aiming for "not much of anything". I suppose we could play dueling accomplishments, but that's not really my style. I'm satisfied, and it seems we both have children that have impressed a fair number of people in a fair number of ways. I'm sure we both have trophy shelves and report card drawers and medals and certificates to show off to grandparents. He thinks he had a lot to do with that. I think I'm mostly along for the ride.

You're using the wrong metric. Tiger parenting often produces angry, depressed kids who earn a ton of rewards and trophies. The two primary metrics of a "good" parent are (1) whether the child refrains from harming others and (2) whether the child is happy. These two things trump even educational attainment.

Oh, and what about the spanking and the belts or the timeouts? What about beating your kids or boring them to death? Surely, that's what determines whether someone is authoritarian or not, isn't it?

You bet it does. Using non-restraining force on a child should be criminalized.

 

[Meadmaker]

Actually, "Authoritarian" is a recognized parenting style in Psychology and sounds quite similar to what some here are advocating:



Linky.

Not one person, not even Steve, has come anywhere close to advocating anything remotely like what your quote describes.

 

[Meadmaker]

A child should be able to negotiate most rules and decisions as soon as he is able to understand the concept of negotiating.

Got kids? Man, have you got some fun times ahead. Can I watch?

It was actually very tempting to agree with this, but then I would havie to twist it around and point out the flaw here. The thing is, I think most kids understand the concept of negotiating some time around the time they turn 23. When they are children, their negotiations are "I WANT IT." It takes them a few years after that to really realize the concept of true give and take.

What is it that the kid has to offer me? "If you do what I want, I'll stop screaming?" What does negotiating even mean between one person with power' and one person with none?

I give it some pretense of course. If he cleans his room and does the cat box, he gets an allowance. If he wants more, I make a deal about him doing more. That sort of thing. However, it's a faux negotiation. In reality, he has nothing to offer. It's just an educational exercise that I've decided upon.

You bet it does. Using non-restraining force on a child should be criminalized.

That's mighty authoritarian of you, don't you think?

 

[Piscivore]

Got kids? Man, have you got some fun times ahead. Can I watch?

That's a really good idea. You might learn something.

It was actually very tempting to agree with this, but then I would havie to twist it around and point out the flaw here. The thing is, I think most kids understand the concept of negotiating some time around the time they turn 23.

Wow, your kids must really be slow. Wait- I'm sorry, if they are developmentally challenged, I don't have anything to say. I've not had to confront that problem.

My son was developing scientific tests to determine the true identity of the "Santa Claus" that came to the family Christmas party when he was eight, and both of them knew how to construct a basic rational argument before that. We never gave them an allowance (that just teaches entitlement) so if they wanted something they had to convince us why we should provide or allow it, or make some kind of reciprocal offer. They've both been able to reasonably and maturely confront teachers who have made mistakes with their grades or assignments and get the problems resolved to their satisfaction without our interference.

I'm sorry your kids are so incompetent, but please don't imagine his limitations apply to "most kids".

Here's a more typical and realistic view of a child's abilities:
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pdfs/fcs465.pdf

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Not one person, not even Steve, has come anywhere close to advocating anything remotely like what your quote describes.

Methinks you doth protest too much?

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.

I don't get all holier than thou on him and try to persuade him of my correctness. Why bother? I tell him, but if I've run out of time or have explained things sufficiently, and he still isn't buying it, I have to use my own judgement instead of trying to explain my reasoning until a twelve year old gets it. (Or four, or eight, or seventeen, and of course the exact details of the conversation will vary at each of the ages.) When it's all said and done, I inform him that it really doesn't matter who is right. We can't both get our way, so I'll get mine. He gets that, and it cuts short the argument.

It was actually very tempting to agree with this, but then I would havie to twist it around and point out the flaw here. The thing is, I think most kids understand the concept of negotiating some time around the time they turn 23. When they are children, their negotiations are "I WANT IT." It takes them a few years after that to really realize the concept of true give and take.

What is it that the kid has to offer me? "If you do what I want, I'll stop screaming?" What does negotiating even mean between one person with power' and one person with none?

I give it some pretense of course. If he cleans his room and does the cat box, he gets an allowance. If he wants more, I make a deal about him doing more. That sort of thing. However, it's a faux negotiation. In reality, he has nothing to offer. It's just an educational exercise that I've decided upon.

No, when it comes to a 6 year old, I WILL have my way! There is going to be no ifs, ands, or buts. If I tell my kids to eat what is on their plate, they will eat what is on their plate. I will have no discussion with them whatsoever about their choice of food, outside the options we may give them. If they want a candy bar for dinner, they will not have a candy bar for dinner. Period. End of story. I know what is best for them. They do not. And a candy bar for dinner just is not going to fly. I will feed them the best and healthiest foods, that will taste pretty damned good anyway.

If I tell them they have to go to their grandparents, they will go to their grandparents. If I say they must go to church, they're going to church. If I tell them they cannot go to a friends house as punishment for something, they will not go.

Obviously, as they get older, they will obtain more leeway, a little more trust, and I will be a little more flexible. But that doesn't start until around the age of 12.

ETA: If the kid does something, or refuses to do something which deserves punishment, they will be punished first. once the punishment is over, then I will sit down and talk with the kid and ask them "why do you think I punished you? Why do you think I have that rule in place? Do you understand why I was angry?" But under no circumstances will there be any sort of negotiation.

Your denial is a little extreme, given that the Authoritarian style is quite common. You might be Authoritative if any of you talked about anything but strict rule adherence and punishment for moderating your children's behavior.

 

[Meadmaker]

Like you, I merely only intend to arm them with the tools they need when they get older. These tools include "responsibility, respect, and accountability."

The tools I was thinking of were more like mathematics and ballroom dancing.

The tools you mentioned are, of course, even more important, but they are harder to teach explicitly. I tend to hope they rub off as side effects.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm sorry your kids are so incompetent, but please don't imagine his limitations apply to "most kids".

Your tendency to hurl insults with reckless abandon seems to me to be at odds with the values you claim to hold.


You aren't really in much of a position to judge my child's competence, and I really don't feel like getting into some sort of competition where we compare our children's abilities or accomplishments.

 

[Piscivore]

The tools I was thinking of were more like mathematics and ballroom dancing.

The tools you mentioned are, of course, even more important, but they are harder to teach explicitly. I tend to hope they rub off as side effects.

That goes with most of your statements so far: 'it's hard, so I don't wanna, I'll just hope it happens magically somehow'. That's not responsible parenting. From what you've said you're just making time and trying to keep the kid from being too much of a bother.

Your tendency to hurl insults with reckless abandon seems to me to be at odds with the values you claim to hold.

I'm not hurling insults recklessly. I'm highlighting the ridiculous assertions you make by mocking them. Do you have any evidence for them, or are you just say wahtever you feel like that sounds like it will support your claims?

You aren't really in much of a position to judge my child's competence,

You're right, I can only go by what you've said. So far, everything you've said so far indicates your child is either far behind not just my children, but the children people studying child development have examined.

No, I don't really think you kid is developmentally disabled. I think you don't have the first damn clue what you kid is capable of and/or you're intentionally understating his abilities to try and support your assertions.

and I really don't feel like getting into some sort of competition where we compare our children's abilities or accomplishments.

I'm not surprised. You've backed yourself into a cornet with your assertions until they require him to be barely more intelligent than a housepet.

 

[Meadmaker]

That goes with most of your statements so far: 'it's hard, so I don't wanna, I'll just hope it happens magically somehow'. That's not responsible parenting. From what you've said you're just making time and trying to keep the kid from being too much of a bother.


I'm not hurling insults recklessly. I'm highlighting the ridiculous assertions you make by mocking them. Do you have any evidence for them, or are you just say wahtever you feel like that sounds like it will support your claims?


You're right, I can only go by what you've said. So far, everything you've said so far indicates your child is either far behind not just my children, but the children people studying child development have examined.

No, I don't really think you kid is developmentally disabled. I think you don't have the first damn clue what you kid is capable of and/or you're intentionally understating his abilities to try and support your assertions.


I'm not surprised. You've backed yourself into a cornet with your assertions until they require him to be barely more intelligent than a housepet.

Your tendency to hurl insults with reckless abandon seems to me to be at odds with the values you claim to hold.

 

[Meadmaker]

Methinks you doth protest too much?









Your denial is a little extreme, given that the Authoritarian style is quite common. You might be Authoritative if any of you talked about anything but strict rule adherence and punishment for moderating your children's behavior.

What I think you are missing is that the statements I have made that are being called authoritarian actually have an extreme anti-authoritarian slant. They are practically a parody of an authoritarian position, and my son recognizes that, which makes him more insightful than some others.

Let's make another comparison. Piscivore, the anti-authoritarian, doesn't like allowances because they "teach entitlement". So, compare the two approaches we use to providing our kids with material goods. I tell my kid that if he conducts certain chores, I will give him money, and he can spend it. I don't pay attention to how he spends it, because it's his money.

Piscivore on the other hand has a different approach. "if they wanted something they had to convince us why we should provide or allow it". So, he's setting himself in a position to pass judgement on each and every request.

Who's more authoritarian?

 

[Piscivore]

Your tendency to hurl insults with reckless abandon seems to me to be at odds with the values you claim to hold.

I've said before that "reckless abandon" is incorrect. Is reading comprehension also not a life skill you find important? And it's a pretty funny complaint to make since most of your last dozen posts have been little more than "am not, you are!" See: your most recent post. And on top of that, you've found it necessary to belittle and insult your own child in this discussion merely to try and lend your "benevolent dictatorship" even the bareset hint of legitimacy.

What values do you think I "claim to hold"? You're pretty good at telling me what I think, this should be easy for you.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've said before that "reckless abandon" is incorrect. Is reading comprehension also not a life skill you find important? And it's a pretty funny complaint to make since most of your last dozen posts have been little more than "am not, you are!" See: your most recent post. And on top of that, you've found it necessary to belittle and insult your own child in this discussion merely to try and lend your "benevolent dictatorship" even the bareset hint of legitimacy.

What values do you think I "claim to hold"? You're pretty good at telling me what I think, this should be easy for you.

Cut the inflammatory rhetoric, the insults, the emotionally laden words, the "pathetic", the "horrifying", the "tyranny", the comparison to housepets, that sort of thing.

Do that, and we might have something worth talking about.

 

[Piscivore]

Cut the inflammatory rhetoric, the insults, the emotionally laden words, the "pathetic", the "horrifying", the "tyranny", the comparison to housepets, that sort of thing.

Do that, and we might have something worth talking about.

Stop ducking questions under the pretense of delicate sensibilities, and there would actually be something at all to talk about.

What do you think "punishment" accomplishes?
Which expectations you think I have do you feel are not "realistic"?
What values do you think I "claim to hold"?

 

[Emet]

I give it some pretense of course. If he cleans his room and does the cat box, he gets an allowance. If he wants more, I make a deal about him doing more. That sort of thing. However, it's a faux negotiation. In reality, he has nothing to offer. It's just an educational exercise that I've decided upon.

Let's make another comparison. Piscivore, the anti-authoritarian, doesn't like allowances because they "teach entitlement".

I don't recall that, but I'll assume for the moment you are correct about Piscivore's stance on allowances.

So, compare the two approaches we use to providing our kids with material goods. I tell my kid that if he conducts certain chores, I will give him money, and he can spend it. I don't pay attention to how he spends it, because it's his money.

Can you explain your rational for why money ties into chores? (it's a sincere question)

I thought most parents assign chores to teach responsibility, contribute to the family unit, and learn skills. They learn to pitch in and help out, which encourages a sense of reward by doing work that’s really needed and contributes to their family. I realize this is not a complete list, and others may have additions or subtractions. Or think I'm wrong.

I also thought most parents give allowances to teach children about money--how to save, and how to make spending choices about what they may purchase with limited funds.

I thought that children at a certain age may begin to actually work for others--mowing the neighbor's lawn, or babysitting in exchange for money. Here they start to learn about earning money, and the possible consequences of not performing well at their job--they may be 'fired'.

Either by what you've written, or perhaps how I interpreted/misinterpreted your stance on allowances, I'm unclear as to the lessons you're teaching your children by tying money to chores.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What I think you are missing is that the statements I have made that are being called authoritarian actually have an extreme anti-authoritarian slant. They are practically a parody of an authoritarian position, and my son recognizes that, which makes him more insightful than some others.

Let's make another comparison. Piscivore, the anti-authoritarian, doesn't like allowances because they "teach entitlement". So, compare the two approaches we use to providing our kids with material goods. I tell my kid that if he conducts certain chores, I will give him money, and he can spend it. I don't pay attention to how he spends it, because it's his money.

Piscivore on the other hand has a different approach. "if they wanted something they had to convince us why we should provide or allow it". So, he's setting himself in a position to pass judgement on each and every request.

Who's more authoritarian?

I see many words, but none that are directed at the content of my posts . Of the four parenting styles recognized in psychology, which do you feel you identify with most closely?

 

[Nihilianth]

I'll let others address your posts about children, but I will respond to this.

You could not be more wrong about dogs, regardless of your experiences as mentioned. You will not be able to find a veterinary behaviorist that agrees with you that it is smart or useful to hit or smack a dog of any age, either to get its attention, or as a means of punishment.

You're wrong. It works. As I have said, I do it all the time. The dogs are always perfectly well-trained and happy as they grow.