Parenting Spoiled Children (article)

[luuknam]

It's not a matter of me not abusing authority, it just isn't a thing here except for where it occurs by necessity (such as, I am responsible for my children's education, so the state sees me as the authority overseeing that).

 

In which case you have that nebulous thing called 'necessity'. When is authority 'necessary'? Who decides when it is 'necessary'? Even in the example you mention, that's pretty vague. Just because you're in charge of their education because the state says you are, there are different ways to implement that on a daily basis. I think most people who say they teach their kids to be obedient believe that what they're doing is 'necessary' as well (necessary in order to raise successful adults, that is).

 

In case anyone was wondering, btw, wrt to the 4yo who didn't want to pick up Candyland, I told him that apparently he had too many toys if he didn't want to pick that one up and put it away, and that if he didn't pick it up and put it away I'd throw Candyland away. We are no longer in the possession of Candyland now. He seems to have gotten the message that toys need to be put away if he wants to keep them. Also, I knew that he could handle putting toys with that many pieces away because he'd done so before, and that if he felt overwhelmed that he could verbalize "I can't" because he'd done so before, in which case we'd play "I bet you can put this away before I count to 100" and he'd put things away. He really was just in a "I won't and am testing boundaries"-mood that day with Candyland.

[Lady Florida.]

I think part of the problem is that he is 15. He is at an age where he wants to feel more independent and like he is in control of his own life. I think it's pretty common for 15yos to want to do what they want to do when they want to do it, and to be pretty self-centered about the whole thing.

 

Of course, knowing it is probably a phase isn't helpful right now...

 

Fifteen is a tough age. They know they're on the cusp of adulthood but now realize that childhood really did come with some privileges that they don't necessarily want to give up. Adults complain that these teens want to be treated like adults without having the responsibilities of an adult, and that's actually just what they want. I wouldn't want to be that age again. It's hard on both the teen and the adults in their lives. Of course that's a generalization, but fits so many 15 year olds (give or take a year).

 

I have to admit, I am one to regularly post here when people get hung up on semantics, but the word obedience does bug me.  

 

 

 

When I hear obedience in my area, it's often paired with cheerful, as in cheerful obedience. I don't expect that my kid will never complain about boring, mundane, or unpleasant tasks. I'm unable to always avoid complaining about them myself. It also is a phrase used in a certain very specific circle within my larger homeschooling circle. So yes, the word obedience bugs me, as does cheerful obedience. I don't want to have raised a whiner, but I also don't want some weird Pleasantville style teen who constantly smiles and makes happy conversation when told to empty the dishwasher, clean his bathroom, or take out the trash. I want him to feel comfortable expressing displeasure as long as he isn't hurtful when doing it. 

 

 

Dinner is chicken salad wraps and carrot slaw, with none of us eating together. Dh left for work a short while ago and is working until midnight, so he already ate. Ds has a college night class and will need to eat around 4:30. I'll eat alone when they're both away (not a problem because I get to read during dinner without being considered rude).

[albeto.]

In which case you have that nebulous thing called 'necessity'. When is authority 'necessary'? Who decides when it is 'necessary'? Even in the example you mention, that's pretty vague. Just because you're in charge of their education because the state says you are, there are different ways to implement that on a daily basis. I think most people who say they teach their kids to be obedient believe that what they're doing is 'necessary' as well (necessary in order to raise successful adults, that is).

 

Yep. I don't agree that parents who teach their kids to be obedient do so out of necessity. I think they do it out of convenience - it works for them better than alternatives. The state can make impositions on me that would result in fines or legal battles if I refused. They have authority over me, and so I comply. I don't exhibit the same authority over my kids. I don't impose infractions or remove privileges or property if they refuse. 

[Wheres Toto]

I did a little experiment with my son yesterday....this thread on my mind.

 

I had to clean my boss's very large house 6500 SF. It really really wears me out when I try to het most of it done in one day. I took him with me and told him I needed him to help me the last hour or so. When it came time for him to help he was unpleasant to say the least..wanted to keep doing his drivers Ed course he was working on.

 

I just looked at him. Then I said, "what do you want to do son?" He said he wanted to keep working on his course. So I said ok, and I went on to finish it all myself.

 

Then we got home and I was exhausted. It was after 5. He ran to his computer because a friend of his had some free time to play portal. I rested for an hour and then got up and started getting supper ready. After he had been playing for an hour and a half I told him I need his help in the kitchen. He balked. I said, now please. He stomps in and begins putting away the dishes, complaining because he just wanted to play Portal with Friend and he NEVER gets to......

 

I said, "get out of my kitchen. Go do what you want." By this point I was irritated at him I just wanted him away from me. But I just left him to do what he wanted. You know like apparently some parents handle their teens. Dh and I ate supper, I put supper away.....finally about 9:00 ds comes in and says are we going to have supper? Now mind you, his computer is in view of the kitchen. That is just how oblivious he is. I told him supper was long over. He got into the fridge and made himself a plate.

 

So he goes back to his computer. At 9:30 I head to bed and tel him I am going to sleep don't be talking. At 10:30 I am woken up to his loud laughter. Dh gets up and handles it. I hear ds apologizing. At midnight I get up and ds is still on the computer. By now I've had enough of this experiment and tell him to get in bed.

 

So tell me....you parents who dont expect obedience out of your children...actually even those of you who do...how would you deal with a kid like this?

 

I don't count myself as a parent who expects obedience but we do have expectations.  My kids aren't allowed on the computer until they do the things they are supposed to do each day.  There list of chores is probably less extensive than most people's here but they have to clean their rooms, put their laundry away, finish school.  We'll probably add helping with the new puppy.  They know the drill - you don't get it done, you don't go on the computer.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm having trouble understanding this, too. I'm going by the concepts to which you appeal earlier:

 

 

 

 

I didn't adopt my current parenting style when my kids were younger, so I can't really talk about that except through observation of friends who do, but your style really doesn't seem to match mine. For example, I don't assume any authority in my home. It's not a matter of me not abusing authority, it just isn't a thing here except for where it occurs by necessity (such as, I am responsible for my children's education, so the state sees me as the authority overseeing that). I don't expect or teach obedience, gently, or otherwise. Really, we're more like a commune of inter-dependent people who are one family, bonded by blood and shared dreams and goals. 

 

I don't mean to belabor a point or to put you on the spot, but in my opinion, it's really a very different paradigm from conventional parenting where members of the family assume roles by virtue of their birth. That doesn't happen here. 

I don't see what is hard to understand.  I know that we have very different parenting philosophies.  But I rarely ever exert "parental authority"  anymore because it isn't necessary so 99% of the time we are a "commune of inter-dependent people who are one family, bonded by blood and shared dreams and goals."  I got here despite an adherence to not only conventional parenting but to the Bible.  I don't have the time or inclination right now to discuss my Biblical or conventional roots to my philosophy of parenting but I will throw this out there as a bone:  I believe that leaders (and this includes parents) should lead by example and service so it is not an authoritarian stance as some might think.

[luuknam]

Yep. I don't agree that parents who teach their kids to be obedient do so out of necessity.

 

I already had that impression. However, that doesn't mean that those parents don't honestly *believe* they're teaching kids to be obedient out of necessity (odds are some believe they do it out of convenience and think that's perfectly fine too).

 

I can come up with a bunch of scenarios though where some people would say that it's necessary to make kids do certain things, while others might say it's not necessary. My easiest example would be medical treatments. If a 2yo doesn't want cancer treatment, almost everyone would say it's necessary and believe parents should make the kid (because 2yos really cannot understand things like that and make informed decisions). But what about 8yos? 16yos? Or any random age? At some point, it should become the person's own choice. But who decides what age that is? Who decides at what age it's necessary for parents to make decisions for their kids and at what age they can make their own decisions?

[albeto.]

I don't see what is hard to understand.  I know that we have very different parenting philosophies.  But I rarely ever exert "parental authority"  anymore because it isn't necessary so 99% of the time we are a "commune of inter-dependent people who are one family, bonded by blood and shared dreams and goals."  I got here despite an adherence to not only conventional parenting but to the Bible.  I don't have the time or inclination right now to discuss my Biblical or conventional roots to my philosophy of parenting but I will throw this out there as a bone:  I believe that leaders (and this includes parents) should lead by example and service so it is not an authoritarian stance as some might think.

 

I think the reason it's hard for me to understand is because you're talking about reaping the effects a system of parenting that I reject to the best of my ability. Ergo, we are not using the same tools, we're not doing the same things, even if the outcomes are similar (cooperation and mutual respect). 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think the reason it's hard for me to understand is because you're talking about reaping the effects a system of parenting that I reject to the best of my ability. Ergo, we are not using the same tools, we're not doing the same things, even if the outcomes are similar (cooperation and mutual respect). 

I know.   :D

[albeto.]

I already had that impression. However, that doesn't mean that those parents don't honestly *believe* they're teaching kids to be obedient out of necessity (odds are some believe they do it out of convenience and think that's perfectly fine too).

 

Agreed. You asked when is authority necessary and who decides when it's necessary. There is no objective measure for this, to the best of my knowledge. One person may believe necessity starts at a line much closer to home than another person. I'm one of those who is very liberal with my understanding of necessity. 

[luuknam]

I think the reason it's hard for me to understand is because you're talking about reaping the effects a system of parenting that I reject to the best of my ability. Ergo, we are not using the same tools, we're not doing the same things, even if the outcomes are similar (cooperation and mutual respect). 

 

But then you said you didn't adopt your parenting style either when your kids were younger, so your use of (more?) conventional parenting has had an impact on your own kids as well.

[albeto.]

But then you said you didn't adopt your parenting style either when your kids were younger, so your use of (more?) conventional parenting has had an impact on your own kids as well.

 

I'm not reaping the effects of my earlier parenting style, the one similar to Jean, et.al., but my current one. So when Jean says we (general we) are more or less talking about the same thing, I disagree. She's reaping the effects of what I've rejected and have replaced. 

[luuknam]

Agreed. You asked when is authority necessary and who decides when it's necessary. There is no objective measure for this, to the best of my knowledge. One person may believe necessity starts at a line much closer to home than another person. I'm one of those who is very liberal with my understanding of necessity. 

 

Okay. I think some of us are saying though that our understanding of necessity is at least partially based on our kids though. I started out with a pretty unschool-ish philosophy, and then I had an autistic kid © who didn't follow anywhere near a normal developmental trajectory and who I was afraid might never be able to take care of himself. So, I decided to drop the unschooling-ish philosophy because the stakes were too high. That may have been unnecessary, but I didn't have a crystal ball (still don't).

[Scarlett]

Huh? You are legally responsible for his job? Really? Can someone explain to me if that makes sense? I'm from NL, and when I was 15 I got a job (actually 2 jobs, one delivering newspapers and another delivering magazines) and my parents didn't care one way or another. If I didn't do the job I'd simply get fired (I did my job until I didn't want it anymore and I simply quit). Of course, for those jobs I could transport myself (bicycle), but still... I haven't heard of any parents in NL being legally responsible for their kids' jobs. I've never heard of parents being legally responsible for their kids' jobs in the US either, but I don't really know people with kids old enough to get jobs.

 

 

It is a cleaning job in a government building.  I am not legally responsible for my son's job.  I am legally responsible for THE job that I am allowing my son to do for some spending money.  Subcontracting if you will.  

[luuknam]

I'm not reaping the effects of my earlier parenting style, the one similar to Jean, et.al., but my current one. So when Jean says we (general we) are more or less talking about the same thing, I disagree. She's reaping the effects of what I've rejected and have replaced. 

 

You're reaping the effects of your previous style followed by your current style. You're not reaping the effects of your current style alone. And yes, that's different from reaping the effects of Jean's style. But, you don't know how things would have turned out if your kids had been raised with your current style from the start.

[Wheres Toto]

I don't either, and I'm in the US.  Never heard of it.  I've taken jobs my mom tried to get me to quit, but never the other way around.  :p

 

 

My guess is the job is completely in her name and she kind of subcontracts it to her son.

 

I know a lot of people who do something similar for paper routes - the job is in their spouse or child's name so that they can continue to collect unemployment but they are the one getting up at 3am to deliver the papers.

[Scarlett]

My guess is the job is completely in her name and she kind of subcontracts it to her son.

 

I know a lot of people who do something similar for paper routes - the job is in their spouse or child's name so that they can continue to collect unemployment but they are the one getting up at 3am to deliver the papers.

 

 

Well, yes it is in my name, but I am not breaking any  laws by doing it.  My boss who owns the building is well aware of my son doing the work.  

[luuknam]

Well, yes it is in my name, but I am not breaking any  laws by doing it.  My boss who owns the building is well aware of my son doing the work.  

 

So why doesn't your boss just hire your son?

[creekland]

Fifteen is a tough age. They know they're on the cusp of adulthood but now realize that childhood really did come with some privileges that they don't necessarily want to give up. Adults complain that these teens want to be treated like adults without having the responsibilities of an adult, and that's actually just what they want. I wouldn't want to be that age again. It's hard on both the teen and the adults in their lives. Of course that's a generalization, but fits so many 15 year olds (give or take a year).

 

...

 

but I also don't want some weird Pleasantville style teen who constantly smiles and makes happy conversation when told to empty the dishwasher, clean his bathroom, or take out the trash. I want him to feel comfortable expressing displeasure as long as he isn't hurtful when doing it.

 

So true, on both counts.  I never want to silence feelings in our house.  I'd much rather hear them and keep communication open.  This is especially true for teens.  Talking things out is so much better than not.  Even when it's hurtful we can discuss things.  Nothing is off limits in our house when it comes to conversation.

 

I can come up with a bunch of scenarios though where some people would say that it's necessary to make kids do certain things, while others might say it's not necessary. My easiest example would be medical treatments. If a 2yo doesn't want cancer treatment, almost everyone would say it's necessary and believe parents should make the kid (because 2yos really cannot understand things like that and make informed decisions). But what about 8yos? 16yos? Or any random age? At some point, it should become the person's own choice. But who decides what age that is? Who decides at what age it's necessary for parents to make decisions for their kids and at what age they can make their own decisions?

 

To me, the difference comes when they've reached the age of reason and understanding.  This can differ a bit between humans.  When my 16 year old was diagnosed with an atypical form of epilepsy he got to decide if he wanted meds or not - and whether he wanted to continue meds or not.  We disagreed with him when he decided to discontinue them cold turkey at one point, but other than mentioning what we thought and why, it was his body and his decision.  I would have felt the same earlier than 16.

 

My guys are all part of our family "team" but they are individual people too and get to make their own decisions.  Youngest even decided to go back to ps for his high school years.  We disagreed with that too, but let him make his own decision.  I still think he would have done better at home, but he still liked going - and it's his life - not ours.

 

The most we do is explain our reasons for why we believe what we believe.  I also keep the schedule figured out - what needs to be done, and when - and we figure out who's doing what based upon what else is going on in our lives.  It's been a long time since I've heard a complaint.  When there was one we listened as the complainer often had a reason for it and many times things changed because of it.

[albeto.]

Okay. I think some of us are saying though that our understanding of necessity is at least partially based on our kids though. I started out with a pretty unschool-ish philosophy, and then I had an autistic kid © who didn't follow anywhere near a normal developmental trajectory and who I was afraid might never be able to take care of himself. So, I decided to drop the unschooling-ish philosophy because the stakes were too high. That may have been unnecessary, but I didn't have a crystal ball (still don't).

 

Gotcha. I think it's valid to recognize we won't agree on what's necessary, even if we do agree other times. I agree it's necessary to vaccinate children, regardless of how much they fear the needle. I don't agree it's necessary to throw away a game to help teach a lesson about responsibility. I don't mean to come across as if my understanding of necessity should be applied elsewhere, or trumps yours or anyone else's. You know your kids, you know your family dynamic, you know your strengths and weaknesses. You have access to the information I never could, and I don't want to appear as if I'm promoting some objective Truth Of Parenting or anything. Within that understanding of necessity, we develop patterns of behavior with regard to our children. I didn't agree with Jean that we're all essentially doing the same thing, and I think deciding what is necessary is an important variable.

[lovinmyboys]

I still would really love for someone to tell me how having no one in authority in a home works for the five and under crowd.

 

Today we were at the pool and my 3yr old was the only one in the kiddie pool so he was doing whatever he wanted. Well, then more kids joined and I told him he could no longer throw his toys. He kept throwing them (even though I redirected and explained) so he got out. I'm pretty sure that could be considered having a privlege removed for an infraction. But, like I said earlier, I have never met someone who let their kids throw toys when other people were around-no matter how they describe their parenting style.

 

On a side note, there was an "obey lifeguards at all times" sign at the pool. I was trying to think of a good word to replace "obey" on the sign.

[lovinmyboys]

my first double post

[Scarlett]

So why doesn't your boss just hire your son?

 

 

Because he isn't 18.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm not reaping the effects of my earlier parenting style, the one similar to Jean, et.al., but my current one. So when Jean says we (general we) are more or less talking about the same thing, I disagree. She's reaping the effects of what I've rejected and have replaced. 

I never said that we are more or less talking about the same thing.  What I said, was that I often use the same words that Sparkly uses in dialog with her children, in dialog with my children.  

[albeto.]

I never said that we are more or less talking about the same thing.  What I said, was that I often use the same words that Sparkly uses in dialog with her children, in dialog with my children.  

 

Oh. Mea culpa.

 

:laugh:

[albeto.]

I still would really love for someone to tell me how having no one in authority in a home works for the five and under crowd.

 

Today we were at the pool and my 3yr old was the only one in the kiddie pool so he was doing whatever he wanted. Well, then more kids joined and I told him he could no longer throw his toys. He kept throwing them (even though I redirected and explained) so he got out. I'm pretty sure that could be considered having a privlege removed for an infraction. But, like I said earlier, I have never met someone who let their kids throw toys when other people were around-no matter how they describe their parenting style.

 

On a side note, there was an "obey lifeguards at all times" sign at the pool. I was trying to think of a good word to replace "obey" on the sign.

 

I think in the circumstances, explaining, redirecting, and escorting out of the pool was perfectly justified. I don't think rejecting conventional authority in the home has to mean raising children to ignore rules, social expectations, and authority in general. It just means not appealing to arbitrary rules and regulations because one has the means to make others comply or suffer negative consequences. 

[Scarlett]

It just means not appealing to arbitrary rules and regulations because one has the means to make others comply or suffer negative consequences. 

 

 

I am not even sure what that would look like.  Who does that?  

 

Do it just because?  And if you don't I will make you suffer?  Just because I can?

 

Yeah, that is not my idea of obedience.

 

And whoever said it might be regional word is probably right.  I hear it a lot in my world.

 

But never Cheerful Obedience.  

[Catwoman]

Apropos of nothing, dd got her wisdom teeth yanked out last week. She's been binge watching Chopped ever since, lol!

The poor kid! Having wisdom teeth removed is awful. :(

 

I hope she is feeling better now.

[albeto.]

I am not even sure what that would look like.  Who does that?  

 

Do it just because?  And if you don't I will make you suffer?  Just because I can?

 

It's conventional parenting. Many (most?) parents do.

 

No, because it's effective. From physical pain (spanking), to loss of privileges (no computer time), to loss of property (thrown / given away), to loss of social privileges (cold shoulder). Yes, and because it's effective. 

 

Yeah, that is not my idea of obedience.

 

And whoever said it might be regional word is probably right.  I hear it a lot in my world.

 

Perhaps it's the unexpected nature of the argument, but the concept and practice is pretty commonly applied. 

 

Some of my former tactics applied this:

 

Empty dishwasher in timely fashion, or do extra chores. Affection withheld (not expected, cheerful mom).

Clean room or miss out tv privileges (either until room clean, or until next day).

Do homework or gameboy is removed (either until homework is done, or until next day).

Complain, and the time spent complaining will be made up doing extra chores.

 

It's the conventional If/Then property that we teach our kids through household responsibilities. I submit that kids learn this effect anyway, as that's a natural part of learning. Because they are learned naturally, these "then" consequences aren't necessary to that end. They are however, helpful in the smooth running of a home. 

 

Until they're not. 

 

But never Cheerful Obedience.  

 

I think that's just abusive manipulation. Not a universally popular opinion, I know. 

[albeto.]

The poor kid! Having wisdom teeth removed is awful. :(

 

I hope she is feeling better now.

 

We're watching Chopped right now, as a matter of fact (while I fold laundry, pay bills, poke through forum, etc). She mentions how "sad" it is that so many of these chefs reference hoping to make their parents proud. How that's so sad that these people think they have to, or should, or even could prove some sense of worth? value? pride? I'm not sure. I suspect these chefs all come from loving homes, otherwise why would they want to make their parents proud, kwim? I think they just get it from society. There seems to be a general undercurrent lesson in society that correlates production with value, and that's too bad. I think that's what she's seeing. 

 

Not all. Some talk themselves into confidence. I think that's the Name It Claim It philosophy. "If I believe in myself and believe I can win, then I can win." Um, not if you don't have better skills than your competitors, lol! 

 

Just rambling.

 

All four teeth were impacted. But she's able to smile a little, and she no longer sounds and looks like Don Vito Corleone!

 

:laugh:

[luuknam]

Gotcha. I think it's valid to recognize we won't agree on what's necessary, even if we do agree other times. I agree it's necessary to vaccinate children, regardless of how much they fear the needle. I don't agree it's necessary to throw away a game to help teach a lesson about responsibility.

 

I see throwing the game away as being similar to the people who said they'd throw the TV out of the window (or donate it or w/e) in the thread about the husband watching TV in the bedroom at night while the wife was trying to sleep (and had asked for the TV to be turned off). And yes, if we were in a situation where my wife bought a TV for the bedroom against my will and was watching it when I was trying to sleep, then the next morning she would find out that we no longer owned the TV.

 

I don't think the Candyland situation was a necessity per se in the way that certain kinds of medical treatments are necessities, but I think it was quite reasonable. He had some clear warnings, wouldn't put it away (even though it was covering almost the entire living room floor), and I'm not my 4yo's servant. He still has plenty of other toys and games. I don't expect him to obey just because, but I also expect him to not defy just because, if that makes sense.

[Catwoman]

We're watching Chopped right now, as a matter of fact (while I fold laundry, pay bills, poke through forum, etc). She mentions how "sad" it is that so many of these chefs reference hoping to make their parents proud. How that's so sad that these people think they have to, or should, or even could prove some sense of worth? value? pride? I'm not sure. I suspect these chefs all come from loving homes, otherwise why would they want to make their parents proud, kwim? I think they just get it from society. There seems to be a general undercurrent lesson in society that correlates production with value, and that's too bad. I think that's what she's seeing.

 

Not all. Some talk themselves into confidence. I think that's the Name It Claim It philosophy. "If I believe in myself and believe I can win, then I can win." Um, not if you don't have better skills than your competitors, lol!

 

Just rambling.

 

All four teeth were impacted. But she's able to smile a little, and she no longer sounds and looks like Don Vito Corleone!

 

:laugh:

Impacted -- Yikes!!! :eek:

 

I hope you had her record a new voicemail message for your home phone while she still sounded like Don Corleone, though -- it might help keep phone spammers from calling back! ;)

 

I have seen those shows where the contestants talk about wanting to make their families proud, and I can't help but wonder if many of their comments are either scripted or coached. So many of them say almost the exact same things.

 

I'm still waiting for one of them to say they want to win because they will be able to show their rotten lousy parents that they did finally amount to something. :D

[luuknam]

Impacted -- Yikes!!! :eek:

 

I hope you had her record a new voicemail message for your home phone while she still sounded like Don Corleone, though -- it might help keep phone spammers from calling back! ;)

 

I have seen those shows where the contestants talk about wanting to make their families proud, and I can't help but wonder if many of their comments are either scripted or coached. So many of them say almost the exact same things.

 

I'm still waiting for one of them to say they want to win because they will be able to show their rotten lousy parents that they did finally amount to something. :D

 

Which, is really still about the same thing. I know one or two said his parents wanted him to go to medical/law school, and they were doing it to show them that they did amount to something. They didn't use the word 'lousy/rotten', but still. Maybe coached, but w/e. They're still doing the contest for their parents, rather than for themselves. I'd feel I failed if my kids said they were going on Chopped (or getting a PhD, or w/e) to make me proud/to show me that they finally did amount to something. I'd be totally cool with them going on Chopped/getting a PhD if that's what they wanted to do though.

[Ausmumof3]

Albeto, do you mind me asking how you would handle the toy picking up situation? How would that change as the kids get older? Do you just pick it up yourself? Leave it on the floor?

 

Sorry, I have read various ideals with regards to stuff like this but when we try to actually practise it I hit a brick wall, in that dh is intolerant of toys all over the place and I can't physically pick up after my three kids. Or if I let them have input with decisions over something fun to do that day they all want to do something different.

[albeto.]

I see throwing the game away as being similar to the people who said they'd throw the TV out of the window (or donate it or w/e) in the thread about the husband watching TV in the bedroom at night while the wife was trying to sleep (and had asked for the TV to be turned off). And yes, if we were in a situation where my wife bought a TV for the bedroom against my will and was watching it when I was trying to sleep, then the next morning she would find out that we no longer owned the TV.

 

I didn't read that thread (but I know the one to which you are referencing), but for me the two are very different in that a grown adult who [i'm assuming] walked into a relationship with another grown adult with expectations of mutual respect and reciprocity isn't the same as a child being born into a relationship completely dependent on the adult for all his needs. As the two adults learn to compromise, they have umpteen years of social skills experiences from which to draw. Before marriage or cohabitation, they have the opportunity to work out problems and ultimately decide if they are compatible. Two adults have the ability and privilege of solving problems and negotiating the meeting of needs whereas the child has far less practice and skill, and is ultimately still dependent upon the good will of the adult for his needs. I interpret taking property away from someone like that to be taking advantage of their weakness and vulnerability. In the case of the adult, that vulnerability exists when they're sleeping. In the case of the child, that vulnerability exists when they're the younger, smaller, newer member of the group.

 

I don't think the Candyland situation was a necessity per se in the way that certain kinds of medical treatments are necessities, but I think it was quite reasonable. He had some clear warnings, wouldn't put it away (even though it was covering almost the entire living room floor), and I'm not my 4yo's servant. He still has plenty of other toys and games. I don't expect him to obey just because, but I also expect him to not defy just because, if that makes sense.

 

Your reasons do make sense, but I don't think it was a reasonable solution to that problem, if you don't mind. I think it was overkill with regards to the situation, and I'll explain my thoughts in the context of parenting without an appeal to conventional authority. When authority is not the deciding factor, the more reasonable argument becomes the deciding factor. In order to discern that, one must have the skills to efficiently identify the problem(s), and develop solutions that are both efficient (don't create new problems for self or others), and is socially acceptable.

 

If the problem is learning the habit of cleaning up, that can be learned without loss of property. If the problem is a lack of appropriate social reciprocity, that can be learned without loss of property. I suspect one problem solved was the need to express frustration. Understood. Nothing wrong with identifying that as a problem and then solving it, but there are other ways of doing so that don't rely on the Might Makes Right moral code. I think that while that code may effective in the short term, it is not so in the long term. In my opinion, there are more respectful and morally sound choices available, even if this one is considered appropriate within society. 

 

It's not effective in the long term because respect is defined by the one in control of the most resources, not defined by the well being of individuals, emotional and even physical (consider the whole freak out over equal marriage in the USA for an example of Might Makes Right getting turned on its head, finally, and only after generations of conflict). Granted, your child has no need of Candyland, but applying a morally bankrupt system of justice doesn't become unimportant because the stakes are small. It's the lifetime of learning and internalizing these lessons that make this style of problem solving inefficient in the long run. 

[Guest]

I see throwing the game away as being similar to the people who said they'd throw the TV out of the window (or donate it or w/e) in the thread about the husband watching TV in the bedroom at night while the wife was trying to sleep (and had asked for the TV to be turned off). And yes, if we were in a situation where my wife bought a TV for the bedroom against my will and was watching it when I was trying to sleep, then the next morning she would find out that we no longer owned the TV.

 

I don't think the Candyland situation was a necessity per se in the way that certain kinds of medical treatments are necessities, but I think it was quite reasonable. He had some clear warnings, wouldn't put it away (even though it was covering almost the entire living room floor), and I'm not my 4yo's servant. He still has plenty of other toys and games. I don't expect him to obey just because, but I also expect him to not defy just because, if that makes sense.

About the game, though: what I wonder is why you had to add a punishment to it. See, I'm reading what you say here and it is hostile. Not as hostile as, say, threatening a country with nuclear annihilation, true. But still. There's an undercurrent of "...the little snit..." present.

 

There was a time period in which I removed several games and toys because DS could not cope with the resulting mess and I did not want to pick up a billion cards and pieces, either. So, I put it away for some number of months. But there was no hostility to it. It was just a fact. IIRC, I didn't even say anything about it, much less make sure he knew this was his punishment for being incapable/unwilling to tidy up. I just objectively said, "hmmm. This is not right for him at this time," in the same way as I might decide we can't proceed with learning multiplication while he doesn't know his addition well enough.

 

Also, I try to avoid spiraling into thinking, "I'm not his/her servant," whether we're talking about spouses or kids or even just our neighbor. If Jesus matters to you, recall that he did actually instruct to be a servant, to humble oneself. Even if you don't follow the instructions of Jesus, it is true that you get a better response from people all the time if you are humble and care about their best interests.

[albeto.]

Albeto, do you mind me asking how you would handle the toy picking up situation? How would that change as the kids get older? Do you just pick it up yourself? Leave it on the floor?

 

Sorry, I have read various ideals with regards to stuff like this but when we try to actually practise it I hit a brick wall, in that dh is intolerant of toys all over the place and I can't physically pick up after my three kids. Or if I let them have input with decisions over something fun to do that day they all want to do something different.

 

When my kids were smaller, I did adhere to a typical, conventional parenting style [for reasons I won't go into on a public board to respect the privacy of my children]. I say this because I'm not speaking from experience now, but from watching others and from applying this ideal to scenarios involving younger kids. Also, I didn't have a job outside (or inside) the home that required certain hours to be away from my children, so I was very fortunate to stay at home and attend to them as needed (which in our case, was a lot). Yes, I did a lot of picking up myself, and would do so now if given the opportunity, only this time I wouldn't do it grudgingly or as the sole opportunity to have some alone time and breathing space. I would do so in the language of cooperation and articulating my own desires, too. For example, I might say, "Oh, you're getting out Uno! I LOVE that game! Hey, can you grab the blue and green candyland people for me so I can put them in the box? Thanks..." Talking while picking up would be one way to model this, but there are other ways to model the idea of neatness and tidiness. 

 

The book 20 Teachable Virtues is a simple, fast, and illustrative book that shows how you can simply articulate those virtues you want your kids to notice, pick up on, and embrace. For organization, I'd articulate times I've noticed and appreciated organization. I might say out loud, "There! My kitchen is spotless! I finally got even the corners of the cupboards clean. You probably didn't notice that, but I did. I like to pay attention to detail. Now I'm going to do something fun for myself, and when I have to prepare dinner, I'll be so happy to do so in a neat and tidy kitchen! Wanna help?" Noticing neatness in characters from books or tv and making passing remarks. Not too much, nothing kills a desire more than having a LESSON forced down one's throat, but just pointing it out, recognizing it, articulating it gives this concept vocabulary. It gives it importance. It's a detail to be noted. In this way, day after day, month after month, year after year, noting certain virtues as being valuable, helpful, and enjoyable contribute to those meta-messages people learn in life. 

 

Of course kids will be old enough to negotiate, and that's where teaching logic and critical thinking skills comes in. Ask them questions about their plan. What problem do they identify? What solutions do they propose? If they don't see a mess on the floor as a problem, ask them what they think Daddy will think when he comes home and sees the mess. Lead them along your train of thoughts, but keep it light. You've got years to encourage and model for them the value of neat and tidy spaces. And keep your sense of humor. I think creekland (?) said upthread, humor diffuses a multitude of sins. It's really true. Also, learning how to laugh at yourself helps keep your inner princess in check, kwim? 

[Arcadia]

I don't know, I guess I think of getting a car as a milestone, like getting a first apartment. Something to be earned and to feel like an accomplishment. Not just a practical thing like medical bills, tutoring , extracurriculars which parents pay for by default.

My parents was going to buy me a car if I pass my driving test in the late 80s. It was a safety issue as late night (after 11pm) city busses aren't very safe. I know friends who drove to high school for the same reason. My former high school is open until midnight for students to study for exams.

[mommymilkies]

As for the same words in different styles, I think it's partly tone and respect.  It's like saying "I could kill you!" jokingly and "I COULD KILL YOU" seriously.  I had an obedience first stepfather.  That meant anything he ever said to do had to be done that second no matter what or the consequences would be very bad for us.  There was no discussion, no consideration, just straight obedience.  I know families today that operate the same.  They do not always use that tone, but I've seen them force their kids into first time obedience no matter what was ever asked or face physical punishment for things that are so so so tiny that it bordered if not downright crossed into abuse. If you have to threaten eternal damnation, resort to physical punishments, or take away your child's ability to any free choice, that's what I consider an obedience mindset.  Like I said, though, I expect emergency obedience but that's built from respect, not fear.  And just like above where my kids don't get a "choice" but to do their chores, if something is honestly an issue, we change it.  They can switch chores (provided they get done), they can ask for help, they can put them off a few minutes within reason, and they get some say into which chores they do.  Does that make sense?  I don't think we're really so different, it's mostly terminology but without being there in person, you can't convey some of this simply in writing. 

[Ausmumof3]

When my kids were smaller, I did adhere to a typical, conventional parenting style [for reasons I won't go into on a public board to respect the privacy of my children]. I say this because I'm not speaking from experience now, but from watching others and from applying this ideal to scenarios involving younger kids. Also, I didn't have a job outside (or inside) the home that required certain hours to be away from my children, so I was very fortunate to stay at home and attend to them as needed (which in our case, was a lot). Yes, I did a lot of picking up myself, and would do so now if given the opportunity, only this time I wouldn't do it grudgingly or as the sole opportunity to have some alone time and breathing space. I would do so in the language of cooperation and articulating my own desires, too. For example, I might say, "Oh, you're getting out Uno! I LOVE that game! Hey, can you grab the blue and green candyland people for me so I can put them in the box? Thanks..." Talking while picking up would be one way to model this, but there are other ways to model the idea of neatness and tidiness.

 

The book 20 Teachable Virtues is a simple, fast, and illustrative book that shows how you can simply articulate those virtues you want your kids to notice, pick up on, and embrace. For organization, I'd articulate times I've noticed and appreciated organization. I might say out loud, "There! My kitchen is spotless! I finally got even the corners of the cupboards clean. You probably didn't notice that, but I did. I like to pay attention to detail. Now I'm going to do something fun for myself, and when I have to prepare dinner, I'll be so happy to do so in a neat and tidy kitchen! Wanna help?" Noticing neatness in characters from books or tv and making passing remarks. Not too much, nothing kills a desire more than having a LESSON forced down one's throat, but just pointing it out, recognizing it, articulating it gives this concept vocabulary. It gives it importance. It's a detail to be noted. In this way, day after day, month after month, year after year, noting certain virtues as being valuable, helpful, and enjoyable contribute to those meta-messages people learn in life.

 

Of course kids will be old enough to negotiate, and that's where teaching logic and critical thinking skills comes in. Ask them questions about their plan. What problem do they identify? What solutions do they propose? If they don't see a mess on the floor as a problem, ask them what they think Daddy will think when he comes home and sees the mess. Lead them along your train of thoughts, but keep it light. You've got years to encourage and model for them the value of neat and tidy spaces. And keep your sense of humor. I think creekland (?) said upthread, humor diffuses a multitude of sins. It's really true. Also, learning how to laugh at yourself helps keep your inner princess in check, kwim?

Thanks for the explanation. I have to be honest a lot of our conflict over organisation comes from my own struggle with organisation. So verbalising how to organise is hard for me because I struggle with organising anyway.

 

I have definitely moved to a more solution oriented style over time and also realised that my kids can't clean up well when the space isn't organised. But I have also had bad times when I'll admit I've threatened to bag everything up and take it to the op shop if it isn't put away. I want better strategies so I can avoid getting to that point of frustration.

[Jenny in Florida]

No no..not at all regarding the snark.

 

I think you misunderstood the whole choice thing.  I don't really give my kids a choice in the sense you are thinking.  If I need the dishwasher emptied I ask for it to be emptied.  If my kid asks if he can finish something up and that's not a problem I say ok.  If I need it done immediately, I say I really need this done now and I'd appreciate it done now.  So he comes and does it.

 

I don't say, "Empty the dishwasher if you feel like it." 

Who the heck feels like doing that ever? 

 

Right. I don't feel like emptying the dishwasher, either.

 

If I wanted my son to empty the dishwasher, I would give him fair warning and some control over when he got it done. For example: "Hey, Dude, I need you to empty the dishwasher, please. It doesn't have to be right this minute, but it needs to be done before I get in the kitchen to start dinner at (whatever) o'clock."

 

If whatever o'clock rolls around and it's not done, I remind him and let him know I'm not happy that I had to remind him. I explain to him that, because he didn't take care of that chore on time, the rest of us are inconvenienced because dinner will be late or he'll be in my way when I'm trying to cook or he will now be late to rehearsal because I won't be available to drive him on time because I'm waiting for him to empty the dishwasher or whatever the case may be.

 

If he gets it done on time and without incident, I thank him for taking care of it and let him know I'm happy I can count on him.

 

It doesn't always work. It's not a perfect system. But it's the best I've come up with so far.

[Jenny in Florida]

I did a little experiment with my son yesterday....this thread on my mind.

 

I had to clean my boss's very large house 6500 SF. It really really wears me out when I try to het most of it done in one day. I took him with me and told him I needed him to help me the last hour or so. When it came time for him to help he was unpleasant to say the least..wanted to keep doing his drivers Ed course he was working on.

 

I just looked at him. Then I said, "what do you want to do son?" He said he wanted to keep working on his course. So I said ok, and I went on to finish it all myself.

 

No snark here, either, I promise, but I'm curious: Is it a regular thing that your son helps you with your job? And how do you usually balance that responsibility with schoolwork?

[Jenny in Florida]

Ah. I guess I misunderstood. I thought some of you do t make your kids do a,chore if they do t want to or if they have some thing else they want to do.

 

Well, in my case, I don't usually "make" my kids do things, at least not once they are preteens. Instead, I make it clear that the choice is theirs to do the chore or not, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of that decision.

 

So, in the dishwasher example, my son could refuse to empty the dishwasher. I won't "make" him to the chore. I will, however, explain that he depends upon my goodwill to drive him to rehearsal later that evening and that, if I am tired and cranky because I had to do someone else's chore in addition to my own, I may be fresh out of goodwill when the moment to leave arrives. Or that, minimally, he may be late to rehearsal because I won't be ready to leave if I have to take the time to empty the dishwasher before cooking dinner.

 

Our home is not available for him to have friends over unless the common areas are guest ready. So, he needs to pick up his stuff from the living room and make sure the bathroom is clean if he plans to have company this weekend. (Just as I would do it I were the one inviting people over.)

 

I don't know of any parents who simply throw their hands up in the air and say, "Fine! Forget it!" and expect that will encourage a teen to pitch in.

[Scarlett]

No snark here, either, I promise, but I'm curious: Is it a regular thing that your son helps you with your job? And how do you usually balance that responsibility with schoolwork?

I ask for his help for about an hour sometimes one day a week. Not always. Schoolwork comes first of course. But after he works on school ( when we are in school) for 4 or 5 hours he needs to change gears anyway.

[albeto.]

Ah. I guess I misunderstood. I thought some of you do t make your kids do a,chore if they do t want to or if they have some thing else they want to do.

 

My kids don't have chores, but I suspect I'm in the minority.

 

Then again, I don't do computer or tech stuff. My kids pamper me there, and in other ways.

[Scarlett]

We had a great day. I began by letting him sleep until 10. Then we discussed my concerns and ways to fix them. He was very helpful with a great attitude all day.

[Scarlett]

We had a great day. I began by letting him sleep until 10. Then we discussed my concerns and ways to fix them. He was very helpful with a great attitude all day.

[albeto.]

We had a great day. I began by letting him sleep until 10. Then we discussed my concerns and ways to fix them. He was very helpful with a great attitude all day.

 

:)

[Catwoman]

We had a great day. I began by letting him sleep until 10. Then we discussed my concerns and ways to fix them. He was very helpful with a great attitude all day.

:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

[creekland]

We had a great day. I began by letting him sleep until 10. Then we discussed my concerns and ways to fix them. He was very helpful with a great attitude all day.

 

Sounds awesome!  Don't expect perfection (just as we aren't perfect - well - at least I'm not), but it sounds like a really good start getting him on board.

[luuknam]

I didn't read that thread (but I know the one to which you are referencing), but for me the two are very different in that a grown adult who [i'm assuming] walked into a relationship with another grown adult with expectations of mutual respect and reciprocity isn't the same as a child being born into a relationship completely dependent on the adult for all his needs. As the two adults learn to compromise, they have umpteen years of social skills experiences from which to draw. Before marriage or cohabitation, they have the opportunity to work out problems and ultimately decide if they are compatible. Two adults have the ability and privilege of solving problems and negotiating the meeting of needs whereas the child has far less practice and skill, and is ultimately still dependent upon the good will of the adult for his needs. I interpret taking property away from someone like that to be taking advantage of their weakness and vulnerability. In the case of the adult, that vulnerability exists when they're sleeping. In the case of the child, that vulnerability exists when they're the younger, smaller, newer member of the group.

 

If you take advantage of me by being purposely noisy in the one place with a bed for me to sleep in (luckily not a problem in my house), then I'm not sure what a reasonable response would be. If reasoning/negotiating with someone fails and they insist on being purposefully unreasonable, then what? Though I'm guessing if a spouse chooses to be unreasonable about watching TV in the bedroom there are underlying issues in the marriage with the TV issue being a symptom. 

 

If the problem is learning the habit of cleaning up, that can be learned without loss of property. If the problem is a lack of appropriate social reciprocity, that can be learned without loss of property.

 

For the purpose of this discussion, do you consider Quill's method of putting the game away for a few months to be "loss of property"?