This is where communication is so important. If the kids wants to skip school, I can tell it will affect his grades, which will affect his certificate, making it harder to get a good job. Of course, it’s important to pick a quiet time to discuss this, not when the teen is in a “I don’t care about nuthing” -mood. And it’s also important that there is trust - if the teen thinks you want to lecture him, or that you don’t really care about his opinion, then he won’t talk. But if you have that trust that you respect his opinion and take him seriously (you may have to built that trust first), then you can discus his future not as parent who is boss and tells him what to do with his life, but as somebody who is concerned about what he wants to do, and somebody who has some more experience.
And if it turns out that the teen has seriously thought about the problem, and has alternatives, then make a deal, find alternatives. If he wants to leave school, because he has a career chosen - maybe he wants to be a rock musician? - then find him a practice work engagment. Or see if he can get admitted to a special music school. And so on.
Like with the vacation listed above. Did the teen during all that planning process never say that he didn’t want to go with his family? Or was this ignored? Did the parents look with the teen for alternatives - maybe staying with relatives, or with friends of his (if those parents agreed) or going to summer camp (if he had kept his deal to work for the money to pay for it)? If a 16-year old doesn’t want to go on vacation with his family, why should he be forced to?
Wow. Why is it necessary to treat a kid as a prisoner because he doesn’t bow down to the opinion and preferences of adults who happen to be his parents???
I must have read some other description than you. The kid is backtalking, hanging out after hours, and refuses to go to holiday with the family, and for that you call him not acting like a human being??? WTF? It’s not like he has murdererd or burlarized or anything. It’s not that he crawls on all fours. Even adult prisoners - who have done much worse things - are still considered human beings, and treated accordingly.
So, because the teen feels unwelcome, and communicates in the only way he knows, by getting attention from being defiant, the solution is not to talk with him seriously (maybe by getting a mediator from outside), but to kick him out. Yes, that will solve his problems. And make him feel the love his family has for him.
My mind just boggles. A kid who backtalks needs a psych ward??? I didn’t know that non-comformity is that big a threat and problem in America.
But becoming drill sergeant doesn’t undo the situation. It only severs all ties between the kid and the family. They need to talk, to find out why he’s acting like that, and then try to solve the issues. (And that means talking with, not lecturing at the kid - if the trust is already too broken, they need to get a mediator, somebody who both the parents and the teen trust.)
That was what my parents thought with myself and Bro. They heard other people complain about how hard it was to put the kids to bed and keep them there and thought “they just don’t know hot to do it, we got it down pat!”
Then Lilbro was born and my parents found out that for Bro and me, being told “you may go to bed now” (as close a translation as I can get) really sounded like permission… as in yawn by that time yawn… uh, excuse me we were busted. Lilbro is a lateguy, Bro and me are morning people.
A friend of mine was the OP’s nephew. His problem was lack of consistent rules (“going to Daddy after Mom has said no” worked beautifully in that house; his sister’s own rebelliousness took a different form, one that’s 16 years old now); his solution, though, was not suddenly coming up with an attempt at creating authority where none existed… it was treating him like an adult. Once his mother started saying “ok, you want to be treated like an adult, behave like one; if you don’t want to behave like one, I’m setting the rules here.”
When your kids don’t have respect for you, because you never earned it and managed to lose what they grant you naturally, it’s not going to magically appear thanks to a too-little too-late attempt at Authority.
I didn’t mean that loving means to let people get away with anything. But love - unconditional love - comes first. After that come the rules for behaviour. Of course parents, like every other human, feel frustrated and angry when faced with obnoxius behaviour. It’s not easy to say “I love you, but your current behaviour makes me angry” in a calm voice when somebody has pushed all your buttons so your temper is up a 180. But that’s necessary.
[uqote]Because as a parent, you ARE the boss. I don’t think I can really make this any clearer. Kids **need ** someone to be in charge. They are, by definition, not qualified to manage their own lives. This obviously becomes less the case as they get older, but as long as they’re still minors, as a parent it’s YOUR JOB to keep them safe and healthy.
[/quote]
I think we may be using different definitions here. Yes, it’s very important for kids to have rules that give them safety. (And those rules should come from logic, not from authorative “I can do, so I will do”). Yes, a parent is responsible to ensure the well-being of a child. But I wouldn’t call this “boss” because that’s too authorative for me.
Another semantics issue, I think. Respect to me means no insults, but respect for the children means that they can also say their opinion, and it’s considered as valid as the opinion of the adults. (They may get overruled, but they need to feel that are being taken seriously). It seems that respect is used with different connotations by different people, and to some, it’s closer to “slavish obedience”.
I’m using the “I didn’t ask to be born” argument only against the equally stupid “as long as your feet are under my table” argument. In a healthy relation, neither should come up, because there’s a basis of love and respect and trust that makes it unneccessary to pull these stunts. If it’s not a burden for you, that’s what I expect. And if you do a good job, gratitutde will come eventually. (Although it’s wrong to expect gratitude from children automatically. Typcially, they will realize what you did for them once they are no longer children.) Children are, when they are small, totally dependent upon their caregivers, so expecting gratitude for natural acts seems too much for me.
Consideration - yes, depending on what you mean with that. Some people seem to think that being parents mean they have absolute control and should get slavish obedience back, and that’S what I think is quite wrong. If you are doing a good job as being a mother, your children will be considerate of their own, because if they are good children, it will come natural. If you treat them like soldiers, you will get disobedience and rebellion and similar.
Hey, I have another question. What was the OP’s nephew being grounded for in the first place?
I once knew a girl who started out being grounded for some minor infraction. She defied that grounding, so the grounding was extended. Lather rinse repeat until her grounding was theoretically extended until school started again, except in practice she was still going out wherever and whenever, and throughout this whole thing, it never occurred either to her to just ride out the grounding while it was still managable, or to her parents to come up with some other punishment!
constanze, your parenting philosophy seems to be that if you treat your children with enough respect and consideration, they’ll never have any issues you’ll need to discipline them for. I wish you all the luck in the world with that. I really hope that someday, you can let us know how it all works out for you.
I think you misunderstand something here. Respecting your children doesn’t equal being a doormat. It means listening to their opinons and taking them seriously, and not ordering them like some soldiers or prisoners.
Again, I don’t know who said that if you love your children you shouldn’t punish them? Between “Allowing your children to do everything” (laissez-faire) and “Obey every order, because I’m the boss” (authorative) there’s a sensible middle ground. Read the above excerpt about Dreikurs’ rules of logical consequences via punishment.
Why should a family not be a democracy? You establish ground rules (like a constitution) that ensure the physical well-being of the children. But why not decide by majority where to go for the holidays? And there’s a difference between setting a bedtime for a five -year old, who needs sleep and is too young to set his own, and a 16-year old, who should be old enough to go to bed on time to be alert the next morning. (In two years, when he’s living on his own, he has to get out of bed in the morning to be punctual for work. If he’s never learned to do things on his own, only by orders, then how will he function then?) As children grow up, you give them more responsibilites because they can handle more, and so they can learn from it.
I never recommend spanking or other physical punishment for a child. If you do it calmly, then you can find another form of punishment; if you are enraged, then you shouldn’t punish, anyway.
I’ll never understand why so many American parents are so fond of room arrest for weeks for simple things like back-talking. What does that accomplish? Yes, when both, child and parent, are upset and yelling, then it’s a good idea to physically seperate them before things get out of hand. But when tempers have calmed down, there needs to be a calm talk about what happened. How will they deal with problems as adults, if they haven’t learned to communicate?
If you give room arrest for back-talking, you haven’t solved the problem. Once the child has calmed down, you need to get to the root of why he said the things he said. Most likely (if he is a good kid) he will apologize and say he didn’t mean it. Or he will explain why he disagrees with you.
And that is the wrong way, and not what I was talking about.
I can’T think that any reasonable person on this board thinks that caving in to childrens’ whims is loving parenting. Spoiling children is a form of child abuse, just like hitting or belittling children is. It doesn’t do the kids any favours, and sensible people know that. (And that overbearing love of little precious is as far overboard as those who put bars on the windows or kick their teens out of the house when they are of age. That’S not normal, healthy love or respect.)
You seem to misunderstand “respecting” children. I strongly advise parents not to smack their children, because it doesn’t teach them anything besides cruelty, or following orders blindly. Respecting children means to ask them their opinion, for example, planning a meal, what veggie they like. Not serving chocolate instead, and not ordering them to eat what you decided for them. Let them choose between five veggies, they still eat healthy, and you respect that they have individual tastes. Let them choose their own clothes, but buy sensible stuff. Explain to them how big the family budget for clothes is, when they want a 120 $ jeans. (And that people can be valued for other things than their expensive jeans.) And so on.
No, that’s not my philosophy. I follow Neill and Dreikurs, because they sound logical and plausible to me. I know that children (based on my own experience when I was a child) aren’T little monsters that delight in being bad; they desperately want to be accepted and loved and liked, and will do their best to fit in. Yes, children make mistakes - because they are still learning-, and they have bad moods - like adults - and so on. But in most cases, I opt for logical consquences. When the child spills the milk - that happens to adults, too, but I wouldn’t belittle them, or send them to their room for that. They get the rag to wipe it up, if the cloth is dirty, they help wash it. End of story. If they break a dish accidentally, they pay for a new one, to make it up. Why room arrest or long lectures that they are bad? If they break the dish on purpose, wait till they are calm and ask what’s wrong, not tell them they are juvenile delinquents.
I know how I would have liked to been treated as child, and I know how I treat adult friends who make mistakes (like all humans) or who get into a shouting argument (as happens occasionally). We wait till the temper has blown out, and then calmly explain what upset us, what was really meant, what can be done to avoid this in the future, and then we make up and things are well again.
Khangol, thanks for the fantastic post. constanze, the more of your posts I read, the more I respect your ideas, but I do think you’re being unrealistic to expect that children will always make the right choice because it makes logical sense. There will be times when a child is hellbent on making a destructive choice no matter how much you try to show them the light. A parent doesn’t have the luxury of saying “oh well, live and learn, next time they’ll know better.” Those are the times when authority is a useful parenting tool (though just one of many). I’ve seen too many examples of trying to be a child’s friend/peer/equal, rather than their parent and guardian, lead to big trouble.
I think the “as long as your feet are under my table” or, as I’ve always heard it, “As long as you live under my roof” argument, which cliche and annoying as hell when you’re a teen, is indeed a logical one.
Here in the US, parents are legally responsible for their children and their children’s actions until they become 18 or legally emancipated. We must feed, clothe and school them and make sure they obey all literal and societal laws. If they skip school, we go to jail for it (or pay fines for it.) If they throw a party and some other kid brings a bottle of alcohol into our house, we go to jail for it. If they break something, deface something, hurt someone - the parents are legally liable for all damages and medical costs.
Now, in every other case in the world, if you are responsible for the effects, you get to be the decision maker for the causes. That is, if a childless person is legally liable for a car accident, it’s because they chose to do something stupid. Therefore, it’s only logical that I have a LOT of say in my child’s choices - I’m the one ultimately legally, financially and socially (not to mention emotionally) on the hook for them.
As long as my kid is making decent decisions that don’t endanger me monetarilly, legally, socially or emotionally, then sure, let him do what he wants. That’s a whole huge area of control for a teen. But his control is not unlimited. His actions have logical consequences, and he has to - HAS TO - recognize that by bearing the brunt of his actions. Once his actions start to effect me or my other children negatively, I have every right - nay, *responsibility *- to put my foot down under the “my table” argument.
You keep talking about “simple back-talking” in the OP. Here’s what I read:
These are not the actions of a rational person. They are not the actions of a person who is leading his own life without adversely affecting others.
OF COURSE they should talk to him. I hope they talked to him before grounding him for whatever, and I suspect they talked to him, pleaded with him, cajoled him, yelled at him, begged him and whined at him for 8 friggin’ hours fairly recently.
But, IMHO, his actions need to stop. He can choose to stop them (which I see no sign that he’s willing or able to do), his parents might be able to force him to stop, which I doubt, as they haven’t shown themselves to be very capable so far, or a trained professional can help them.
Talking alone works with rational people. This isn’t a rational person right now.
constanze I think there is a lot of value in what you write, but I think you and the “authoritarians” may be unnecessarily adopting extreme polar positions. In reality, sometimes parenting requires listening to the kid’s wishes, and other times it may require a swat on the butt.
Coupla questions - I seem to have missed whether you have any children of your own, or in what context you “follow” the approach of the authors you cite. Also, you refer to us Americans - where do you hail from?
Wanted to respond to a couple of minor points you posted:
Parenting requires that countless decisions be made every day. When ushering young kids from a car across a busy parking lot, the parent does not need to hear a kid’s wishes of how best to do it, but simply needs the kid to comply with the parent’s reasonable instructions. I once saw a screaming match between a woman and her little girl on a sidewalk. As best I could figure out, the kid was upset because she wanted to walk down the other side of the street, when the side the mom chose was the way to get to their destination. And no, I do not need to hear a kid’s argument why he should have candy every time we go to thru the checkout line.
Sorry - but there is just too damn much going on for every single matter to be up for discussion. We always set aside ample time to talk about anything the kids want, including trying to eat as many meals together as a family as possible. But we made it clear that there were times at which if we said “jump” they had better jump now and ask their questions later.
Many many reasons, many of which have already been given. The adults (hopefully) are more mature and more experienced. As mentioned above, the adults are the responsible parties - as such, it strikes me as appropriate that they have a greater say. As I said, democracy is not sufficiently efficient to deal with the vast number of decisions that need to be made. After 18 years, the kids will have the opportunity to set up whatever household dynamics they wish. Just because my wife and I have 3 kids doesn’t mean we will be dictated to by our kids’ preferences on every decision.
I think parents ought to strive to be seen as reasonable authority figures. All their lives, kids will have to deal with authority figures - not all of whom are reasonable. I think that a parent acting as a reasonable authority figure - “boss”, if you will - prepares a child for dealing with relationships as he/she matures.
The eight-hour standoff over going on vacation is definitely an asshole move, but other than that…
[ul]
[li]He may be having sex.[/li][li]He doesn’t want to get a summer job, but he doesn’t ask his parents for money either.[/li][li]He stays out late.[/li][li]He leaves the house.[/li][li]He doesn’t talk to his parents when he doesn’t want to.[/li][/ul]
Which one of those is “out of control”? I’m honestly not seeing it.
Maybe I’m biased. I was a pretty stubborn teenager too, and you know what ended up being the solution? Treating me as a person, acknowledging that I had my own goals that didn’t necessarily coincide with my parents’ goals for me, and letting me handle things on my own. Things got a lot less stressful for everyone, and I seem to have turned out fine.
I don’t have any children of my own (yet), but I was a child and teenager once myself. And I’m from Germany.
That’s not what I meant. Those are basic things - that there are approriate time and place for discussions, and inapproariate ones, the later being a busy parking lot. Similarly, the discussion about candy in the checkout line is cleared once, so that the kids understand the arguments, and then it’s clear. I think that those kids that make trouble about every single aspect, something is already going wrong that they don’T feel they are being listened to, or have to obey unneccesary rules, or whatever.
Or they simply have had a lousy day - that happens to all of us - and are in a bad mood, and therefore acting up just when you see them.
I don’t have a problem with this. If the kids wants to run into a busy street, of course he’s held back, and if the parent is so upset over the dangers, I can understand a swat on the bottom. But that’s not what impresses the kid. A quiet talk about the dangers of traffic later, and that’s why he sometimes has to jump, should convince the kid.
I can only go by the reports in Dreikurs book and Neill’s book that the democratic approach did work for them (and Neill had very problematic children). There are certain ground rules that are not negotiable, and when you introduce it suddenly, the children might enjoy testing the limits or getting revenge on you. But if you are serious, the children will quickly adjust and be fair. They won’t micromanage your life - the weekly (or monthly) family discussion is for all things that are important for the family.
I’m sorry, I don’t quite follow that argument. Because a child may have to deal with not-reasonable bosses as adult, the parents should already be bosses like that? The best way, I think, is to raise the child as best as possible to a reasonable, self-confident and secure, adult. He will recognize that some bosses are unreasonable, because he will have encountered these while growing up - neighbors, relatives, school teachers: there are always some unreasonable people around. But if the adult is secure and used to reason, he can find a way to deal as best as possible with bad bosses. If he’s used to the stern voice of authority, or is insecure, or has other problem, he will be in a worse position to deal with a bad boss. Maybe he’ll jump automatically, even when the orders are bad, or toady when it’s uncalled for, or similar. In short, children who have had unreasonable authorative parents develop one kind of strategy to cope with them, and then try these methods for all problems. Children with reasonable parents grow into reasonable, secure adults who can calmly analyze the problem and then choose the best strategy to solve the problem.
The Hyde School seemed to do wonders for my brother. My parents aren’t rich, but they were able to manage the tuition (with sacrifices on thier part). My brother was on a very similar track to the kid in your post, and others, including the OP, in the thread. The school was a bit liberal for my taste, but seems to have helped quite a bit.
Seriously, do you even know any children? You can lay out your arguments until you’re blue in the face; they’re still going to want the candy. At some point you just have to say “No” and mean it, even if they disagree.
Another thing to consider is that reasonable parents can provide a good model for leadership later on. If your folks ordered you around and expected you to obey their arbitrary commands just because they were in charge, chances are you’ll do the same when you’re in charge of anyone else, and your subordinates will react just like you reacted to your parents. Although you might have to deal with authoritarian bosses as an adult, you don’t have to be one - but if that’s all you’ve ever known, that’s probably what you’ll be.
Sure, they’ll still want it, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be made to understand why they can’t have it, and accept the fact that they won’t get it.
And let’s not forget we’re talking about a teenager here, not a toddler.
I don’t get it. Somebody has to eat or drink the last of something. Were you supposed to offer it up for bids?
You can lay out your arguments until you’re blue in the face; they’re still going to want the candy. At some point you just have to say “No” and mean it, even if they disagree.