The funny thing about youth...(a message to teens everywhere)

[Chris Wallace]

This is my problem with that line of thinking: Understanding has to come from adults first. Kids have to learn understanding, and they'll have a hard time learning it from their parents or teachers if they never get any from their parents or teachers. It basically tells them "This is something we deserve and you don't." I know that's not the intention, but it's the impression it leaves. Kids will, for the most part, learn understanding and respect and all that eventually anyway. But it'll be a lot harder and take a lot longer and won't sink in quite as well. I know this from experience.

Also, you mentioned the situations under which a kid would get shut down. Why is that a good thing to do in the first place? What is there to be gained from the kid getting nothing from the adult when they approach them in a hostile manner. That seems really counter-productive to me.

Have a kid, have him mouth off to you, give him what he wants, then tell me how it turns out.
Or-let him know that's NOT the way.

 

[The Question]

I get the sense that there is some personal experiences that are guiding your thoughts. Generally, this phrase and the like are going to be used for petty things. Chores, playtime, food, video games, tv, etc. And as much as you want to believe it, you can explain to a kid till you are blue in the face why they can't stay up late to watch TV or play video games, but they don't care. They just know they want to do it. That's generally when the "Because I said so!" comes in. Parents learn to recognize when a child is actually asking a valid question and when they are just stalling for time or pushing buttons. At that point, the parent needs to be the parent and lay down the law. You have this utopian view that if you just explain something to a kid once, they'll go "OK, I get it. I'll take the trash out now." And I'm sorry, but that's where your inexperience with being a parent is obvious. That simply isn't going to happen. Having my own children and often taking care of my niece and nephew, I can promise you that 9 times out of 10, no rational answer you give a kid who doesn't want to stop playing their video game and do their chores/homework/whatever is going to suffice.



I agree kids don't need to be micromanaged. But lets face it, kids don't want to do chores. They don't always want to do homework. They don't always want to go to bed on time. They don't want to do a lot that is good for them (go outside and play, eat their dinner, share, etc.). These are things that may be "against their will" but still need to be done. It does teach them responsibility. You live here, you need to do your part to keep the house clean. Kids don't always see this, and no amount of explaining is usually going to be good enough for them to take the trash out, or vacuum the living room. So no, they shouldn't be micromanaged, but forcing them to do something they may not want to isn't slave labor, it's taking responsibility for yourself as well as respecting everyone else you live your life with.

That actually makes a lot of sense, given the context you're talking about.

Again, examples?

Honestly? School. I think school is a huge example of this. And the way schools are organized today is something we can live without. Other than that, I think that kids, naturally depending on the age level, are more capable of taking care of themselves than we give them credit for. I know of people who have been taking the subway into Boston by themselves since they were fourteen, largely to hang out with other people of the same age, and they all turned out fine.

I don't understand this. For this situation to occur that would mean that the parents at no point, ever showed their child respect....zero. None of any kind. I just can't fathom a normal family being in that situation. Sure, there are some screwed up families that may have the worst Dad ever, but NO respect? I think that's reaching. Growing up from a little kid, they are going to be told NO alot. Don't put that in your mouth, don't touch that electrical socket, don't play with that knife. These are to keep a child that doesn't know any better from hurting themselves, and to teach them about what can hurt them. There's no middle ground here. No matter how much little timmy wants to play with that knife, he isn't going to get it. I don't care how much you think talking will help, but when you've got a screaming kid throwing a fit you could explain everything in perfect, logical detail and you might as well be speaking Klingon. It won't mean a damn thing. Sure, being the parent and providing everything for the child doesn't invalidate that kids feelings, but it may damn well make them irrelevant. Using the example given before about the hair in the bathtub, it IS teaching respect. Respect for the people who you live with, not just your parents. I'm sure that teen would throw a fit if they went in to use the bath and it was filled with kiddy toys, or Dads hair was all over the place. It would be "Ewww gross." But for them to have to clean up their own mess is, for some reason, below them. When in fact, it's just respectful to leave the bathroom in at least a reasonably clean state for the next person, just as that teen would likely want it to be when they use it.

This also makes a lot of sense in context.

Again, I'm sorry, but you're living in a utopia and showing how inexperienced you are with children. This is pretty much the same thing as I said in my first response above. Most kids don't really care about why they should top playing their game, they already know why. They just don't want to. You can explain till you are blue in the face and all you'd do is get tired. It gets to the point where the only choice is to continue to argue in circles, or bring down the hammer. Period. And again, as parents grow with their children, they are better able to tell what is a valid "why" and what is a "I don't care why, I just want to do what I want." And when it come to the latter, no reason will be good enough. An explanation is irrelevant at that point.

I'm finding the "living in a utopia" thing to be a little insulting... but whatever. What you say here... does and doesn't make sense to me. In that I think it's largely dependent on a child's age. A four year old isn't going to be able to have much beyond the simplest of conversations about anything, let alone how the household is run. As for older kids... again, if the kid's just asking why to stall for time, then I think that any conversation you're going to have should probably be about something else, like why it is they feel so strongly about not doing what you asked them, not why they should do what you asked them.

I've never heard of this before. It's difficult for me to understand how a young child could successfully learn to read and learn basic math skills....stuff that you absolutely NEED to know to do anything in this world...if not structured to do so. I know damn well I would have stayed as far away from math as I could. English too for that matter. But, that's me, and without actually going through this type of schooling, it's hard for me to judge it. I'll have to research it more. This, would probably be one of those things where communication with your children would be most beneficial. If they think this type of schooling is better, or home schooling, or public school, or private. That is something that can be discussed as a family. As it turns out, if it is something you're concerned for your kids (when you have them) over, you certainly have that choice.

I've only met one person who came out of a school like that and couldn't read very well. Then he tried to take college courses, and taught himself how so he could keep up. At this point he's actually not allowed to read because he's been known in the past to be two hours late for work because he was too busy reading a book and forgot about the time (luckily he runs his own business).

I live in suburbia. I have 4 schools within my district alone that are primarily "well off middle class" kids. I grew up in a district where that was not the case. I can tell you for a fact that there are just as many violent incidents as I saw going through an "inner city" school.

What do you mean by violent acts? Because I'm talking about teenagers shooting and stabbing each other over money and drugs.

"because I said so" CAN be rude and condescending, but generally it's used when all other attempts at reasoning have already failed. OR, when the child is already being disrespectful. If I tell my kids it's time to start getting ready for bed, turn off the games and let's go, and the immediate response I get is a whiny "I DON'T WANT TO!! WHY? THAT'S STUPID!" they're going to get some version of "Because I said so!" and that's it. One, they were immediately disrespectful. They've just lost any chance of negotiating 5 more minutes. Two, they absolutely know why. It's nothing more than an attempt to push buttons and aggravate me to the point that I might just give in. It teaches if you don't show respect, you won't get any back.

I'm not sure kids really learn like that, but then it depends on the age you're talking about. I don't entirely disagree here, although I think it's best to deal with any social interaction with a certain level of gentleness. Not that you shouldn't stand your ground, just that you shouldn't be rigid and harsh and actually try to understand what's going on in the other person's head and dal with it/confront them about it. I'm not accusing you of anything, by the by, because I've never seen you in a social situation with anyone. I'm just stating my opinion on the subject in general.

I think you're being a tad over-dramatic. You keep saying things about parents who "never communicate" or "never listen." I think if you have a parent or a teacher that never listens, never shows respect, never tries to be helpful, to a child....there is a bigger issue. Most normal families don't have a situation where they "NEVER" any of those things. My parents didn't always listen to me when I thought I had a good point. But very often they did. That doesn't mean that those times that they didn't I suddenly dropped back down to square one and didn't trust them, didn't respect them, and they were the enemy. You're drawing a sort of black and white line here and that's just not the way it is. I didn't like school, but I knew it was necessary for me to make it through life. I needed to learn to read, I needed to learn math, I needed to learn how to socialize, I needed to learn how to write and spell, etc. Were some classes and some assignments worthless in the long run, sure. But I never saw school as the enemy. And I NEVER saw my parents as the enemy. They ruined my fun a lot. Sometimes I understood why (but didn't like it), and sometimes I didn't get it (but later in life understood why). I also understood that getting all *****y immediately got me nowhere.

That's very good. Better than a lot of people I know, for one thing. No, you're right, my wording is a bit extreme. I've just found in my experience that, in our culture, adults are more likely not not really listen to what a kid has to say than they are to do so. But you're right, it's not a 100% of the time thing in any sense.

 

[The Question]

Respectfully, I disagree. Allowing kids to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and letting them get away with things when they do wrong.....is harmful to society.

I've never advocated for kids getting away with things when they do wrong. I just think that if a kid wants to do something that doesn't infringe on the rights of others and isn't inherently self destructive, then they should be allowed to do it. However, I think our definition of "not self destructive" is too narrow, because we're scared of kids running amok when I know from experience that they probably wouldn't.

LOL. I laugh, because I've been in this situation before. I'm a systems engineer. But yet, I've had to help unload shipments of servers. I've had to load servers up in my truck and drive them across town. I've had to take a load of backup tapes to our offsite facility. I've had to give a tour of our facility before. This is what's called, "Other duties as assigned." And you'll see it on pretty much every job description. It means that your boss can basically say, "Hey, go do this." And you don't have much say in it. Oh sure, you can complain about it, and you might have a good point. And once or twice might not be bad. But if you do that on a consistent basis you become what's called "not a team player." And eventually you'll be canned for someone who doesn't mind a little out of the box work once in awhile. Fair or not, that's the facts of things. Try and argue with your employer on that one for too long and let me know how that works out for you. I'm pretty sure they have a phone there at the Unemployment Office.

I understand all of this. I'm not unfamiliar with employment. Also, that last comment I thought was slightly condescending.

In any event, my point was that a job is a completely different dynamic than school or home. I don't see how making kids do things they don't want to do for the sake of making them do it prepares them for the work force, because the fact that getting a job means you'll be performing various duties in exchange for money is very clear up front when you apply for a job, and if you're not cool with that you can look for a different job.

You can be your kids friend, and you should be. But sometimes you have to put that aside and be the parent. Let's take for example a few years ago when one of my kids wanted to get a puppy. At the time, we didn't have the room for one. No fenced in yard. Trying to sell our house so a pet in the house would just cause more problems that good. Plus we just had a new baby, so having to deal with a newborn and a puppy at the same time was just too much. Now I LOVE dogs, and I really would have loved to have had one. As his friend, I was right there next to him....I had all the same thoughts of playing with a puppy and my childhood growing up with a puppy. But at that very moment, I couldn't be his "friend." I had to be the adult, I had to be a parent. I had to make the tough decision. I explained why it wasn't a good time, but he just bawled cause he wanted a puppy. Nothing I said could console him. Of course, he got over it and we eventually did get a couple puppies. But that's where you have to separate yourself from being your kid's friend, and their parent.

I actually don't see how that's not being a kid's friend. If my friend asked me to do something that would be an inconvenience to me and eventually to them, and not an immediate inconvenience but a major, long term inconvenience, of course I would say no. However, I do agree, there are aspects to the role of parent that have to take precedent at times, but they and the role of friend are still not mutually exclusive

 

[The Question]

Have a kid, have him mouth off to you, give him what he wants, then tell me how it turns out.
Or-let him know that's NOT the way.

That's not what I meant. Although I think I was inferring more from what you said than what you intended. What I meant was, if a kid comes at you with aggression and whatnot (and I do suppose this depends on the age to a degree), wouldn't it be wise to, at some point not long after, try to talk about why the kid got so angry?

 

[The Question]

This isn't even a valid argument. By that I mean in the context of this discussion. Sure there are plenty of kids who display maturity, discipline and responsibility and seek to be rewarded accordingly.
BUT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM.
I am talking about the ones who do the exact opposite-a point I have made clear NUMEROUS times. It seems like you're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Okay, I think I see where a lot of the tension is coming from. You're largely talking about how to deal with kids that are already immature, selfish, and raging against the machine. I'm talking about what I think causes them to develop into that in the first place, in many cases.

 

[The Question]

I think I've come across as really confrontational during this whole thing. I want to apologize.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

This isn't even a valid argument. By that I mean in the context of this discussion. Sure there are plenty of kids who display maturity, discipline and responsibility and seek to be rewarded accordingly.
BUT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM.
I am talking about the ones who do the exact opposite-a point I have made clear NUMEROUS times.

It is a valid argument. If expectations and the worlkload are too high it will make the average kid look immature, undisciplined and irresponsible because they're going to reject those high expectations and work load.

It seems like you're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

As if your argument is so superior it shuts out the prospect of debate.

You're arguing against being too lenient. I'm arguing against being too strict.

Yes a parent can be too lenient with a kid who puts in little effort but more likely is a parent who is too strict with a kid who puts in a reasonable amount of effort.

 

[CConn]

Chris Wallace isn't 15?

 

[E-Man]

I think I've come across as really confrontational during this whole thing. I want to apologize.

What the hell are you doing? This is an internet message board. There's no time for respect, humility, and all that goodie goodie noise. You better start talking about somebody's mama before you lose your E-cred.

 

[Chris Wallace]

That's not what I meant. Although I think I was inferring more from what you said than what you intended. What I meant was, if a kid comes at you with aggression and whatnot (and I do suppose this depends on the age to a degree), wouldn't it be wise to, at some point not long after, try to talk about why the kid got so angry?

Absolutely. That's what a BENEVOLENT dictator does.
I am maintaining that I am in charge. Period. I am the man of the house & what I say goes. That DOES NOT mean that I don't give a damn about the kid's feelings.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Okay, I think I see where a lot of the tension is coming from. You're largely talking about how to deal with kids that are already immature, selfish, and raging against the machine. I'm talking about what I think causes them to develop into that in the first place, in many cases.

But you see, there is no one thing that causes this behavior. Some are spoiled because they get what they want all the time. Others are ignored too often. Some are just confused because this journey into adulthood is so damn chaotic. One place we screw up is thinking that there is a singular cause.

 

[The Question]

Absolutely. That's what a BENEVOLENT dictator does.
I am maintaining that I am in charge. Period. I am the man of the house & what I say goes. That DOES NOT mean that I don't give a damn about the kid's feelings.

I think a big problem you and I are having is the language being used. I've just never heard the term benevolent dictator used in a context where it didn't frighten me senseless.

I just imagine more of a tribal approach when it comes to families. Yes, there are elders who take charge, but the set up is gentle and fluid. Not that people back down from their point all the time, but it's not a black and white of "I'm in charge and that's final."

I'm not saying that you are especially rigid, I honestly have no idea. But the words you've used up until this point carry that connotation, which I think is why I've reacted the way I have.

Also, I still do disagree on one point: I honestly believe that children and adults are equals in all the ways that word matters. They have equal rights and equal worth as individuals and their wants and needs count just as much. They're not equals in terms of skill and experience, which means that adults have duties to perform that children don't and vice versa.

Now, maybe this doesn't work very well in households. But in general, in the greater society (which is really what I've been trying to talk about all along), I do know for a fact that taking a more democratic approach with kids, while still not forgoing rules and consequences for breaking those rules (which is what democracy is, as apposed to anarchy) works.

But you see, there is no one thing that causes this behavior. Some are spoiled because they get what they want all the time. Others are ignored too often. Some are just confused because this journey into adulthood is so damn chaotic. One place we screw up is thinking that there is a singular cause.

But I think the root cause is a lack of real connection and communication between the child and other people. Kids who get what they want all the time, that happens because of parents who just give their kids stuff and don't bother to get to know their kids or what they really need or want. Kids being ignored happens for similar reasons. And as for the journey into adulthood... I tend to think that we simply take for granted the fact that it's chaotic and don't realize that it is that way because of a lot of societal factors that could be changed.


I guess it was a mistake on my part to use family situations as what I was talking about, because the family dynamic is unique. My beef is how with society as a whole looks at children, which includes parents, schools, the government, and just people you meet on the street. There's really no problem in parents having rules in their house. There is a problem when adults, parents included, don't actually bother to connect with their kids and work with them as people, instead putting up barriers between them and the kid based on their respective roles in which the kid is looked down on. And I see this everywhere. If parents have rules and authority in their home but don't do it like that, then they're probably fine unless they're doing something else wrong that's unrelated.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Do not let my phrasing fool you. I'm not a despot. I've been frustrated lately with a lot of the defiance & disrespect this kid has been throwing around, & not just at me. Like I said, there are times for a loving hand & times for an iron fist. It's a matter, truly, of knowing the difference.

 

[The Question]

Do not let my phrasing fool you. I'm not a despot. I've been frustrated lately with a lot of the defiance & disrespect this kid has been throwing around, & not just at me. Like I said, there are times for a loving hand & times for an iron fist. It's a matter, truly, of knowing the difference.

In my experience, when someone is like that, there's usually some kind of deeper issue. Have you ever tried talking to him about it? I'm just curious.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Yup. His issues are not unique, new, original or even unusual.

 

[The Question]

Yup. His issues are not unique, new, original or even unusual.

So? I don't understand why that matters.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Because, given that his problems are all commonplace-girls, friends, not getting to hang out with his sister as much as he'd like, not having Mom all to himself anymore-none of it gives him the right to be a defiant, disrespectful jackass & take his problems out on me.

 

[The Question]

Because, given that his problems are all commonplace-girls, friends, not getting to hang out with his sister as much as he'd like, not having Mom all to himself anymore-none of it gives him the right to be a defiant, disrespectful jackass & take his problems out on me.

They may be commonplace, but they still kind of suck. Like, I'm not saying he has the right to take his problems out on you. No one's justified in doing that. But, despite him doing that, and despite them being problems a lot of people have, they're still legitimate.

I mean, I don't know what you do exactly. It's really hard to get a fee for how people actually conduct their lives over the internet like this, I've found. And I don't know your kid personally, I only have a vague idea of what he's like from what you've said. But I have found that, in the vast generality of things, when someone has problems and isn't dealing with it well and is taking them out on others, talking to them about those problems and why they take them out on others in a calm and gentle manner without losing your cool if the other person does or being judgmental (the part I admit I have a hard time with) is a good start to smoothing things out. Maybe that applies, maybe it doesn't, but that's my general experience.

 

[Chris Wallace]

The problem is, I don't think he's learned his lesson. I think the next time he gets pissed off he's gonna have another hissy fit. It's become his MO, no matte rhow much you talk to him.

 

[The Question]

The problem is, I don't think he's learned his lesson. I think the next time he gets pissed off he's gonna have another hissy fit. It's become his MO, no matte rhow much you talk to him.

Well, again, just speaking from my general experience here: Does he have to have learned his lesson already for you to talk to him about it? Isn't the point of talking to him about it to help him learn his lesson? I mean (and again, I'm going off of the vague things I've gleaned, please correct me if I'm wrong) it sounds like when he loses his **** you punish him in some way. Which, y'know, isn't necessarily a bad tactic, but after a while, if the person in question is already not dealing with what's going on in their head well, they're not going to see the punishment as something to learn something from and more punishment isn't going to change that. Maybe next time he throws a hissy fit, it would be prudent to very calmly and very non-judgmentally talk to him about why he did it in the first place. 'Cause, like I said, if he's already learned his lesson, then there's no point in talking about it.

 

[Chris Wallace]

No-I mean from us having already talked to him, repeatedly, I don't think he's learned his lesson.

 

[The Question]

No-I mean from us having already talked to him, repeatedly, I don't think he's learned his lesson.

Oh. Okay. Well, then, I really wouldn't know what to say unless I actually knew the both of you personally, 'Cause it's impossible to accurately gauge how you communicate from talking to just one of you on a message board.

I do now that one thing that usually doesn't work in a lot of cases like that is sitting a person down and talking at them instead of talking to them, 'cause then they just feel like they're being condescended to. I'm not inferring that you're doing that, I'm... I don't know, just sort of talking about the greater issue 'cause I actually thing it's an interesting topic. I honestly think that when you're talking to someone about their issues, you need to do so gently and not assert your authority, but still be blunt and honest.

That may or may not apply to you, but, y'know, in general. I think that's the best way to deal with kids. Engage them as an equal, don't try to be their superior. They respond to that a lot better.

 

[Chris Wallace]

THe problem with engaging kids as an equal is they often start to think of themselves as your equal. When they can't see your authority it's hard to get them to follow the rules.
Now again, I'm not saying I never take off the "dad hat". I open the floor to discussions and many times I do this without boundaries or threat of reprisals over what's said. I know how to not condescend, but a person has to be willing to listen. And if you've done wrong, you have to be reasty to face that. This kid has called himself "moving out" 6 times in the last 3 years, each time returning when he realizes he has nowhere else to go. He's just so damn determined to have things his way he's not getting the message.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Chris Wallace isn't 15?

Hee hee. No, I am not, sir. When I was 15...
The "Bad" tour was in full swing.
THere was no such thing as an MP3 or a DVD.
Reagan was in office.
Keaton had not yet signed on to play Batman.
A cell phone wighed a good 2 pounds.
And many of the people on this thread who can't seem to see where I'm coming from did not exist.

 

[The Question]

THe problem with engaging kids as an equal is they often start to think of themselves as your equal. When they can't see your authority it's hard to get them to follow the rules.
Now again, I'm not saying I never take off the "dad hat". I open the floor to discussions and many times I do this without boundaries or threat of reprisals over what's said. I know how to not condescend, but a person has to be willing to listen. And if you've done wrong, you have to be reasty to face that. This kid has called himself "moving out" 6 times in the last 3 years, each time returning when he realizes he has nowhere else to go. He's just so damn determined to have things his way he's not getting the message.

I disagree with that on one point: Kids should see themselves as an equal because kids and adults are equal in all the ways that the word carries significant meaning. Their thoughts, feelings, opinions, wants and needs are all equal. Their worth as a human being is equal. What is not equal is the fact that they have different sets of skills and experience, meaning that the adult has things that they are experts on and areas where they are the resident authority that the kid does not and is not and vice versa. Generally speaking, when you get into the thinking of there being a natural inequality, even if it's in a harmless way, it does create a gap between the two parties that is hard to bridge when it matters most. In my experience, when someone is only concerned with getting their way at all times, the problem isn't that they don't respect authority. The problem is that they don't understand the needs of others. It's an issue of empathy, not obedience. And when you engage a kid as an equal, it creates a connection. And creating a connection is the first step towards generating genuine empathy. I know this from experience. The most well adjusted people I know spent a lot of their early years in environments where, even though it was understood that the adults had responsibilities and expertise that the kids didn't, everyone was considered equal in all other respects. It doesn't always work. I know a person who is literally a clinical sociopath who was engaged in such a way for much of his formative years, but that was due to other factors (rampant drug abuse among his siblings, parents divorce, death of his father, etc.)