Anarchy Applied to Family Life: Give Kids a Say

[DaShi]

I wish my parents did this. I was always shocked about how consistently wrong they were about everything. It's like they never had kids before!

[Solomwi]

As for what we did: we had rules, and we enforced them. But my wife and I also had a guiding philosophy going in: no arbitrary rules, no rules that couldn't be explained using logic and reason, no rules written in stone, and all rules open to discussion/debate. My daughter didn't always get her way, but she always understood why rules were in place and she never heard anything as lame as "because I said so" or "my house, my rules." When she got older, she got to be an active participant in rule-making, but only if she could make her case; if she wanted to stay out late on a Saturday, she'd have to explain how she's was going to stay on top of her homework if she did so (she could have also opted not to stay on top of her homework, but understood that if she did so we could opt not to pay for the small, private liberal arts college she dreamed of attending).

Solomwife and I use similar guiding principles with our 11-year old. He's having trouble right now understanding that he has to be able to make his case for his opinion to be considered, and that not getting his way doesn't mean we disregarded his views, but I think it's going to be worthwhile if it teaches him how to support his position and how to handle disappointment earlier than otherwise. We apply the same standards in reverse, as well. For instance, we let him know that if he earns some money, what he buys with it is up to him, not us (within some basic parameters, of course). She and I may try to convince him not to buy that shiny new toy he's going to get tired of within a week, but it's ultimately up to him. The rules get enforced, and he gets to see the reason behind them. Hopefully, he also comes to understand why a particular person is entitled/authorized/whatever to make a particular decision.

[Lorizael]

The kind of kids who will sleep with their brother's woman.

Oi, sometimes I regret spilling my guts on this forum.

[OzzyKP]

What's lame about it is that all it teaches the kid is that she must always defer to power, and that power has no need to explain itself. These are great things to teach a kid if you want him to either be, or be a supporter of, Dick Cheney. But it is certainly not the lesson we hoped to give our daughter.

What I object to in the OP (and in a lot of arguments I've seen I've seen Ozzy make over the years) is that the argument is all about kids and not at all about families; it treats the adults in the picture as if they only exist to maximixe the kids' pleasure/fulfillment. Screw that. Such an argument not only does a disservice to the parents, it also completely fails to prepare kids for the world beyond the family.

What I have consistently argued for is equal treatment. It isn't about maximizing pleasure/fulfillment. Indeed some parts of equal treatment require more responsibility for youth at the expense of freedom for consequences.

Natural consequences, i.e. consequences that stem naturally from one's actions, are always going to be the fairest and most appropriate. When parents make up consequences as they go along they are often uneven, unfair, and capricious. Such treatment does NOT prepare kids for the real world. (not to say that the real world isn't uneven, unfair and capricious at times)

But, as you correctly noted in your first paragraph, such a system teaches kids that authority is to be obeyed regardless of how much or how little sense it makes. Or conversely, that authority is to be rebelled against regardless of how much or how little sense it makes.

Natural consequences are best not just for the kids, but for the parents and the family as well. They teach better lessons and require much less frustrating and argument.

Now of course someone will troll me by saying "so you think the natural consequence of running out in the street is to be hit by a car." If your friend or a little old lady was stepping out into a busy street without looking you'd pull them back too. All I'm asking for is equal treatment. Not special license or special punishment.

[Dis]

Oi, sometimes I regret spilling my guts on this forum.

ditto

[Jon Miller]

What's lame about it is that all it teaches the kid is that she must always defer to power, and that power has no need to explain itself. These are great things to teach a kid if you want him to either be, or be a supporter of, Dick Cheney. But it is certainly not the lesson we hoped to give our daughter.

It teaches a kid that he/she should respect someones property. This isn't the country Dick Cheney owned, it never was. However, your house is the house that you personally own. It is your personal property, since it is your property, and not hers, then she should follow your rules with in it.

If at some alter time, she is grown up, and has her house, and you have no SS and retirement and come to live with her. Then it will be her house, her rules.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Now of course someone will troll me by saying "so you think the natural consequence of running out in the street is to be hit by a car." If your friend or a little old lady was stepping out into a busy street without looking you'd pull them back too. All I'm asking for is equal treatment. Not special license or special punishment.

My house, my rules is equal treament.

If I live in my friends house, I have to follow his rules for his house, otherwise I am no longer invited to live there.

Same even for visiting.

Why make some special license for kids?

JM

[Xorbon]

I believe the best way to parent is like most things in life: balance. Balance between strict rules and freedom. Balance between making all of the kid's choices, and letting the kid decide on everything. Extreme ways are rarely the best ways.

[Lorizael]

Anyway, my opinion on this subject is that producing offspring without first procuring the offspring's consent is unethical and shouldn't be done.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

What I have consistently argued for is equal treatment. It isn't about maximizing pleasure/fulfillment. Indeed some parts of equal treatment require more responsibility for youth at the expense of freedom for consequences.

Natural consequences, i.e. consequences that stem naturally from one's actions, are always going to be the fairest and most appropriate. When parents make up consequences as they go along they are often uneven, unfair, and capricious. Such treatment does NOT prepare kids for the real world. (not to say that the real world isn't uneven, unfair and capricious at times)

But, as you correctly noted in your first paragraph, such a system teaches kids that authority is to be obeyed regardless of how much or how little sense it makes. Or conversely, that authority is to be rebelled against regardless of how much or how little sense it makes.

Natural consequences are best not just for the kids, but for the parents and the family as well. They teach better lessons and require much less frustrating and argument.

Now of course someone will troll me by saying "so you think the natural consequence of running out in the street is to be hit by a car." If your friend or a little old lady was stepping out into a busy street without looking you'd pull them back too. All I'm asking for is equal treatment. Not special license or special punishment.

I don't think you and I are that far apart on this issue, and if I've misunderstood or mischaracterized your views, I apologize. But I do think your "natural consequences" view still fails to take the parents themselves into regard. Having just come through winter, I've been treated to plenty of scenes of kids trowing tantrums about having to bundle up, something my daughter also did when she was 3 or 4. Now, the natural consequence of my child refusing to dress properly for the weather might be that she catches a cold, and that in turn might teach her a lesson. However, the other consequence of that action is now that I'm grossly inconvenienced: I have to buy medicine, I have to minister to her, I may have to take time off work to take care of her, etc. "Bundle up" is a rule that makes sense, and I can explain why it makes sense; under those circumstances, I see no reason to allow my child to throw the whole family out of whack for a week just so she can empirically test what she will learn eventually is common sense.

[OzzyKP]

I don't think we are very far apart either. But others are always very quick to label me a loon before taking the time to think about what I propose.

As for your example, it would seem reasonable that your daughter would quickly reconsider once she got out side and realized she really doesn't like being cold after all. I doubt she'd suffer through the cold long enough to be hurt by it. Maybe someone older who was doing it for pride or to prove a point, but something tells me 3 year olds wouldn't be the same way. (though I defer to your experience).

So how I'd handle it would be to explain to her ahead of time that it is really cold, etc, and if she still refuses, let her go outside without a coat, but bring her coat with me. If, as I suspect, she changes her mind before long, then I'm ready to suit her up then and we can carry on without any fuss. Plus she learns quite directly that I didn't suggest she bundle up because I'm a grouch and a control freak, but that there is a legitimate reason, and she felt that legitimate reason right down to her bones. Then, in theory, there is less fuss next time.

I also think modeling is very important. I often wear shorts in winter, my friend back in Michigan never wears a coat. I'd expect our kids to think "dad isn't bundled up, why is he making me be?" Now certainly we can handle the cold better (or are just dumb & stubborn) but our actions affect her perceptions. So, I'd probably change the way I get ready to go outdoors so she doesn't feel singled out. Make sure she sees *me* getting bundled up.


Another point, if I or my friend were under dressed for the weather and got sick from it, that'd be just as irrational a decision as a little girl refusing to get properly dressed right? My family would suffer in the same way if I had to stay off work, or buy medicine, etc. So would my spouse or my kids, who knew better, be able to *force* me to put on long pants and a winter coat? If I refused, what then? Why do we tolerate the irrational behavior of adults but not among kids?

[OzzyKP]

My house, my rules is equal treament.

If I live in my friends house, I have to follow his rules for his house, otherwise I am no longer invited to live there.

Same even for visiting.

Why make some special license for kids?

JM

Well I don't think it is a great rule, and if you forced your wife or brother to eat all their peas, I bet they'd move out pretty quick, but yea, it would be equal treatment, so I wouldn't have any 'youth rights' problem with it necessarily.

[Jon Miller]

It is generally more of a 'don't come in too late, don't play your music/games/etc too loud, don't invite random people without permission/etc' type of thing, and the normal stuff that causes problems with teenagers.

JM

[Theben]

WTF does this parenting style have anything to do with Montessori?

Montessori works just the opposite way, it provides structure and an environment which encourages learning. Disruptive kids aren't tolerated in Montessori.

Uh, the point to this style is to provide a STRUCTURE and ENVIRONMENT which encourages decision-making, which experience can be derived from, hopefully positive. If the kids are disruptive then something else is wrong with the environment.

After all, the OP say give the kids a SAY, not all the power.

[Xorbon]

How about the rule "don't put a fork in the electric socket"? It's a rule we can all agree on. Even the loons in the article.

See? Not every rule needs to be tested empirically. Sometimes the child just needs to take the parent's word for it.