article on compliant children versus rebellious ones, just appeared on guardian.co.uk

[moanyoldbag]

check this out - it's just gone up on the Guardian's website. Brilliant Annalisa Barbieri questions whether compliant children are really the aim of the game when it comes to parenting. Join the debate or forward the link on...

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/19/are-obedient-children-a-good-thing?INTCMP=SRCH

Yes, I too rarely see htese super-compliant children.

God, most of my friends and I spend half our lives negotiating with our DC over things our own parents would have given us no choice about.

And going back to the article, where she refers to obedient adults as doormats... .
Obedient adults imho are also those adults who are honest, law abiding, and respectful of other people...
There is a vast number of children who are neither blindedly compliant nor a constant pita, and they are the kind of children any average parent wishes to raise, I suppose.

I'm teaching my son that his opinion matters, that the opinion and feelings of others matter, that property is respected and litter goes in the bin, that you don't hit, that you say please, thank you and sorry, etc, etc, but I am certainly NOT teaching him to be mindlessley compliant. I was very compliant when younger, and it got me into no end of trouble. I am trying to strike a balance, and I don't believe for a minute that children who have their opinions listened to = naughty children who run wild. I want to bring him up as a seperate human being, whose opinion I value, but who listens to and respects the opinion of others. However at the moment, I am boss

I should have said :o

if DS is caught biting, he will be told why he is not to bite - but at 2.3, he is unlikely to understand the full explanation, and a gentle word with him, and a hug (as one friend does) doesn't seem to me to show that the behaviour of biting another is not acceptable. Removal from the situation and a 'you do NOT bite, it hurts

One of the most important things for me about removing a child when they're biting or hitting is the message you're giving to the other children around - that biting or hitting etc is NOT acceptable. And that they have a right not to be hit or bit.

Even if the child being removed doesn't learn much except "blind compliance", the other children learn what is reasonable social behaviour, and they also learn that their wish not to be bit or hit is reasonable. I think that's quite important.

Franca is right.

Most DC are somewhere in the middle which is absolutely where want them no?

I have a friend whose DS is very compliant, to such a point that he doesn't have any opinions of his own. Of course she worries about him and his self esteem.

I knwo another Mum whose DS is an utter challenge. His teachers don't like him, the other parents don't like hiim and his peers don't like him. She feels very sad for him. Yes he may turn out to be a bright challenging adult but he will have had a crap childhood.

My Mother made a great point.

'When you were growing up, you all tried to please me and make me proud, with good behaviour etc. Now you all try to please and make your children proud all the time. Its very strange'

She right. I dont think it needs to be one or the other but I cant stand a child dictating family life. We went on holiday last year with friends whose 3 year old basically dictated what everyone should do. Never ever again!

Hmm, I think that it is an interesting article, but that bringing up children is not black and white. There are many shades of grey.

I would say that the general idea of allowing children to have their own opinion and being able to express it is good, but they must also learn that there are some instances where they must do what their parents tell them.

We give our DC leeway on some issues - the breakfast example that Wordfactory used was a good one - but there are non-negotiable issues too.

Respect for other people's property, table manners, empathy, consideration for the feelings of others - all this must be taught for a child to grow into an adult that people want to be around.

I agree with Arctic re removing a child who bites. Keeping also in mind that hitting or biting is a fairly common developmental stage for small children, so it is right to remove them and tell them not to do it, without believing your offspring will be the next Voldermort!

It is also true, as Wordfactory said, that often rude children struggle with their peers.

oh, and I do think that you have to look at whether we are talking about toddlers or school children.

And whether we are expecting too much of our children. I often see threads on MN where I think, eg. "hey, hang on. She cannot at age 18mths fully comprehend why hitting/biting is wrong. Punishing a toddler for behaviour that is normal at that age is not right".

Yes, tell them that biting is not right, but no long punishment. And the punishment must be directly related to the offence. So taking a favourite toy from a child, for example, to teach him not to bite would be incomprehensible for the child.

posted earlier, been thinking about this some more, as a former teacher i can say 100% dispbediance to vasoc classroom norms ie listening, homeworks is detrimental to child and peers.

i agree with those of you who have said there is a suggestion of polarising parental styles.

i think i would like my ds to behave and conform to how we live re acceptable standards of manners hygiene conduct that keeps them safe eg poolside safety, and is respectful of others. i would like to give ds choices hear opinions where it is 'safe' and umdetstamd alternatives/ consequences

as he is older to questipn more about life how we live when he can take more responsibility in his own explorations. whilst he is young he needs to respect our rules and be kept safe not adbersly affect others.

so i suppose teaching them or giving them the oportunity to know when to question and when to conform and appreciation of risks amd consequmces.

incidently i had a lovely friend who i have now let go as found her ds to be rude and badly behaved when out. we would regularly meet where many others knew ds and i and i found it embarassing, poor table manners in particular. way too much exploration and basic differences were enough to annoy me and upset ds.

sorry for mistakes on iphone

All three of my older children have had exemplary behaviour throughout school (well, apart from one small glitch with DS when he was 14 and thought it would be a good idea to enlarge an existing hole in a DT workbench with a chisel ). We have always explained to them appropriate behaviour in different situations and encouraged them to negotiate with us. Furthermore they have no problems resisting peer pressure I'm glad to say.

A typical statement from them might start "Mummy, I know you'll probably say no, but..." I'm glad that they live in an environment where they do not just have to take everything that adults say on trust just because they are adults- it encourages them to do their own thinking.

Unconditional parenting is an excellent book, my problem is that self discipline is a important determinate of life outcomes, how to give my child self discipline while also making him question things?

How do you get out the door for school in the morning if you have three 'rebellious ' free spirits to discuss the merits of donning cost, shoes, picking up school bag and going to school? compliance is necessary to get things done.

I know some bright questioning children who are lovely. I know some 'free spirits' who are a PITA frankly and who I cannot trust not to run in road, walk out of cinema etc etc

I take massive issue with this quote "A child will push the boundaries if they have a more secure attachment. Children who have been responded to, led to believe - in a healthy way - that their voice is valued, that all they have to do is object and action will be taken - they will push boundaries."

But I don't think I know any children who don't push boundaries, it's a fairly normal phenomenon regardless of parenting style. And the children I know who push boundaries the most (aka the children with the reputation for being 'naughty') tend to be the ones whose parents seem pretty uninterested in them...

I do like the idea of 'unconditional parenting' but it seems like a big gamble to me - get it right and everything's lovely; get it wrong and you could have created a monster. The 'middle ground' of parenting (lots of love but firm boundaries and consequences for bad behaviour) seems a safer bet for producing a child who can rub along nicely with the rest of society.

What one would hope is that dcs will grow into considerate rather than compliant children, that is children who behave nicely because they care about other people and have high standards of their own rather than children who just do whatever they are told because they don't like thinking for themselves. But noone wants to turn out inconsiderate children.

I can see what they mean about the dangers of unreasoning compliance. My elder brother was easily the most compliant of us four siblings, but it was very much about wanting to please people rather than thinking for himself and it did become a problem when he hit his teens as he really couldn't say no to his mates either.

I was much better at staying out of trouble because I would say not to anyone who suggested something I thought was genuinely wrong- whether an adult or another teen; I saw it as my job to make my own judgment rather than to please.

Obviously that same attitude did make hard work for my parents before my judgment had had time to mature- and they were quite happy to make me comply if they had to. Don't think they have had much reason to worry about me after the age of 5 or so- and I know they still worry about my brother whose people pleasing is still causing problems with relationships in late middle age.

Dd was a very uncompliant toddler and young child- but she has excellent judgment as a teen and is very responsible. (Though I should add that we have never hesitated to make it clear that we are in charge and that dcs can't waste our time in constant arguing.)

I agree with Cory. My dd1 is a pleaser by nature, doesn't like it if I'm cross with her, and we have to actively encourage her to express what she wants in a situation rather than ask us what we want her to do. She's an easy kid, goes with the flow and only needs gentle discipline, but I do worry about her confidence as she gets older. I was similar as a child, and regarded as a "good obedient child" by my parents, but have had issues with asserting myself and being true to myself as an adult.

DS could not be more different. I have had to pull out all my parenting stops with him, really think and read and consider how to handle him. My parents state that he is "naughty" and "a handful". I can see that his personality will help him hugely as a teen and adult, but in the meantime I have to get us all through the next 10 years without allowing him to control the whole family. We are a work in progress, he is getting used to me and me to him.

(DD2 is somewhere in between, light-hearted by nature but assertive too - phew, the third child might just be ok...)

It's all very interesting, but I don't see how anyone can adopt the same approach for all dcs in the family. You can have house/family rules, but each child needs a different balance/combination of all the parenting strategies.

I concur with the general points about grey areas, and individual children, etc. I don't know many out-and-out doormats or rebels as adults, but I do sometimes get a bit hot under the collar if I'm told what to do when I think I'm doing fine without help. I do remember feeling terrible guilt and shame about the way that I had different identities with my parents/friends etc. and I think that is in part related to how 'unacceptable' behaviour was dealt with in my house.

There are a couple of reasons that I liked Unconditional Parenting (which is what the article seems more or less based on). First, I do sort of wonder about 'consequences' because this so often means things that the parents have made up as punishments - losing a toy, or whatever. The real consequences are why I don't want my DC doing the 'no' list (biting etc.) i.e. the effect that it has on the others involved. So in that sense I'm against (abstracted) punishments.

Second, I don't like time-outs because I don't want my DC to conflate what I think of their behaviour with how I feel about them. I don't want to give the message that the child is unacceptable to me (and therefore must be removed from my presence) unless he or she is behaving in a manner pleasing to me and also, if the child is removed, I can't deal with whatsoever overwhelming urge/ emotion is producing the behaviour (which seems to my mind to be the most important thing to be addressing). So I'd rather stay with the child and intervene in the behaviour, point to its consequences and attempt to understand where it's coming from.

I don't see things like self-discipline being in conflict with a more relaxed approach - I think it's my job to help the child see the big picture and find their own intrinsic motivation for practicing their instrument or attending their dance class, and that motivation should be unrelated to praise or threats etc.

I have also seen many examples of bad behaviour in children and young adults. Much of it seems to be around a lack of consideration for others - which I don't think is implied by Unconditional Parenting, and more still seems to be around impulse control/ children unable to handle their more unpleasant emotions effectively and without acting them out. Again, this is not something that I see implied in Unconditional Parenting.

Norman- I used to use logical consequences- if you don't want to get dressed, fine, you go in pyjamas. Funnily enough they never went in pyjamas.

So it was implicit that they had to go duchesse? What if they didn't want to go at all?

using logical consequences is a why of inducing compliance. You know they don't want to go in their pyjamas, so that is in fact a threat of punishment, although I am sure you do not want to call it that.

way not Why.