I'm curious about the notion that parents have to "pick their battles" with their children in the sense that they shouldn't try to win every point but focus only on the important issues. This seems like an eminently sensible strategy for dealing with a spouse or other equal, and even more-so a boss or other superior, but is this the best way to deal with a subordinate? Using this article as an example, here's a mother who dislikes them but lets her teenage daughter wear sexy t-shirts anyway.
Most parents interviewed said that they would rather not see their kids wear the racy shirts but that they sometimes give in. Rosa Pulley tried to order her daughter Keana, 17, a Gar-Field senior, to return a T-shirt that says, "yes, but not with u!" But Keana insisted. "I have to pick my battles," the mother said. "Okay, I don't like it. She's wearing it, but it could be something worse."
As I'm learning with dogs and dominance challenges, if you expect to lead the pack then it's important to win every single time. Parents who aren't willing to fight and win every battle probably discover soon thereafter that they aren't able to lead and control their child. I suppose that this dominance role should diminish as the child gets older and takes control of her own life, but I don't think that transition should be allowed to complete until the child is self-sufficient.
The mother in her lameness didn't even address the conversation her daughter's T-shirt is supposed to start.
If my daughter puts on that shirt, I'd ask her, "OK, you're saying you like sex and never turn it down unless it's with the person who reads your shirt. So you would have sex with everyone else? Do you mean to say yes to oral sex and/or anal sex?" Etc., etc.
I've used this strategy with my daughter and boy does it ever work. I'd never see that shirt again.
The mother in the article is obviously a Pushover Parent. It's not about picking your battles but understanding that the battle is for the life of your child, and it's win or lose.
Great post!
If you try to fight and win every single time you are going to be an exhausted parent with a resentful child.
I agree the above example should be one of the chosen battles, but what if, for example, your teenage son wants to grow his hair long. Personally, I think long hair on a man is in poor taste, but if it was my kid, that could be a battle I would "give in" to. We could have an agreement that he wash it every day and keep it out of his eyes (at least when talking to me). And, of course, this is assuming he is otherwise a good kid and got good grades.
If a battle is over core values, then you bet it is a battle you should fight and win. Otherwise, don't sweat the small stuff.
The difference between long hair and a shirt espousing (if that's not a poor choice of words) promiscuity and casual sex strikes me as the difference between aesthetic taste and core values.
That is, every difference of opinion is not a battle to pick or avoid. Certain things, though, are inviolate and must be upheld. Hair taste isn't one. Clothing taste isn't one unless the clothing taste represents something else
That battle (with the mother of the article in question) was lost a long time ago. The time to address that issue was long before the daughter turned 17.
There are times when, as a parent, you must examine your own motives for why you are saying no to a particular situation. At times, saying no is for the direct selfish convenience of the parent or because you want your child to be the "model" child in a particular situation.
In that regard, the "battle" is not necessarily one that needs to be fought.
I believe in Jim's style about reasoning through what the shirt says. Make the daughter understand and be accountable to what she is wearing.
I heard a great suggestion for offensive music that I will use on my children as they grow up and begin listening to various genres. Prior to their listening to the music, they must read the lyrics out loud to both me and my wife. If they are unable to make it through this exercise then they don't get to listen to the particular group.
The obvious difference is that at some point the child becomes an adult in her own right and the relationship is no longer the parent assuming the always-dominant role. Instead, the relationship becomes much more peer-like.
The t-shirt is in definitely in poor taste and borderline distgusting, but it is not the real problem. If the girl really does sleep around, this is surely already well-known in her circle of friends -- her shirt is not announcing it for the first time. If it is just a goof to enrage her parents or school, then responding to it is very possibly the wrong thing to do.
By all means, talk to the child and find out if she really behaves promiscuously, and if so, work to correct that. But to treat everything as a CRUCIAL DISCUSSION that must be had RIGHT NOW is a prescription for a bitter, adversarial child who will almost certainly turn in to a distant adult.
I have a son, nine years old. He knows that I am his father, first and foremost, and that means that I win. If we have a clash of decisions, I choose whose ideas will be implemented. I sometimes let him experience his decisions, when they are good and when they are bad. But when his decisions are implemented, it's not becuase he won - it's because that's what I decided. I have delegated some choices to him, but I have never relinquished authority. I can't - I'm the Dad.
I have also begun to teach him the agonizing responsibility, that when you are always the victor you have to always be right. Curiously enough, while we have had some rough times and will have some rough clashes in the future, he doesn't resent me. He's strictly honest, compassionate, and a wonderful son.
I knew from the day one that the first time I "lost" a battle (declined to use my authority and position to enforce approprite behavior), it would be the seed for all the battles that I would lose in the future - it would be the beginning of his loss, too. I refuse to fail my son by abandoning my responsibilities as his father.
No - that's what happens if you try to win more battles after you've already conceded the war. Parents that have given away their authority have no way to get it back except through the indulgence of their children.
If you raise a child with the primary goal of not losing control, then you'll either succeed and raise a puppet, or fail and completely lose any influence with them. My analysis is here.
I got spanked or grounded as a kid when I was bad. I had to work to earn a reward like an allowance. I was expected to get and maintain a part-time job in high school and keep up my grades. Not too complicated, and I will raise my kids the same way.
It's all about installing common sense and responsiblilty into your child so they can use it on their own.
Ben, the primary *goal* is to raise a competent adult. The *method* is to retain authority, so that it can be used for the child's long term welfare. If your goal is to retain control, you will most likely succeed - and meanwhile, the child will learn all the lessons you taught without intending to.
If you consistently show that you *are* the boss, and that your dictatorship is not a personal ego trip, then in my experience, kids will respond well to that.
i dont agree!! wit some of you.1 my mother did not say that the reporter completly took everything we said out of context.When i was younger i got spanked and grounded but im on the verge of being 18.My mother of all people is no pushover!
Mike: "Ben, the primary *goal* is to raise a competent adult. The *method* is to retain authority, so that it can be used for the child's long term welfare."
I see those two sentences as being in conflict with each other. "Competent adult" is very different from "child's welfare", at least as I understand that term. Welfare usually amounts to maximizing the child's comfort and the parents' convenience.
Keeping iron control over your children is easy---at least on the short term. It means that your children will make fewer mistakes, which means that you'll have less work in helping clean up those messes. But in the long term, children need to make those mistakes. They need to have their hearts broken. They need to fall over backwards because they were leaning back too far in their chairs. They need to get sick from eating too much candy. They need to get cold in the winter when they don't have the sense to wear their coats. And with teenage girls, they need to find out that when you dress like a slut, people treat you like a slut. Deny your children the chance to learn from all those relatively harmless mistakes, and you're denying them a chance to grow.
Keanna,
Perhaps prior to challenging most of us who are raising our own children you can take an honest look at what you just wrote. As an eighteen year old I am sure that you think that you have all the answers to life and are fully capable of offering a competent opinion on child-rearing, but in your short paragraph you prove most of our points. Your writing is incoherent, misspelled and makes little if any sense. If you ever want to be taken seriously in life compare what you just wrote to the other articles in this post. Just as someone with a provacitive t-shirt will be judged in a certain way because they are not smart enough to realize the true meaning behind the words, your opinion will be disregarded based on how you present yourself through writing.
If you equate 'child's welfare' with 'temporary convienience', then it won't make much sense ... but what I wrote was 'long term welfare', which should rule out that lazy expediency. If you look at other parts of what I wrote, I also noted that I allow him to suffer the consequences of his bad choices (when I have determined that the venue is safe enough to permit that.) And while he gets the opportunity to grow, I also have retained my authority, so that I can continue to guide him in the future as well as maintain the standards that are enforced in my home.
Ben, there *are* effective ways for parents to raise their offspring in a disciplined home while still giving them the life experiences they need to function effectively on their own. Your rejection of this method of child rearing seems to stem from a disbelief that any parent could be other than how you envision them, and it is for your imaginings that this method is condemned. I am offering my experiences, both as a parent and as a child, to refute your view: while there are some people that don't have the foresight or self discipline to use this approach, people as a whole are more varied than you seem to believe. I've seen them, lived among them, and as far as possible, I try to be one of them.
BB: I'm not sure what I said about maintaining authority that makes you think I'd rescue my kids from their mistakes or prevent them from learning lessons. I agree with everything you've said.