Do parents respect bad kids more?

Post Reply New Topic

Wishful thinking! It's true until age 6 at the maximum. Before then, a baby/infant/toddler still looks cute, and is therefore loved just for existing. But after that, he outgrows his cuteness, and the virtue of his existence, or at most "acting cute", is no longer enough. So, his parents' love starts to come at a price: utmost obedience, good grades in school, keeping his room clean, eating what he's served, minding his manners, etc. That's when the good/bad kid divide comes in. A bad kid just needs to say "thank you" after meals and not drop F-bombs in the house, and he will still be loved. But a good kid needs to fulfill a mile-long laundry list of requirements to get half the love a bad kid gets. He's expected to be a miniature adult with no adult rights/privileges. In other words, the good kid is charged a much higher price for love than a bad kid. That's not only wrong, that's immoral!

My own parents told me when I was 8: "You're a big kid! You're at an age when people love someone FOR A REASON, not just because you exist!" When I tried to get clarification what the reason was, the only reason they gave me was "being a good person". And apparently, being the kindest, gentlest child they knew wasn't good enough.

In a nutshell, parents' love is anything but unconditional, except for really bad kids, and even that's debatable. Of course, a child can get good at earning his parents love: be it honestly, by cunning, or by force. And that's often good enough. But the only way a child can get 100% unconditional love is from a dog, which my parents refused to get.

First of all, parents dont just love you because you're cute!
(second, I would like to think I was pretty darn cute past age 6 thank you very much)

Its not that the child outgrows his parents love, its that he reaches an age where he can begin to assimilate into society. Therefor, he is now old enough, mature enough, and responsible enough-with a level of thinking and problem solving appropriate to his age and school grade (6=first grade)-that he is expected to follow the same rules of society that older kids do. At this age, you are going to full days of school, you are learning to read, write, count, problem solve, etc. You begin socializing more on your own with other kids as well. Its at this crucial stage in development that good parenting is key. Its your parents job to teach you manners, and appropriate behavior. Things like "obedience, good grades, clean room, and polite manners" are expected of everyone regardless of age and starting at this young age 6, they can become good habits and a solid foundation for that child's future. Six year olds should be able to listen to their teachers, they should be friendly to their peers, they can understand "yes" vs "no" and "touch" vs "dont touch". They should be able to ride planes, sit in a movie theatre, play in the park, go shopping, etc etc. Normal everyday activities. Because they are now old enough that they should know better than to act out. And if they do? They are old enough to know it was wrong and be punished for it. Your parents were setting you up to be successful in the real world and not babying you by letting you get away with childish behavior when you were too old for it. The same things happen in every stable household. They were preparing you for the future. Because when you try and make connections in the real world, being a "good person" is an important trait.

And, what happens if the demands became to much. Therein lies the problem. It seems like by what he says he was given an ever increasing list of demands he could no longer meet. Imagine, one is trying to be good and no matter what one does it is never good enough.

Aspie1, I know the Unabomber is a criminal and a murderer but this of what he says may interest you.

https://genius.com/Unabomber-oversocial ... -annotated

I've read the man's manifesto and I think aspects of it are mostly sound. I think what has happened with you is you are what is called oversocialized.

So what if you cant meet the demands? Does anyone really lol. I know for a fact that I will never live up to my parents expectations with me and will forever be disappointing them no matter what lengths I go to to try and get them to be proud of me. But that doesnt mean I feel like they love me any less. The truth is, you'll never be good enough. Not for other people. People are naturally greedy. They'll want more. And the more you give them, the more they want. Every goal reached just makes them believe you're capable of reaching something even higher. But its good to have goals in life. Something to work towards. Id hate to just be stagnant. To declare myself "good enough" and just stop trying. Since when has "good enough" been a positive phrase?

Aspie1 did you feel your parents didnt love you because they didnt say it? Because even if your parents never say the words "I love you" doesnt mean they dont. Maybe its harder for Aspies to pick up on those subtleties? (I remember this scene in Temple Grandin where her mom tries to tell her that she's saying "I love you" thru her eyes, but Temple realizes she'll never be able to do that) Actions speak louder than words right? I know my parents love me without them ever having to say it (theyve got to their my parents). But they didnt believe in over praising their children. We learned to see their love in the little things they did, without all the compliments and praise and hugging that other parents do. 'Tough Love' was practically the family motto. But personally, I think that we appreciate it even more that way. Because when they finally say the words (still waiting for those magic ones "Im proud of you" ) you know they really mean them.

To respond to the above two posts...

I'd say that most, if not all, parents don't love the child himself, but rather the "perfect family" the child is tasked with building. Hence, the expectations placed on the child; they're what parents expect from him, in order for the "perfect family" to get built. In order to get a "perfect family", they need a perfect child; after all, the parents believe they're already perfect. And when their child doesn't fulfill perfection expectations, the parents get seething mad! He becomes the enemy, a misbegotten monster who prevents them from having the "perfect family" they hoped for and dreamed about. Even if it's something trivial, like a C on a math test or not sitting up straight at dinner. Because a "perfect family" shouldn't have a kid like that, and by engaging in these acts, he's sabotaging their "perfect family" goal.

Now, here's when the bad kid/good kid divide comes in. A bad kid is so far removed from the "perfect family" ideal, that parents forego the idea of changing him. He's hopeless, plain and simple. So the parents realize that a "perfect family" is not in the cards, and try to make things work with whatever child they have. So, they treat with him sincere respect, knowing that swapping him for someone better is impossible.

A good kid, by contrast, is very close but not at the "perfect family" ideal. He's the Uncanny Valley of perfection: almost perfect, but isn't. So his parents' reaction to him isn't respect, but anger. (Much like how most people get apprehensive around a cadaver or a badly made mannequin.) The child just one bad grade and/or one crooked sitting away from them being a "perfect family". And if the parents can browbeat those behaviors out of their child, they can finally be a "perfect family", and the child's misery is a small price to pay (in the parents' eyes). Well, "perfect families" have happy adults but suicidal 5-year-olds.

So, I still think that a conventional family is a sub-optimal environment for an aspie child. I already mentioned Mutual Adoption Clubs in many posts upthread. Where if parents who aren't happy with their child can swap/trade with another family, and everyone can come away happy: the parents get a child who meshes with their vision of a "perfect family", and the child can live with parents who actually leave him alone. Barring that, legalize running away from home for kids age 5 or older.

Perhaps the parents are correcting C's because those are terrible grades that show a lack of understanding of the material and will prevent the child from getting the best out of his or her education which will affect them for the rest of their lives.
And slouching at the dinner table might lead to a bad habit that could lead to a bad impression of them to future employers, friends, and in laws. Just a thought



See now I was agreeing with this paragraph up till this line! The parents dont treat them with respect dummy, they are resigned and have given up. In these cases, they actually treat them with very very little respect because the child has proven time and time again that they are not deserving of it. A truly well behaved child is what gets a parents respect. And yes, a parent is capable of both respecting their child, and pushing them at the same time. Shocker!



There are so many things severely wrong with this statement I dont even know where to start.

C means average though. B is slightly above average and A is above average. C is not the best but it is not terrible. C represents an average understanding of the material not a lack of understanding. And, how does getting a few C's affect him for the rest of his life? If the goal of education is only to be employed somewhere unless one is doing some kind of acting or theater for a living then why in the living f**k does it matter whether one gets an A or C in English Literature?

And, as for slouching I will grant you this. Now, with this being in mind slouching is comfortable and natural for someone to do. And, we're all always told to be ourselves. Why are we all told to be ourselves if we're all expected to follow all of these social standards? And, why are we told as we grow up not to care what others think if we're expected to care about an employer's approval and we're expected to make a "first" impression.





You do realize insulting wrongplanet members is against wrongplanet rules. I hope they don't shut this thread down.

Anyway, you need to understand young lady that not everyone thinks like you do. Not everyone has the same experiences you do and will interpret those experiences as you do. And, not everyone has the same level of understanding of differing aspects of things in life. Remember most of us who are members on here have autism and it affects us in different ways. So, get off your high horse and cut the whole smug and superior attitude out. You may learn something instead of belittling others.







So, state exactly where he's wrong. If he's wrong about anything he has said then explain using reason and logic where he is wrong. If he's committed any falicious reasoning then state it.

You're right. But parents' mindset isn't about needing an A in English Literature in real life. The thing is: parents love power over their kids. It intoxicates them, it goes to their heads. Perfect grades in every subject, and their alleged effect on the child's future, is just a pretext for parents to dominate their kids. Now, good kids are more likely to submit themselves to being dominated, which only feeds into the parents' power hunger and lowers their respect for their child. Conversely, bad kids find a way to fight back, which angers the parents in the short run, but makes them respect bad kids more in the long run.

Again, none of it mattes. It's all a pretext for power. And the more you give in to the power, the less respect you get. It's like work: follow your boss's important orders, but find ways to negotiate down the ones that are burdensome or unreasonable to you. And more likely that not, your boss will come to accept it, as long as your overall productivity is good enough. Unfortunately, kids don't have those skills, and that goes 100 times for aspie kids. And they can't "quit" family, either, at least not without Mutual Adoption Clubs. Parents love it, obviously.

"Different experiences" is spot on. I'm also sensing a little bit of Stockholm Syndrome on graceksjp's part. I remember myself experiencing the same thing. From age 11 to 15, I also believed that everything my parents did was "right", even if it made me suicidally miserable. Although truth me told, all the adults around me always told me that my parents were right, and I was nothing. During that time, I always sang praises about them to my therapist, my teachers, and even my peers, and defended them to the bitter end. (Although my therapist always took their side, anyway.) Now, at age 12, I took up drinking to help myself cope with the misery, but still. And graceksjp's age isn't much older than mine was when I had Stockholm Syndrome-type thoughts; something to think about.

My sincerest apologies if I came across as insulting. It was not my intention to be mean nor to discredit Aspie1's experiences or viewpoint. And I certainly did not mean to come across as smug or superior or belittling in the least. Simply to offer an opposing argument that I think would be more appropriate for current society. And to offer my own viewpoint on the situation. My choice of words was perhaps too harsh, and for that I am sorry. I have a bad habit of not thinking before speaking (or in this case typing) and that is completely on me. I will make sure to pay more attention to the effect my words may have in the future. Again, my sincerest apologies both to you cubedemon6073 and to Aspie1 himself.

I can assure you I do not have Stockholm Syndrome. I am not a hostage or prisoner or captive. I respect and love my parents, and therefor would defend them because they are my parents. Simple as that. (I dont believe Ive yet to actually have to do so on this thread though? I thought we were talking mostly about parents in general. Ive just been drawing on my parents for examples.)
Stockholm Syndrome would imply that my parents we treating me wrongly. My parents are kind, respectful people and they have never once abused or neglected either me or any of my brothers. I am very sorry that you seemed to have grown up with far less pleasant parents than my own Aspie1, I truly am. But I dont believe you know my parents well enough to make such an assumption.

It is frustrating to me that with pages of good examples and discussion on why your hypothesis is NOT correct, when I thought you have made some progress on the issue, you are back to exactly the same incorrect starting point. I truly do NOT believe that parents respect "bad" kids more, and I do not believe that most people would perceive "bad" kids as getting it easier. Kids are usually "bad" because they have needs that are not being met. That means they inherently have it rough. Perhaps one problem is that I'm not convinced you know what a parent perceives as "good" and what a parent perceives as "bad" or even what is perceived as "weakness." Another is that I'm not convinced you understand how different parental actions affect most children. And I don't think you understand why people have children. All that makes it really difficult to have an effective conversation on the question.

An unfortunate fact is that any child who is having difficulty accurately communicating with their parents is going to frustrate their parents no matter how hard they try to be "good" or "bad," and the parents aren't going to be able to accurately meet the child's needs to matter how much they wish to make the child happy. It has nothing to do with levels of respect or love; just communication. Can the lack of bridge erode both respect and love? Sadly, yes, I think it can. Based on everything you've ever written, you and your parents were on totally difficult wave lengths. That would have made having a mutually respectful and loving relationship challenging. It must have been very difficult for you growing up, it really must have. But I don't think you can trust your childhood observations when it comes to interpreting the world.

The interesting thing for me is that the moment I got the ASD diagnosis for my son, all the walls fell away. I had always understood him on a level no one else seemed to be able to, but there were still things I couldn't access. The diagnosis gave me the access. He's grown up happy and super well adjusted. My daughter was more difficult for me, even though she is sooo much like me. She builds internal protective layers and says what she thinks people want her to, more than she actually reveals her truth. She's always been the angel child, but I've never been able to give her what she NEEDS, and that breaks my heart. She isn't happy or thriving, and I have NO IDEA what to do. What makes the difference? COMMUNICATION. That's been the beginning and end of it. My son tells me what he needs; my daughter thinks she does, but its a message I never actually get and I don't know why.

I'm not going to entirely dispute the potential for a narcissistic element in hoping your kids do well, but it isn't why anyone has children, and I don't think it has anything to do with your respect concept. It certainly does NOT come from trying to recoup my investment. I have bragged a LOT about both my kids over the years. They are incredible people. I watched my son battle and conquer so many challenges. I have so much respect for how he never gave up. He is friendly (yes, my ASD child is the out going one) and creative. Also proud to be ASD. My son daughter was, for years, the teacher's favorite, the talented genius. Oh could she wrap people around her little finger. Yet she is also the one for whom everything fell apart, and who forced me to take the hardest look at myself. She had from me - and a lot of people - everything you seem to have always wanted, yet it wasn't what she needed and it failed her.

I don't have any magic life answer for you, obviously, since I didn't have it for my own kids, but I really think you keep looking in the wrong places.

It's fine!

This thread popped in my head, after being forgotten for some time. So I started googling about communal living arrangements, considering how conventional families can be suboptimal for aspie kids. Well, today I learned...

It's already been done, and in a place I didn't think it'd happen: Russia. Circa 1922, under Lenin, the government expropriated luxury apartments in historic city centers from wealthy families, and assigned them to poor families moving to major cities for jobs. The government assigned a job to anyone who wanted one. It also assigned a room in those expropriated apartments, with 3 to 10 families all living together.

Each family would get a room, with a "room" being a bedroom, a living room, a dining room, a den, etc. The assigned room size depended on the household size, ranging from a single person to a huge family. The kitchen, bathroom, and main hall were communally owned. No provisions were made in terms of pet ownership, occupation, lifestyle, work schedule, etc. Rooms were assigned at random, and people were expected to just get along.

Adults found such apartments too cramped, although the only alternative was living in wooden shacks on the outskirts, rather than luxury apartments with all the utilities, and full public services in built-up city centers. But kids benefited tremendously. In Russia, people traditionally married and had kids at a young age, so children always had built-in playmates in the very apartments they lived in. Boredom and loneliness simply didn't exist.

Now, as I already mentioned, parents provide food, clothes, and shelter, but their love is contingent on their child's grades, behavior, meeting expectations, and more factors. Non-families don't provide anything, but their respect is mostly unconditional, provided that the child is "good" and "nice". Aspie kids in general have no problem doing that, as long as they're treated well in return. So if you combine the parents' security and other adults' unconditional respect in one home, good kids can live well, even if they still have strict rules to obey. Not to mention, even if their parents won't let them have a pet, chances are, other families in the same apartment will have pets. Those families may need help caring for their pets, and a lonely child will gladly step in, mutually benefiting both parties.

Such living arrangements continued well into 1950's, when Khrushchev implemented a nationwide apartment building program, in order to give each family their own apartment, with all the utilities. The program was politically motivated, obviously. But the new buildings were of poor quality, the apartments were quite small, and it took years for public services to be extended to surrounding neighborhoods. Unlike the communal apartments, which were very sturdy and located in the center of everything. But most families still moved into the new apartments, since a small apartment was better than one room with a shared kitchen and bathroom.

Another thing: when most families moved into their own apartments, the frequency of nightmares and anxiety disorders in kids skyrocketed. During the 30 years when most urban families lived in communal apartments, there were very few such problems in kids. Which proves my belief: all or most of kids' fear stem from LONELINESS. Possibly even aspies' irrational fears of objects in the home, like my fear of a chandelier. I rarely had such fears in other people's homes, and never had them in the lighting department of Home Depot.

If you overlook the socialism, the redistribution of wealth, and the lack of choice behind it, this feels very forward-thinking, at least in terms of family life. It's also a nice stop-gap measure to transition a society into implementing Mutual Adoption Clubs (see posts upthread), if such things were to ever become reality.

And if you still don't agree with me, ask yourself: Why do animal juveniles not even know what anxiety is? (Not the same as acute situational fear, like predators.) This is why:

Last edited by Aspie1 on 18 May 2019, 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's an interesting topic. I was raised in an overcrowded apartament with my extended family and a common playground for the whole block. After we moved to suburbs, I discovered finding other kids to play with become way harder.

The photo of the puppies gives me another thought. In Western culture, it is commonly believed that every child should have their own room. The Japanese are adamant on quite an opposite thought: they advocate for parents sleeping with their children until school age.
When a whole family was assigned one room, they had no choice but to sleep together in this room.
My Aspie daughter suffers from nightmares. She gets better if there is someone she can hug.

I'm actually against co-sleeping. My parents tried it once and only once, when I was 5 or 6. Like most aspie kids, I had trouble falling asleep. My parents, on the other hand, fell asleep the minute their heads hit the pillow. So I kept tossing and turning, and waking them up. They were furious! They yelled at me to stop moving, "sleep already!", and even grabbed my stuffed dog from my hands and threw it across the room. I eventually fell asleep by 1:00 AM (I could see the clock on my parents' nightstand), with dried-up tears on my face. The co-sleeping experiment was abandoned and never spoken of again. That didn't stop them from coming in to check up on me, and shaming me if they saw me awake. I quickly got good at watching the doorknob like a hawk, and pretending to be asleep whenever I heard it turning. I imagine if I were an actual bad kid, as opposed to "bad" for failing to meet the sleep expectations, I'd be treated with more respect; my sleep simply wouldn't be a priority.

What I do fully support is co-bedding---that's having same-age siblings or even close friends share a bed (as little kids, that is). Like that puppy pile. Or if that's a bridge too far for American parents, at least sharing a small room. I'd sell my soul to have had that as a child. Because everybody knows that monsters (or chandeliers) only target kids who sleep alone. They get intimidated by seeing multiple kids in one bed or even one room. Not to mention, when an adult says "there are no monsters", it sounds like a trite, cheap platitude; but when same-age child says that, it's much more believable.

My son and I co-sleep most often. He prefers it. We always have had a close bond.

I was an advocate for attachment parenting. I breastfed, carried him in a baby carrier most of the time, responded immediately when he’d cry, and we co-slept.

Having a close bond to at least one parent can really contribute to a child’s security. He’s never had any trouble with nightmares and he isn’t afraid of the dark.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5330336/