Do parents respect bad kids more?

Post Reply New Topic

Wow, you got lucky your therapist wasn't pill happy. I think medication is the easiest way out and should be used as the last resort.

I was on anti depressants and it didn't make me suicidal. I guess that is a side affect that not everyone is going to experience. If your depression is environmental, the doctor might not push pills onto you when your depression can be fixed with a lifestyle change.

Well, I'm very grateful to my current doctor for putting me on Effexor. I'm just bitter that I was barred from getting the same happiness when I needed it the most.

The "environment" causing my depression was my own family. (And to a lesser extent, school.) So how in the world could I "change my lifestyle"? I mean, my therapist told me she didn't care what my home life was like. Not verbatim, but by mocking me when I told her how my parents treated me. And she didn't teach me any verbal self-defense techniques, either.

So if a "lifestyle change" is impossible, antidepressants can't be prescribed, and you don't know how to be a bad kid (see the thread title), what would you have done?

Sorry about your friend.




Touche! I was trying to show you how it feels to be condescended to.




My experience is that no matter what logic and reasoning I have used I have never, ever changed anyone's mind or position from something. I've put out data from reputable sources. The person I'm debating never budges. If I'm hoping to change anyone's mind then I'm wasting my time.



All I can do is point to the door and unlock it. The other person has to choose to walk through.

I do agree with some of his points though. I do think family therapy is biased towards the person who foots the bill. The therapist is going to do the treatment that will satisfy the customer and in family therapy the patient is not the customer but the parents/guardians. The treatment may not be necessarily right for the actual patient.

That being said I do think therapy, psychiatry, psychology, etc have have their issues that are beyond the scope of this thread.

And, therapy may or may not be right for an autistic person depending on the situation but autistic folks need, absolutely need, social skills training and the reasoning behind these social concepts. Example: Why do I have to make eye contact, have no monotone in my voice, project confidence when I'm told to be myself?

I think the #1 social skills training needed for us on the spectrum which is imperative so we don't get f****d over is setting boundaries.

Aspie1, one of the things you should've been taught was how to set boundaries by your therapist and setting boundaries in a respectful way.

You brought up an excellent point. Bad kids are excellent boundary-setters. They fight against intrusions into their boundaries like the Northern Alliance fought against Taliban. Boundary-setting skills are a form of social skills that garners the parents' respect. Good kids, on the other hand, take the message of being "good" to heart, which often implies prioritizing other people's needs, wants, and interests above their own. While parents like it in the short term, such "goodness" is next to weakness. Which leads to less respect. Which goes back to your point: the reason she didn't teach me how to set boundaries with my family is because she won't go against her own customers.

I think you're right about the things you said here. Except for one thing. I think good kids and bad kids are a poor choice for the context here. I think the terms you are looking for are passive, assertive, and aggressive. What you were as a kid was passive. I think the term you are looking for and you wish to be is assertive. What she should've taught you was how to be assertive meaning set your boundaries but in a respectful way. Family therapy for you was a joke.

What's ironic is I have diffuculty setting boundaries as well. But, it is a vital social skill. Try looking up social emotional learning (SEL). It may help as well.

Yes and no. Bad kids intuitively know how to be assertive, even bordering on aggressive at times. Good kids often do not. In addition, parents actively teach their kids to be good, because good kids are easier to raise, as well a more beneficial to society. But... the same parents unintentionally lose respect for their kids, when the kids become too submissive.

Aspie kids are hit with a one-two punch of impaired social skills. With no intuitive frame of reference, and no instinctive knowledge that what people say is rarely what they mean, being good as they're told is all they know. But it causes them to be respected even less, and in their own families to boot.

Today at 36, I learned to set boundaries pretty well. I learned it 26 years too late, but I did it. In fact, read through my cruise story: viewtopic.php?t=380675. I talk about acting dominant and assertive with people who would have eaten me alive 10 years prior. I had a blast on that cruise.

Being a "good" doesn't mean being a doormat. I taught my kids to stand up themselves in an appropriate manner at home and at school. There is a HUGE difference between standing up for yourself and causing trouble or being "bad." Perhaps the error in your theory is that you correlate being able to speak up to adults with "bad," and not speaking up as "good." That assessment would be self-destructively incorrect, but it is an easy mistake for a child to make. Learning how to speak up in a respectful and appropriate way isn't easy; it is a skill one has to learn. A child who doesn't have the skill is going to conclude it is easier to not speak up. But, honestly, adults do NOT see that as "good." It can be extremely frustrating to adults when children won't speak up in certain situations. My kids were "good" kids who had respect from their teachers and the adults in their lives. I know they did; I got that feedback from the other adults. I also know that all those adults saw them as good kids. My kids knew they had the respect, as well. Maybe the key is being able to speak up in the right way.

Close but no cigar!

I tried speaking up many times: both respectfully and not-so-respectfully. Nobody cared. Every time, I was told "no", brushed off, ignored (they pretended not to hear me), or yelled at. Or my older sister's favorite, "wait!" (with whatever I waited for rarely coming). Many times at family gatherings or outings, I got lost in the shuffle. Like, not getting my pizza topping of choice, not getting the restaurant order I wanted, or not seeing my favorite museum exhibit. Because as a good kid, I couldn't push back and make them regret ignoring me.

Meanwhile, my childhood best friends, my cousin, and other kids I knew, who were less kind and gentle than I was, got far more respect that I did. Both from my parents when they came over, and from their own families. I wouldn't call them "bad" per se, although some of them were cruel and unkind to me on occasion. One kid living in the same condo building me bullied me occasionally, although he backed off over time. Even he got praised by my parents.

I knew I was a good kid, because all strangers complimented me to no end, at least until I turned 7 or 8. Basically, outgrew my cute years. But looking back, the behavior I was getting complimented for wasn't "goodness", but rather approval-seeking. It looks cute to a stranger but it's a respect-killer within family.

I still think the main issue with this thread is trying to define "good" kids versus "bad" kids. Its not so black and white. Like, at all. You sound like you were on the meek side as a kid. Probably werent very good at speaking up. As someone with three older siblings, I know that sometimes its easy to get overshadowed when you are younger and smaller so I learned how to get myself out there. To fight for my opinion to be taking into consideration so that we werent always just doing what my brothers wanted. It definitely helped me in school as well. But that didnt make me a "bad" kid.
I would consider myself a much worse behaved kid than any of my brothers and yet they got way more respect. They were the perfect "good" kid. So your theory did not work in my family. Being a "bad" kid (or at least badly behaved) would only serve to get my ass whooped. I earned my parents respect by proving to them that I could be respectful of them in return. Not by being blatantly disrespectful by being badly behaved.

I agree with cubedemon that using passive, assertive and aggressive works better than "good" or "bad". And I agree with DW that you can be a well behaved kid but also be assertive.
And when it comes to not getting your pizza topping or choice of restaurant- its probably not that big of a deal. Im the youngest in my family; I rarely got to choose. My brothers called seniority for literally everything. In my extended family Im still the youngest amongst my cousins-some by many many years-so I totally get being lost in the shuffle. When it was a lot of us we went to the place/places that the most amount of people wanted to go to. A lot of times that wasnt my choice. The things that interested me held no interest to my brothers who all had similar interests. So my choice rarely got picked. But thats just what comes with being both the youngest and the only girl.

And as for other kids appearing to get more respect than you, maybe its not the simple. My parents are like expert actors in public. They can come off as being so sweet and kind and nice to everyone and then in the car disclose that they actually really dont like those people. When it came to other children they had to be especially careful to always be very kind to kids of other people unless they were very very close with the parents. After all, no parent wants to see another adult talk down to their kid. That makes parents super angry. So to avoid conflict my parents would be respectful even to adults and children they did not actually respect.

Interesting on the last sentence. In a family, approval seeking can be very exhausting to the people you target. You could be onto something.

Outside the family Gracelsjp's point (last paragraph) may also have come into play.

I do think that your ASD probably kept you from being able to stand up for yourself in a way the ADULTS saw as appropriate, no matter how many versions you tried. Again, it all probably came off as exhausting instead of assertive. You might have had the timing wrong (knowing WHEN to assert yourself is VERY important). Who knows. But I will have to agree that when a person comes across as exhausting or needy, they don't get respect. It's entirely separate from "good" or "bad" IMHO.

I think the take-a-away for parents of ASD children is that they really need to take the time to listen and UNDERSTAND their child so that he doesn't feel so powerless and disrespected. If the child isn't asserting himself in an appropriate way, TEACH him gently how and when to stand up for himself in such a way that you will be willing to listen to it. The process may be exhausting for a lot of parents, but it is the parent's job to engage in it.

Your argument is an excellent one, but it seems very counterintuitive to me. Parents teaching a child to push back against their own power doesn't make sense. It's like Jeff Bezos teaching Amazon warehouse packers to unionize.

Perhaps the best solution, outside of Mutual Adoption Clubs (which let "exhausted" parents get a new child), is a THIRD PARTY teaching children family assertiveness skills. Like an agency coming to schools for an hour a week, under a plausible cover-up like "study coaching", and teaching kids what parents respond well to. There should also be a requirement for the teaching agents to be childless/childfree, so they don't inadvertently side with Team Parent.

What you're describing is The Will to Power by Nietzsche.

https://www.thoughtco.com/nietzsches-co ... er-2670658

What he says is people just like they have an unconscious need to eat, drink, sleep, mate, they have an unconscious need to have power over others. In the hierarchy which is what some relationships are especially in families the parents will want to assert their power over their children not just for the benefit of the child but for the benefit of themselves and their unconscious need for power.



I think it is an excellent solution except don't do plausible cover-ups or any kind of deception. I think you are maybe talking about confidence coaches. I'd like to add to it why not bring in career coaches as well from various industries. If the millennials especially had career coaches they would've more then likely avoided the pitfalls that they're in now. And, maybe bring in money managment coaches as well.

But, the problem would be is getting parents willing to pay more in tax dollars? Are they willing to actually do that? If they want better schools including your idea then they have to be willing to pay more.

You are discounting the power of other influences on parents. In my social circle and, I believe, every social class above it, parents feel the success of their children is a direct reflection of their own worthiness in society. Why do you think so many parents with the opportunity to cheat to get their children into a prestigious college took it? Parents who have had a good career know that they cannot raise milk toast children in this country and have them succeed. If you want your children to be successful, you HAVE to empower them in one way or another. Understand that isn't giving a child free reign; it is creating a dynamic while mutual respect (you hope) will thrive.

Sometimes it does come from a third party. That is fine, IMHO. Kids choose mentors from all sorts of adults in their lives. Any relationship where mutual respect exists will do.

As I wrote the above I started to realize that this whole concept may be one of those hidden "privilege" areas. If a person grows up around adults interested in empowering them, they will learn these and other success oriented skills. If they don't, if they grow up where the adults see them as discipline issues needing control, they are far less likely to. Most professional and upper class communities are very interested in empowering their youth. It can go too far and create affluenza and other issues, however ... (far too complicated to get into here).

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 09 Oct 2019, 7:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

In my observation, most parents will not pay more in tax dollars unless the benefit directly accrues to their own children, and in that case they would rather do it themselves, so the education doesn't cross any lines they are personally concerned with. We've a very narrow sighted society in that way. People protect their own and while they might talk the talk of wanting to share, they don't really. At least to the extent they give up the future of their own line. It's a competitive world out there, and people will seek for their own children whatever they feel can give them an advantage.

As I wrote in my post to Aspie1, parents often use their children as a way of gaining social stature in their communities. Gaining power and standing in the community can be a lot more enticing the power of directly controlling your children.

Yet, aren't the majority of the ppl in our nation Christians? And, don't a number of ppl especially right wing conservative type Christians claim we're a Christian nation? How can we be if Jesus Christ himself told his followers to repudiate this type of thinking? So, it seems like the churches are all nothing but theater.

Our nation prides itself on being a competitive nation yet isn't one of the features that exist is that for winners to exist some must lose in effect creating a win/lose or zero sum game?

Alas, human beings are complicated, all very different from each other, but also mostly very bad at seeing when their own instinctive priorities conflict with values they claim to believe in. I'm not surprised you can see inconsistencies in the different characterizations discussed but I'm not going to speculate on what those conflicts might mean. Way too deeply philosophical for a parenting board. I'm just pointing out observations. And people are complicated.