Do parents respect bad kids more?

Post Reply New Topic

Makes sense. Its a miracle for some bad kids to even follow the rules at all, so the expectations for them are way lower. On the other hand, its a given that good kids will follow all the rules, so when they break them parents react as if they just committed a crime.

Theirs some truth to this.

I'm the scape goat of the family. My brother can kick off and do what he likes, so can my younger brother, be rude, obnoxious and passive aggressive/cynical. I'm quiet and reserved and got it in the neck for the slightest thing.

I sympathise with others that are/were in similar positions but look at it this way, kids that were popular in school growing up were admired and respected right? well when they leave school and go out into the real world, they're no longer on that pedestal, same goes for kids. Parents that have the golden child, will grow up to be selfish but in the real world, they won't get the same kind of pandering or attention like they got from there parents.

This post makes me wonder if the conventional nuclear family model is, well... flawed. Not wrong, not bad---but flawed. Parents having their child and their exclusively leads to feelings of possessiveness and self-entitlement. And like with financial greed, when a "good" child delivers "good" results too readily, parents get greedy for more and more "goodness". Conversely, it leads to feelings of being trapped for the child. He can't move out, because he doesn't have money. He can't run away, because the police will just bring him back, to be punished. And suicide---let's not go there! It's no wonder that many teenagers start using drugs and joining gangs the minute they attain a semblance of adult size and abilities. Mind you, it's the BAD kids who can pull that off; the good kids can only fantasize about it and sneak whiskey from the fridge (like I used to).

"But what's the alternative?" I really like the tribal model, like among early humans and some of today's African bushmen tribes. A large collection of families---like 20 or more---raises each other's kids communally. Kids either rotate homes on an informal schedule, or are simply considered to belong to any and all parents. The adults raising all kids act as checks and balances of each other. Kids don't have undiluted exposure to the toxicity of a nuclear family: strictness for no good reason, parents fighting in front of them, lack of pets, and rigid demands of straight A's. (I bet that's why it's called "nuclear". hehe) Instead, kids have a diverse set of adults looking out for them without turning it into a power grab, as well as numerous playmates. Kids can also choose to live in a compatible home, like a home with many pets. Parents, in turn, aren't bound to a child they're unhappy with, be it a bad child that's "overly" bad, or a good child that's not delivering expected results. Instead of saying "I'm very disappointed in you" , they can dedicate time to a more compatible they're NOT disappointed in. Win-win.

The above was inspired by a book: "Island" by Aldous Huxley. (No relation to the Michael Bay film of the same name.)

That...would never work. Not in modern society. For many many reasons but the biggest being the amount of different political and religious beliefs there are amongst people. Way back when, groups of people who lived near each other all believed in the same things. It doesnt work that way these days.
"Parents, in turn, aren't bound to a child they're unhappy with" wtf?? Parents are never going to be 100% happy with their child 100% of the time. Thats part of parenting. They cant just decide to dump the child the first time they get annoyed with him/her. Also, if a child just got shuffled off every time it acted badly without every getting punished, than it would never learn any lessons. Punishment is a necessary and important part of raising a child right.

And of course parents are possessive, it's their child. And parents naturally have high expectations from their children because of some belief-conscious or subconscious-that they can raise their child to be better than themselves. They see their children as an opportunity to shape a living being into exactly what they want them to be. A 'good child' is one that is the closest to that goal, and the closer you get to a goal, the harder it gets to handle obstacles- which in this scenario is bad behavior or going against the goal. (Seriously tho someone needs to redefine 'good child' and 'bad child' cause some kids can be seriously badly behaved sometimes but that doesnt make them a 'bad child'. Not like a child that is purposefully disrespectful, or ya know a criminal)
Children are also tied to their parents innate competitiveness. The more competitive a parent is, the more likely they are to push their child to be the best (or at least better than their coworkers kid lol)

I dont think most children feel 'trapped'. All kids want independence-mostly teenagers-but they dont run away not because they feel trapped and are scared of the police, but because thats their home and they have no want or reason to run from it. Or move out from it, financial stability not withstanding. Personally, I think doing drugs and joining gangs has very little to do with the parents, and a whole lot more to do with peers and society. And most normal kids definitely dont feel suicidal just cause their parents were a little strict growing up.
And yes, different kids suit different parenting methods but method is less important than the outcome. I used to think my parents and I were totally incompatible. They're about as strict as you can get. They're extremely rigid and ignored my diagnosis completely, never changing their parenting in the slightest, which was something I used to not like about them. But Id like to think I turned out pretty good. My parents raised me to be a well mannered, well educated, strong woman capable of succeeding in a competitive society, surrounded by NTs and coming out on top without them ever knowing Im any different. If I had had more "compatible" parents, parents that let me get away with certain behaviors or who werent as strong or competitive as my own, I might have turned out totally different and way less suited to succeeding in this career path. In other words, I dont think overly strict parenting is always a bad thing so long as it works for the child. I think parents can afford to be a little greedy with their own children. They only want the best for us, and how are we supposed to get that if they never push us to try?

You just described the exact same thing I described: the "goodness greed". Only you tried to make it look like a good thing. It's not. Because the "better" a child becomes, if he's not a "good" child to begin with, the parents think of him increasingly less as a real person, and increasingly more as a weak doll-like possession, to be shaped and molded according to their whims. Which doesn't exactly amount to respectful feelings.

In which case, a tribal family model nips the possessiveness in the bud, by having non-birth parents act as checks and balances. The book "Island" has something called "Mutual Adoption Clubs" or "MACs". A couple joins a MAC at birth of their first child. Children are encouraged to move in and out of various parents' homes within their MAC if they feel like they have to, and parents are encouraged to take in various children. Moving out is rarely permanent; it's simply meant to be a break from the birth family and/or a change of scenery. (For example, as a kid, I might have wanted to try living in a home with 2 big dogs, 3 cats, a guinea pig, an aquarium, and chickens in the backyard.) While their child is away, parents can meet with a local consular to discuss what went wrong and what can be done to get their child to come back. (Remember: he is under no legal obligation to do so. The onus is on them to persuade him. Or simply take in a more compatible child; their choice.)

I say it's a win-win scenario. Because far more often than not, no one is "bad". Parents and children are simply incompatible. MACs are meant to eliminate prison-like lives for children in incompatible families, especially good kids, who often lack the social guile to garner their parents' respect. (Parents' lives aren't prison-like, because they have access to alcohol and antidepressants.) With MACs, parents and good kids can still freely associate on terms they both see fit. Furthermore, parents are more likely to respect their good child, if they know he can move out any time, and another kid may not be as good.

I dont really think it is an entirely bad thing to have high standards for what you want your child to be like. But that doesnt mean you see your child as less of a person! It just means you want your child to be the very best they can be.
And wouldnt it be worse for a child to move constantly between homes? Children need stability and routine. Many children that grow up shuffling between foster parents have problems because they never had that. Children deserve to feel connected to and loved by their parents.

Again, not every child and parents is compatible but that PART OF PARENTING. You cant pick and choose the 'perfect child' for you. That literally defeats the point of being a parent and learning from it and growing along with your child. No child and parent are perfectly compatible, but thats just a part of life. I think much fewer kids would be compatible with the idea of shifting homes every time theres a disagreement. Theres not a single parent who would make it to toddler hood with their child if they dumped them every time they were the slightest bit annoyed. Psychologically speaking, it is very important for babies to feel a connection to their mother. Children that are adopted later in life tend to have problems with this as adults because they missed this essential connection as babies. While perhaps in certain situations it would work for children to grow up free to move between houses and authority figures, I dont think it would work in modern society. In fact, I think it would set them up quite poorly for adulthood. There are a lot of things in society that are based on family and familial connections and taking that away from a child would make them less likely to thrive in society. Parents can learn to adjust their parenting methods, ya know? Thats a part of having kids. Parents push through conflicts with their child not because of inherent greed, but because of the profound love they have for their child. Imagine how many parents of special needs children or children who get cancer or some other disease believe they are not ready or compatible or capable of being the parents their child needs. But they do it, they research and learn and grow and adapt because they LOVE their child. Theres no greed there. And sure, not everyone is suited for this. But if you arent prepared to deal with a few conflicts as your child grows up, than you really shouldnt have children at all.

What you refer to as "love", I refer to as self-entitlement. When it's their child, parents can't bear the thought of having anyone less than perfect (in their eyes). And it's only good kids who are subject to perfection standards, oftentimes at a very high emotional cost (to the child). Bad kids, on the other hand, are allowed to be themselves, and are treated with true respect, or at least begrudging tolerance. Granted, parents respect a bad child for his social skills and physical strength, rather for his personality. I'm sure his peers respect him for those things, but his parents too? I used to get A's in math, but that just doesn't add up!

And another thing. Let's say a good kid has to expend 20,000 effort-units to win his parents' respect. But a bad kid has to expend just 8,000 effort-units, if that, to get the same level of respect. Maybe it's just my Asperger's talking, but tell me: why SHOULD a child be good, if it means has to work harder to be respected by his own parents? If it wasn't for my fear of punishments, physical weakness, and lack of social skills, I'd have no reason to ever be good. I would've loved to curse out teachers, litter in parks, neglect my homework, disrupt class, toss disliked foods against the ceiling, shoplift from stores, and fart in elevators. (Although I'd draw the line at vandalism.) My home life would've been much easier than it was with me as a good child. Remember: love/caring ISN'T the same as respect.

But I'll take the high road, like I always did as a kid; heck, I had no other choice. So I concede! You won! This is the Parents' Forum, so by starting this thread, I'm swimming against the current as it is.

I have been following a bit.

The whole thing that makes being autistic exciting is our ability to see things that no one else can see. And, when possible, solve problems that no one else can solve. If you don't do that, then it's not worthwhile to be autistic. It's about our ability to "Think Different."

The great Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan once fell ill, and was visited by his British mentor and collaborator G.H. Hardy. This was what G.H. Hardy later recounted:

“I remember once going to see him (Ramanujan) when he was lying ill at Putney. I had ridden in taxi-cab No. 1729, and remarked that the number seemed to be rather a dull one, and that I hoped it was not an unfavourable omen. "No", he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways."

In mathematics, the number 1729 has since become known as a “taxicab number” or Hardy-Ramanujan number. What Ramanujan was referring to was this identity:

1729 = 9^3+10^3 = 1^3+12^3

While to most people the number 1729 carried no meaning, to Ramanujan this was a special number. “Numbers are my friends,” he said. He was able to see things that no one else could see. Ramanujan's birthday is celebrated in India as their National Mathematics Day.

- - -

A few weeks back, I asked my son "What's 7x7?" He thought for a moment, then told me: "It's 49." I asked him how he did it. He said: "Because 6 times 7 is 42, and 42 plus 7 is 49." My jaw just dropped. I asked him how he knew 6x7 was 42. He then told me how he did it. He said: "Because 2x7 is 14, and 14x3 is 42." I asked how he arrived at 14x3 was 42. He then told me: "Because 14 plus 14 is 28, and 28 plus 14 is 42." He knew 2x7 was 14. But otherwise, he solved 7x7 entirely based on addition. No counting. Just using addition, and he had reflex in concepts like partitioning, factorization, distribution, and association. In other words, he truly understood multiplication. I later asked him a few other multiplication problems, and realized that he often relied on numbers 7 and 14. I asked him whether 7 and 14 were his friends, and his eyes just totally lit up. He said "Yes!". I asked him why 7 and 14 were special to him, and he said: "Because they are convenient." Sure, I could simply make him memorize the times/multiplication table, but that would have ruined his creativity. My son wrote his first Python program at age 5. He concatenated individual words to form the "Ice Cream Cone" text string and printed it out 7 times, 100 times, 1000 times, and then giggled non-stop.

My job, as a parent, is not so much as to push my son. Much more important than that, my job is to understand him. It makes a gigantic difference for a child to grow up being understood, than when the child is not understood. Seeing my son's eyes lit up because I asked him whether 7 and 14 were his friends, that, is what being a parent is all about. And you wonder why my son always carries a big smile on his face?

- - -

What's the point? The point is, I always enjoy reading Aspie1's messages. He dares to think different. Like the research findings from the Ig Nobel prize, his messages always first make me laugh, and then make me think.

Most other comments on this thread fall into the category of "The Sound of Silence." Or, "... People talking without speaking. People hearing without listening ... No one dared to disturb the sound ... of silence."

Dont worry Im not even close to being a parent either lmao (And this isnt an argument. Theres no 'win or lose'. This is an interesting and respectful conversation between two different opinions. Im enjoying it actually. I like seeing other peoples sides. You've made some good points)
One slight misunderstanding tho: I dont actually think badly behaved kids are respected more. Treated differently yes, but respected more no. Are the standards higher for good kids? Probably. That doesnt mean theyre less respected. In fact, in my experience a badly behaved child is so much less respected. I was the 'bad child' of my family compared to my three older brothers. My family plays favorites (its a running joke amongst the siblings. My mother only has four children and Im not even in the top five lol) and my parents definitely didnt respect me more than my brothers. Not even close.

I think the units of respect model is a little off. I dont really think it works that way. Its not that good children have to work harder for respect, its that they simply have higher standards because since their parents actually do respect them, they have loftier goals for them than the 'bad child' they might have given up on. Lots of 'bad children' act out because they arent respected in their homes and want more attention. And I dont think its bad for parents to make their children work hard for a goal. They push us to be the best, and dont you want to be the best you can be?
I also dont think grades or accomplishments really have much to do with respect. After all, a 'bad child' is just as capable of good grades and winning at sports. Its behavior that equals respect. And you're right. Love doesnt equal respect. Parents will still love their 'bad child' but other adults in the community certainly wont respect them. Id much rather be a respected, well behaved child than one thats looked down upon by everyone else in the community.

I dont know why anyone would want to be badlt behaved. That doesnt make any sense. Why would you want to do things that are wrong or illegal?? Why would you want to be disrespectful?? I dont see why that wouldve made your life easier. I spent years trying desperately to be as good a child as I could. Its not fun being the 'bad child' in the family. It sucks actually. The better behaved I am, the better my parents treat me. Although, my parents gave me extremely high standards to meet regardless of behavior. They wanted the best from me, and they made sure I learned from my bad behavior so I could achieve that. They didnt let me get away with being a 'bad child'. I respect them for that. And hopefully one day, I will earn their respect in return.
Honestly, I stick by what I said earlier. Someone needs to redefine 'good child' and 'bad child' because the terms are misleading. A 'good child' can do bad behavior. I think what garners respect in the long run is your maturity, behavior, and respectful of others

While there often is a difference in what parents expect from their 'good' and 'bad' children, I just can't see the infinitely increasing expectations in most parents I know.
My parents have never been particularly strict. In moderation there were differences in what they expected from their children. If I got a 'C' in mathematics at school it was 'Try harder next time' and if my sister got a 'C' in mathematics it was 'Greeeeat! You did so well! Perfect!'. The thing is, a 'C' is the worst I ever got in mathematics and the best she ever got in mathematics.
I have another sister who, except for maybe two 'B's, really always got 'A's in everything at school. It kept being enough. No additional expectations were piled up on her. Only my sister was disappointed about the two 'B's she got throughout 12 years of school. My parents weren't. Nothing horrible would have happened if she had suddenly started to get worse grades. My mother might have made a few remarks about it but she'd not have punished her or anything. My father probably could not have cared less.
Rather than piling up expectations on their 'good' children they kept their expectations the same and the difference in expectations came more from lowering their expectations in their 'bad' children.
Because, honestly, it's just tiring and stressful to keep trying to make certain children do well in school. Actually my parents put more effort into making the 'bad' sister study for exams. It just didn't get the same results because she'd refuse or study in highly inefficient ways (crying and screaming, tearing papers apart and slamming books and then claiming she studied for sooo long).

I've only one distant relative, I know did the piling up expectations on her children to the extreme. She sent them to a kindergarten that attempts to teach multiple languages, sent them to school two years earlier than other children start school, expected straight 'A's always, filled their afternoons with ballet classes and learning musical instruments. They had no free time and they were depressed throughout their childhood and teens. It should qualify as child abuse. However, she did this since they were toddlers. Expectations didn't keep increasing infinitely but they were extreme and completely unreasonable right from the start.
Two of her children started to break free from that treatment in their teens. They simply no longer tried to meet her expectations. In fact they started to do the exact opposite. She wanted all of them to study medicine. Those two started dying their hair in unnatural colors, wearing odd clothes, acting like 12 year olds in their 20s to finally get the childhood they never had and study to get arts degrees. The other one kept getting nothing but perfect results on everything while she went on to study medicine and she kept being depressed.

Actually I've never met a parent who started out having reasonable expectations and then went on to add unreasonable expectations if their children did well. I've only met parents who had unreasonable expectations from the start and had to begrudgingly give up on them if the children did not live up to them. And I've met parents who started out not having unreasonable expectations and never changed that even if their children did well.

You were unlucky to have parents with too high expectations and to be unable to resist. Not all parents do, and they certainly don't all get 'goodness greed'.

Your parents sound wonderful, but unreasonable expectations definitely happens. And I dont think theres anything wrong with that. (And I definitely dont think it has anything to do with 'bad child' vs 'good child')
My parents expect good grades from all their children, but by far I have the highest standards. As a kid, school was super easy for me. It was too easy to meet the all A's standard. So they started asking for more. All AP's and Dual Enrollment. I had to have the highest tests scores, highest SAT scores, rank in the top 10%, never get less than an A+ on anything, and get into every college they wanted for me with lots of scholarships. And when that wasnt enough, they wanted me to do sports and clubs and volunteer and do community service. If I did a sport, I had to win at every competition. I joined FFA and suddenly I had to run for president and win all my CDEs and get my American Degree (like the agriculture version of an eagle scout) etc etc. But even getting second in the nation wasnt good enough for them, because "second is the biggest loser on the stage". So yeah, sometimes I couldnt keep up. Sometimes I thought they were impossible. That they expected too much. But God help me if I dared to fail my parents.

And it makes sense right? Cause if one goal is met easily, than you should keep pushing the goal posts back till there is something to work for. They wanted to challenge me. They knew I was capable of being even better and they helped me achieve that. They encouraged me to pursue any interest with passion. They were strategic and smart. I used to do competitive gymnastics-like on the path to Olympics competitive-but then I broke my wrist really badly and was never gonna be able to go Elite. So they pulled me from gymnastics and pushed me towards lacrosse. I couldve done gymnastics at a lower level for years, but I wouldnt have gotten much out of that. I ended up being really good at lacrosse. My team won the State Championship a few years later. I love drawing and painting, but Im average at it. I started lettering a couple years ago for fun and my mother noticed. She bought me a bunch of pens to experiment with and discovered I was quite good at it. Now I have a business making custom canvases for people. (This is the third business my mother has started for me. She's like the ultimate 'momager')
If my parents hadnt pushed me to find what I was good at and work hard at it, I would never have achieved anything. They've watched and analyzed what my natural talents are, and they've developed a plan for my college and future based around what Im already good at. They pushed me; they never let me settle. And I wanted it, too. Theres no worse feeling than knowing Ive disappointed my parents. Ive done so many sports, and had so many hobbies in an effort to find what I was talented at. My room is filled with ribbons and trophies and awards. Ive lived a rich and interesting life. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
"There are no limits to what you can accomplish, except the limits you place on your own thinking"

True.
That's why I put the 'good' and 'bad' in quotation marks. I know it's a gross oversimplification.
Yes, I am aware that these things do happen. Some parents have extreme expectations. I just also think that Aspie1 has a very negative view of human relationships in general due to bad past experiences.

I do think there's something wrong with too extreme expectations. I think a good parent should want their child to grow up to be a happy person.
Some parents who have extreme expectations have them for selfish reasons. They want their child's achievements to reflect back on them, for their own social status and for bragging. Not all have their child's best interest at heart.
But there are nuances to everything. The exact opposite, a parent, who doesn't care in the least if their child succeeds and even ignores it if they don't manage to become an independent adult, is anything but ideal too.


... That does sound rather extreme...


It makes sense, yes. Someone who can do what they have to do with ease can manage to do more and someone who already almost fails, might fail if they try to do more.
Still to me it seems the happy high-achievers are those who do it because they want to succeed, not those who do it because they are scared to fail.
If parents have a child who wants to succeed and they help them, that's great, but if all they do is make them scared of and incapable of coping with failure, that's not great.


If it works for you, that's great. If it helps you get the life you want, that's great.

It's just that I know this one distant relative of mine I mentioned before, who has as high expectations of her children as your parents seem to have and for them it didn't go too well. Maybe there's a fundamental difference between her and your parents. Maybe yours are actually good at finding out what you're good at, what works for you and what is in line with your interests and she isn't. Or maybe there's a fundamental difference between you and her children.
For whatever reason, while one of her children did exceptionally well, this child was depressed throughout her childhood, teens, twenties, and now she's in her thirties and for all I know she's still depressed. She graduated medicine university with nothing but straight 'A's in the minimal time possible and in the entrance exam she had the highest score out of thousands of applicants. Her graduation day she didn't spend celebrating, but locked herself up in her room and cried uncontrollably instead, because after all she had done she still didn't feel good enough to feel lovable. That's not what parents should want for their children.

I don't know about you, but my disagreement with Aspie1 on whether or not 'bad' children are respected more is, because I really don't think what he is talking about is respect, or at least not what I think of when I say I respect someone.

I don't think 'bad' children are respected more either. I do think they tend to be respected less. At least by any definition of 'respect' I'd usually use.

To me respect entails thinking positively about someone, or at least about the aspect or trait you respect in them. It's along the same line as 'holding someone in high regard', 'attributing traits you think are positive to them e.g. intelligent, or just, or determined, or kind' and so on.

To me it seems as if his definition of respect is more along the line of giving someone what they want, when they want it and letting them do what they want.
It doesn't seem to matter much for what reason, even if you trust their judgement less and deem them less intelligent or capable than other people and feel contempt towards them (not necessarily in a parent-child relationship; something went wrong if they feel like that about each other) and even if the reason why you give in is not that you think they are right or deserving of something, but you're simply exasperated and keeping the argument going isn't worth the effort.

That is very sad. Im so sorry for that. No-one should have to be trapped in a life they dont enjoy.
I think the fundamental difference is that she didnt seem to want to do medical school, and the feeling of pleasing her parents wasnt enough to overcome that. To me, it doesnt matter if I dont want to do it so long as it makes my parents happy. My parents have already chosen what my major and profession will be. They want me to go to law school- despite that being on my list of Top Jobs I Never Want To Do. But I'll do it anyway. My mother brings it up in practically every conversation these days. (You see- Im currently going to a college that my mother barely approves of and she becomes less approving with every minute that Im here. So if I dare to seem as tho Im complaining about something, she just tells me how much better my life will be when I go to the college SHE chose) I know itll make her really happy if I become a lawyer. Maybe she'll even be proud of me if I do a good job of it. For me, that knowledge is enough to get me over the fact that I dont actually like law.

And I definitely agree about the respect thing. I dont think badly behaved kids are respected more at all. I like your definition. Ive always thought if I gain someones respect, they admire my ability in a certain situation. Like, Im a well respected equestrian because Im good with horses.

I'm not even sure if she didn't want to do medical school - I do think she is interested in medicine, but I guess seeing people suffer and die may be hard for her.
I'm not sure if she really felt like she pleased her parents even though she did everything with perception. As far as I can tell she doesn't feel lovable. As far as I can tell part of the reason why she tried that hard was to be loved by her mother and she might not feel like she achieved that.


Well, if you know that that's your priority... But it's you who'll have to live with that decision for whatever number of years and not your mother.
Then again, if you ever change your mind, since a lot of things seem to be easy for you, you could always switch profession later.


So, you're studying something other than law right now? Not just at another college?


It will make her happy, but happiness or disappointment about what one's child chooses to do are usually temporary.

Thats very unfortunate, Im sorry.
I know I got very lucky with my own mother. I know exactly what I need to do to earn her love.



Im currently majoring in agbusiness because I was unsure when I entered college what job I wanted to have later in life. Next year I will double major in ag communications and english (my mom wants me to minor in French but we'll see) with a focus on pre-law. I made a deal with my mom that I would only stay at this college for a year before transferring to the college of her choice. I managed to convince her that it would suit me-and my grades-best for me to acclimate myself to college and independent life on a smaller campus where I already had some friends. The first year is just basic core classes anyway.



If I choose the job my mother approves of and than have a successful career in it, than hopefully she will continue to be happy with me. I would prefer to maintain a good relationship with my mother. I hope one day she'll be a good grandmother for my children, as I would hate to deprive them of that in the way I was. I dont want her to be disappointed in me for the rest of her long life. (My mothers side of the family has very good genes-that I hope she passed on to my brothers-for long life. Several relative have broken triple digits) And I know there are several other choices I will have to make in life to keep her happy, but I am willing and prepared to do so.