# what do you believe about authority?



## Attached Mama (Dec 4, 2005)

If you do not believe in authority, then how do you believe that these kinds of situations should be dealt with...
*
Classroom:* Time for math, but Tina wants to play on the playground because she has too much energy; Riley is currently playing tackle football - in the classroom - with a friend who is terrified of being tackled; Kai wants to do English first because it's his/her favorite. How do you resolve this without authority, without spending all day long trying to peacefully convince 10 or 20kids to do things your way? Is there another way other than to say "No, it's time to do math now."
*
Workplace:* Some people don't believe in traditional classrooms, so how about the workplace... The boss needs Riley to do this portion of the project for a team meeting tomorrow. The project came in last minute and Riley feels overwhelmed as he/she also has a prior committment and this will require some overtime. Plus, she/he wanted to do another portion of the project, not this one. Does Riley have the right to say "No" and expect to keep her/his job? Or is it Riley's responsibility to defer to the boss's authority since Riley chose to work at this place? If Riley can say "No" then the boss still has the authority to fire her/him. Is that a wrongful authority for the boss to have?

*Government:* - I will be the first to say there is MUCH abuse of power espec in government, but does this mean that a people should not be governed? I mean we do have the right to vote and elect our officials...

*Society as a whole:* I don't have to "obey" anyone and can say "no" anytime I feel like it and should not be expected to have consequences or be punished. So I can drive 70 MPH in a residential area right? That's my right! And I shouldn't be angry that the cop uses his authority to ticket me because not only am I endangering my life but also the lives of the tired new mom who is trying to keep her 4 children on the sidewalk....

So I guess I don't understand how one can want to raise their child to not obey, to not recognize parental authority... It seems to me that authority is everywhere and consequences happen no matter what you do in life and sometimes you aren't going to like the authority that you choose to live under as an American (or other citizen) or as an employee, or student or even child. But I don't see how authority can be eliminated without the existence of a utopian society (would be cool tho).

So since authority exists and IMHO has to exist to keep order in a society or even family where there are many people with many needs, desires, and ideals, then why is it wrong to expect my child to obey me?

To clarify - we are not talking obeying abusive authority which tells someone to do something physically harmful, sexual, violation of human rights, slavery etc... We are talking about "rules" or "laws" one agrees to put themselves under (and children are put under by whomever or whatever gives them to you as a parent).

Please, let's keep this to a friendly discussion, not flaming others for different opinions or beliefs...


----------



## Attached Mama (Dec 4, 2005)

I didn't vote on the poll becasue I forgot







to add "authority is necessary but can be abused and we should avoid abusive authority"


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I vote for "parental authority is a natural thing, based on attachment, and if it has to be enforced, that's a sign that the attachment needs attending to."
I also don't think "authority" and "kids must obey" are the same thing at all.

Quote:

Does Riley have the right to say "No"
yes

Quote:

and expect to keep her/his job?
no lol


----------



## Eman'smom (Mar 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attached Mama*
I didn't vote on the poll becasue I forgot







to add "authority is necessary but can be abused and we should avoid abusive authority"

I vote for this


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

I vote for "none of the above." Authority CAN be abused, but at times it's necessary. Children need their parents to take care of them, and part of that includes exerting authority. The goal over time is for the children to create an inner sense of discipline, but most children need some help along the way!


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

I didn't vote. My parents raised me with the motto, "I don't question authority, I work to shut it down."

Which in hind-sight, has caused a few problems in my life, but overall, has been quite a benefit to me.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attached Mama*
why is it wrong to expect my child to obey me?

You are setting yourself up for a power struggle and disappointment. Your child will feel powerless and will have lack of self-esteem and self-worth, because they are not being treated as a human being, but as a minion to do as they are told.

Every child is born intelligent. That is the beauty and power of the human brain organ.


----------



## Attached Mama (Dec 4, 2005)

enjoying the responses... keep them coming...


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

I think of parental obligations in terms of responsiblities rather than rights attaching to the parents. So parents have the responsibiltity and obligation (to their children) to teach them cultural/legal/societal rules, to meet their needs, to keep them safe ,etc.

This involves enforcing boundaries like using a carseat, wearing a helmet while biking, not allowing the child to hitm, bite, etc. So if that falls under the umbrella of "authority" then so be it. But there are some things, I think, that parents lack the "authority" to do. Like hit a child. Place the child's in harm's way. Fail to meet the child's basic needs.

Also, just because someone gives birth/adopts/fosters/has guardianship of a child, that person does not own the child. People are incapable of ownership. So I'm not sure if my post is responsive the the OP, but I view parenting more in terms of responsibilities than rights/authority/ownership. But I do acknowledge that fulfilling these responsibilities sometimes involves setting and enforcing boundaries.


----------



## singlemomto3 (Dec 16, 2005)

I thing that in real life, there is not really a choice in believing in it or not. If you are speeding when driving a cop will give you a ticket weither you think you should get it or not. There has to be order in the world. do we have a bit much? sure but I don't think we can change real authority


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *peacelovingmama*
This involves enforcing boundaries like using a carseat, wearing a helmet while biking, not allowing the child to hitm, bite, etc. So if that falls under the umbrella of "authority" then so be it.

 This is going to be a really interesting thread I can tell.







I am still thinking, but this caught my attention. Regarding the wearing a helmet when biking thing. (Not picking on you at all, it's just come up recently in a discussion in real life with a friend of mine so it's timely for me.)

It's never been a requirement that my kids wear a bike helmet. As in there was never a "No helmet no bike" rule. We discuss the pros and cons of helmet wearing (Safety, legality, comfort, etc) and come to agreements etc. I'll be back!


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I vote with Deva's definition









I think "authority" is something that is an extention of attachment. My dd listens to me and "obeys" at most requests because she trusts me and believes I have her best interests in mind. However, I do not expect her to "obey" all of the time. I do believe she can and should say "no" when she does not want to do something. Anything, actually. I can give my best info but ultimately it is up to her to decide.

As for your examples....

I do not feel it is my choice to send dd to school It is hers. If she decides that she wants to go to school, we will make it clear that her decision to go to school will include blindly following whatever arbitrary rules the school and teacher make. We will explain that not following those rules come with school-imposed consequences. She will then have to decide whether following the rules is worth it to have the school experience. But ultimately, it is still up to her. She can choose to go and follow the rules, choose to go and not follow the rules (but might get kicked out), or choose to stay home and continue to unschool.

On the workplace. Same thing. Having a job and benefitting from the advantages of having that job (pay, benefits, fulfilling work, interaction with coworkers, etc...) means making the decision to conform to that workplace. I have had many jobs in my life from very high level professional to "brainless" jobs and have yet to have one that requires me to "obey" anyone. So far, everyplace I have worked has had room for negotiation and discussion if I do not agree with an aspect of the job. And if I disagree with many aspects of the job description I can (and have) quit. I do not think kids need to learn to "obey" in order to hold a job. Even at very young ages, children learn to make trade offs between an enjoyable experience and the less-enjoyable aspects of that same experience.

Governed? Hmmmmm. Again, no one HAS to "obey". I disagree with several laws of this nation and chose to act in direct opposition to them. I do risk the consequences but even then, if I felt strongly enough I could move to a country that has different laws, eh? I will teach dd to do the same thing. Weigh the trade-offs and decide on your actions based on that. In fact, I would be very concerned for any child that was raised to blindly obey the US government. Our country would be in an even sadder state if that is the way all of our predecessors did things.

And society. Well, this is all starting to sound familiar. But this one is an even better parallel to how family life works. No my child does not have to "obey" me. This does not mean we have complete choas in my house. Far from it. We do our very best to find ways to make everyone agreeable to the situation. Dd does not want to get that diaper for me (from the other thread), then perhaps to make diapering easier for me and to keep from having to ask dd to get them, I can find a way to keep piles of diapers in several locations. Dd does not want to go grocery shopping with me, OK, I can find a sitter, go another time, or leave her with dh. Dd does not want to go to bed at some arbitrary bedtime imposed by me, no problem, she can go to bed when she wants. This can be extrapolated to society. Of course we need some very basic "rules" to keep people safe. But everyone in our society still makes a choice to obey those rules or not. Most people stick to the rules because they understand why they are needed and choose to obey them for the good of society. Some people look at the rule, weigh the situation, and decide to modify the rule (like when I drive 5 mph over the speed limit on an abondoned road). The fact is, no one MUST obey the rules. The rule cannot stop someone from acting. People choose to act the way they choose to act. Blindly obeying for the sake of obeying is not how most people operate.

You are right that there are consequences on some of your examples for not following rules. But adults (in western civilization anyway) choose to be parts of those societies, workplaces, HOAs, schools, etc and as part of that choice, they choose to agree to the consequences of not following those rules. Children are a different matter. My child did not choose to be my child. By imposing parental "authority" in which my child must obey or suffer consequenses does not seem natural, healthy, productive, or a good use of my time as a parent.


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UnschoolnMa*
This is going to be a really interesting thread I can tell.







I am still thinking, but this caught my attention. Regarding the wearing a helmet when biking thing. (Not picking on you at all, it's just come up recently in a discussion in real life with a friend of mine so it's timely for me.)

It's never been a requirement that my kids wear a bike helmet. As in there was never a "No helmet no bike" rule. We discuss the pros and cons of helmet wearing (Safety, legality, comfort, etc) and come to agreements etc. I'll be back!

It's funny because, when I typed that I was thinking that some people don't support helmet laws, use helmets. But I only meant it as illustrative of the point that keeping our children safe is our responsibility. Reasonable people will differ as to how to do that, but I do see it as our responsibility to do it to the best of our ability. Personally, I would never allow my child to negotiate his way out of wearing a seatbelt, wearing a helmet, sitting in a carseat, or holding hands in a parking lot. But I don't necessarily view this as "authority." I see it more as my obligation/responsibility.

I should add that making certain rules non-negotiable (safety, health), it doesn't mean we don't discuss them. And my children still have limited choices in these matters. As in "you don't want to wear your helmet? Ok, then we are not taking your bike out today." Children do not have the same ability as (some!) adults to predict consequences and appreciate risks. So that is where my responsibility comes in.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

i just saw a preview for "The Breakup" with Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn (saw it on Oprah, maybe some of you do did too). anyway...in this scene, jennifer is pissed at vince because he didn't do the dishes.

vince: FINE! i'll do the dishes!
jennifer: no, don't. forget it.
vince: i thought you wanted me to do them!
jennifer: no, i want you to WANT to do them!
vince: WHY would i WANT to do dishes??
jennifer: NEVERMIND!

am i sure i'm posting this in the right thread, you ask?







: yes - because this is how i view child "obedience". i don't want my children to just do as i ask because i asked them. i want them to, over time, learn that there are some things that are not fun to do but have to be done by somebody...and that sometimes, they'll help so that it's easier on someone else. i want them to WANT to help, not just do it because they know they "have" to. but i also have to remember that, as vince says in the clip, nobody really WANTS to do dishes. but i'd much rather have my children do them because they'd like to help out the family than because they know i'll get pissed at them if they don't do as i ask.


----------



## primjillie (May 4, 2004)

I just want to say that I think you can raise a child with a healthly respect for authority and a tendency to obey your parents without damaging their self esteem or self worth. My children are grown and they were raised to obey me (hate that way that sounds, but in general they did) and they are wonderful human beings as adults, with plenty of self esteem and self worth. Of course, I never ordered them around like servants or treated them like I owned them. I also tried to respect their feelings, but with raising three small children, there were times when they had to do what mama said. I work outside the home now that they are grown and I respect laws and rules, and as long as I am treated as adult, I will respect authority on my job.


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *michelemiller*
i just saw a preview for "The Breakup" with Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn (saw it on Oprah, maybe some of you do did too). anyway...in this scene, jennifer is pissed at vince because he didn't do the dishes.

vince: FINE! i'll do the dishes!
jennifer: no, don't. forget it.
vince: i thought you wanted me to do them!
jennifer: no, i want you to WANT to do them!
vince: WHY would i WANT to do dishes??
jennifer: NEVERMIND!

am i sure i'm posting this in the right thread, you ask?







: yes - because this is how i view child "obedience". i don't want my children to just do as i ask because i asked them. i want them to, over time, learn that there are some things that are not fun to do but have to be done by somebody...and that sometimes, they'll help so that it's easier on someone else. i want them to WANT to help, not just do it because they know they "have" to. but i also have to remember that, as vince says in the clip, nobody really WANTS to do dishes. but i'd much rather have my children do them because they'd like to help out the family than because they know i'll get pissed at them if they don't do as i ask.

oops -- double-post.


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *michelemiller*
i just saw a preview for "The Breakup" with Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn (saw it on Oprah, maybe some of you do did too). anyway...in this scene, jennifer is pissed at vince because he didn't do the dishes.

vince: FINE! i'll do the dishes!
jennifer: no, don't. forget it.
vince: i thought you wanted me to do them!
jennifer: no, i want you to WANT to do them!
vince: WHY would i WANT to do dishes??
jennifer: NEVERMIND!

am i sure i'm posting this in the right thread, you ask?







: yes - because this is how i view child "obedience". i don't want my children to just do as i ask because i asked them. i want them to, over time, learn that there are some things that are not fun to do but have to be done by somebody...and that sometimes, they'll help so that it's easier on someone else. i want them to WANT to help, not just do it because they know they "have" to. but i also have to remember that, as vince says in the clip, nobody really WANTS to do dishes. but i'd much rather have my children do them because they'd like to help out the family than because they know i'll get pissed at them if they don't do as i ask.

I agree with this. The goal is for children to internalize values, not to behave because of external factors. I want my children to choose to use a seatbelt because they value their bodies and want to stay safe. I want them to not hit because violence is wrong, not because of what the penal code says.

But while they are small, and lack the ability to make safe choices in all these areas, I do view it as my responsibility to ensure their safety, health, non-violence, etc. while helping them internalize the values underlying them.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Some people are naturally more or less obedient by nature. I'm one of the "less," and my daughter is too. (Suprise!) My most profound desire for her is that she will grow up knowing how to make decisions for herself. No decisions based on obedience OR rebellion. Her decisions may not be the decisions I want her to make, but she is her own person.

She is a little person right now, and I make a lot of decisions for her. Some are health-related, some are ethics-related, and others are about maintaining my sanity.







As much as possible, however, I let her make her own decisions.

If she comes to value independence more than stability, she may not choose to work in a job that demands she "obey." On the other hand, she may have a passion for a field and tolerate power structures because she values what she is doing. The key is that she will have the confidence to evaulate and choose.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

This is a fun topic! I don't agree with any of your poll options. I think we should define what we mean by "authority." I believe that voluntary, consensual authority is a good and necessary thing. But I think that coercive authority is almost always wrong. Ideally, authority should be something that a person chooses to give to another person. But it should be a choice. With a few exceptions, I don't think people should be coerced into obeying authority. To address your specific topics:

School--I believe that ideally, school should be completely voluntary and only for people old enough to make that choice. Obviously we don't live in an ideal world and I do believe that in the current society, some form of schooling/institutionalization of young children is necessary for some families, but you asked what we think it *should* be, so I'm answering that. Anyway, I think taking a class should be a choice for people old enough to manage that kind of environment (maybe over 7 or so?). And a person who is disrupting the class should be asked to leave by the teacher. I don't think there should be any compulsory work or grades, or anything motivating the students other than a desire to learn the subject at hand. So, yes, the teacher should have authority, but all of it should be optional.

Workplace--an employment situation is basically an agreement between an employer and an employee. The employee agrees to do certain agreed-upon tasks in exchange for an agreed-upon rate of pay. If either party isn't living up to the bargain, the agreement should be terminated. So, again, there should be authority, but it should be consensual. An employer should have the right to fire a worker who's not doing his job, and the worker should also have the right to quit his job if he doesn't want to do it.

Government--I believe that the primary purpose of government is to protect the rights and safety of its citizens. I also believe that the ideal form of government is a constitutional republic--a system in which state power is limited from infringing on people's individual rights and in which the leaders are accountable through the electoral process to the people. I think the government *should* have the right to use coercion to enforce its authority in order to protect the individual rights of its citizens. So, for example, they should be able to forcibly restrict you, including punishing you, from killing someone, assaulting someone, stealing from someone, etc., because these things are infringements of other people's individual rights. Similarly, I think they should be able to restrict you from driving 70 mph in a residential zone because you are endangering other people's safety without their consent. However, I do *not* believe they should have the authority to require, for example, that you wear a seatbelt in your own car. Or ban you from taking drugs, or restrict you from expressing unpopular views, or spy on you without a warrant. So I think they should have coercive authority *in a very limited context* to protect the rights of others.

Society as a Whole--I confess I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this one. Speeding laws are a function of government, not society. I don't think "society as a whole" does have authority over people other than the authority people choose to grant it, which I think is as it should be. You have the choice to conform or not conform, and other people don't have the right to coerce you into conformity.

I should probably clarify that I'm looking at this issue from a somewhat theological perspective. I believe very strongly that there is a natural order of authority, and that people should be obedient to certain authority, but only by choice. There should not be someone converting you by the sword, so to speak. In order for the sacrifice of surrendering oneself to a certain authority, whether it's to another person or to an institution or to a way of life or to God, it has to be freely chosen, not coerced.

Now with young children, the issue becomes more complicated--young children, by their very nature, do not have the capacity to have total freedom. I believe that it is our responsibility as parents to limit children's freedom until they are able to make a meaningful choice. Unlike some others, I see nothing wrong with exerting coercive authority over babies and toddlers. Baby is not making an informed choice to play in traffic; she doesn't have any way of knowing that it's dangerous. I do know, and if I allow her to play in traffic under the name of letting her make her own choice, I am abdicating my responsibility and allowing her to be vicitimized by her own inexperience. So yes, I do exert coercive authority over young children, by physically moving them and teaching them to obey me. I'm gentle, of course, but I'm still the boss. To me this is not limiting their freedom but protecting them in accordance with the natural order.

After children become verbal and logical, I think this changes to the other kind of authority, the consensual kind. They are able to think through their actions and make their own choices, and I think they should be allowed to do so. I still teach them and make sure that they're informed, and I still set certain expectations, but the choices they make are theirs, not mine. They are no longer captives of inexperience, but active participants in the world. So this is where I believe in living as non-coercively as possible. However, I still think it's acceptable to exert coercive authority to protect other people's rights and well-being. So although my 6 yr old makes almost all her own choices for herself, I will prevent her from hurting someone else. This to me is sort of like the government scenario.

Of course there's not some magic moment when the child transfers from a toddler who needs coercive authority for his own benefit and a rational child capable of making his own choices; it's a process. To me, the process is tied to their level of personal responsibility. So for example, when you're old enough to go into the kitchen and get your own food, you're old enough to eat whatever you want. This seems natural to me.

I don't think it's healthy for a child of any age to learn "because I say so" authority. I think that "because I say so" is an abuse of authority, no matter what kind of authority it is. I would lose respect for an authority figure who used "because I say so." And if he lost my respect and he wanted me to obey him, he would have to resort to more coercive means, which would make me respect him less--a reinforcing cycle. I think it's the same thing with parents and children.

There are a lot more places I could go with this, but I think I'll leave this excessively long post as it is...


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *peacelovingmama*
I agree with this. The goal is for children to internalize values, not to behave because of external factors. I want my children to choose to use a seatbelt because they value their bodies and want to stay safe. I want them to not hit because violence is wrong, not because of what the penal code says.

But while they are small, and lack the ability to make safe choices in all these areas, I do view it as my responsibility to ensure their safety, health, non-violence, etc. while helping them internalize the values underlying them.

Yes--you said what I wanted to say, but in a lot fewer words!


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
The fact is, no one MUST obey the rules. The rule cannot stop someone from acting. People choose to act the way they choose to act. Blindly obeying for the sake of obeying is not how most people operate.

You are right that there are consequences on some of your examples for not following rules. But adults (in western civilization anyway) choose to be parts of those societies, workplaces, HOAs, schools, etc and as part of that choice, they choose to agree to the consequences of not following those rules. Children are a different matter. My child did not choose to be my child. By imposing parental "authority" in which my child must obey or suffer consequenses does not seem natural, healthy, productive, or a good use of my time as a parent.

This is lovely!

And I think when we expect children to blindly obey their parents it makes it much more difficult for them to even _recognize_ abusive authority, let alone negotiate it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attached Mama*
So since authority exists and IMHO has to exist to keep order .....

I think this is where I am worlds away from the OP. I don't think authority is necessary for order to exist. We have order in our family w/out authority--it's based on consensus and the belief that people (children, included) really want to do the best thing for themselves and others.

Most people don't behave in an "orderly way" b/c they're afraid of the consequences or b/c someone is making them. We have cultural values or mores that we learn about and choose to act on. I work to show my kids those mores and give them enough information so that they can choose whether to act on them, too.

Even the fact that you included, "No flaming" in your post cracks me up!







I don't think that's going to stop someone from flaming in this thread if they want to (the UA hasn't stopped many, many people from doing it on this site), and I don't think that that call to civility is what's keeping the rest of us civil, you know?


----------



## kalisis (Jan 10, 2005)

I think there's a fine line. My aunt has one daughter, she's 23 now and a complete b*#$h. She is very irresponsible in her life and her relationships and really takes everybody for all they're worth. I give you this example because when she was growing up, my aunt would rarely reprimand her for anything, even for calling her mom nasty names. I asked her one time why she let her daughter disrespect her like that and she told me that she grew up in a completely authoritarian household where girls knew their place and boys got the crap beat out of them if they didn't obey either. She didn't want her child to be afraid like that and live in an authoritarian household. I think she went completely overboard with it because her daughter has no respect either.

I, like many of you I'm sure, grew up in probably what would be considered a pretty authoritarian house. I'm not sure it was the best way, but man, I sure treat people a lot better than my cousin and am raising my kids in a completely different way.

I think authoritarianism is not good, but teaching respect is paramount.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
I vote with Deva's definition









I think "authority" is something that is an extention of attachment. My dd listens to me and "obeys" at most requests because she trusts me and believes I have her best interests in mind. However, I do not expect her to "obey" all of the time. I do believe she can and should say "no" when she does not want to do something. Anything, actually. I can give my best info but ultimately it is up to her to decide.

As for your examples....

I do not feel it is my choice to send dd to school It is hers. If she decides that she wants to go to school, we will make it clear that her decision to go to school will include blindly following whatever arbitrary rules the school and teacher make. We will explain that not following those rules come with school-imposed consequences. She will then have to decide whether following the rules is worth it to have the school experience. But ultimately, it is still up to her. She can choose to go and follow the rules, choose to go and not follow the rules (but might get kicked out), or choose to stay home and continue to unschool.

On the workplace. Same thing. Having a job and benefitting from the advantages of having that job (pay, benefits, fulfilling work, interaction with coworkers, etc...) means making the decision to conform to that workplace. I have had many jobs in my life from very high level professional to "brainless" jobs and have yet to have one that requires me to "obey" anyone. So far, everyplace I have worked has had room for negotiation and discussion if I do not agree with an aspect of the job. And if I disagree with many aspects of the job description I can (and have) quit. I do not think kids need to learn to "obey" in order to hold a job. Even at very young ages, children learn to make trade offs between an enjoyable experience and the less-enjoyable aspects of that same experience.

Governed? Hmmmmm. Again, no one HAS to "obey". I disagree with several laws of this nation and chose to act in direct opposition to them. I do risk the consequences but even then, if I felt strongly enough I could move to a country that has different laws, eh? I will teach dd to do the same thing. Weigh the trade-offs and decide on your actions based on that. In fact, I would be very concerned for any child that was raised to blindly obey the US government. Our country would be in an even sadder state if that is the way all of our predecessors did things.

And society. Well, this is all starting to sound familiar. But this one is an even better parallel to how family life works. No my child does not have to "obey" me. This does not mean we have complete choas in my house. Far from it. We do our very best to find ways to make everyone agreeable to the situation. Dd does not want to get that diaper for me (from the other thread), then perhaps to make diapering easier for me and to keep from having to ask dd to get them, I can find a way to keep piles of diapers in several locations. Dd does not want to go grocery shopping with me, OK, I can find a sitter, go another time, or leave her with dh. Dd does not want to go to bed at some arbitrary bedtime imposed by me, no problem, she can go to bed when she wants. This can be extrapolated to society. Of course we need some very basic "rules" to keep people safe. But everyone in our society still makes a choice to obey those rules or not. Most people stick to the rules because they understand why they are needed and choose to obey them for the good of society. Some people look at the rule, weigh the situation, and decide to modify the rule (like when I drive 5 mph over the speed limit on an abondoned road). The fact is, no one MUST obey the rules. The rule cannot stop someone from acting. People choose to act the way they choose to act. Blindly obeying for the sake of obeying is not how most people operate.

You are right that there are consequences on some of your examples for not following rules. But adults (in western civilization anyway) choose to be parts of those societies, workplaces, HOAs, schools, etc and as part of that choice, they choose to agree to the consequences of not following those rules. Children are a different matter. My child did not choose to be my child. By imposing parental "authority" in which my child must obey or suffer consequenses does not seem natural, healthy, productive, or a good use of my time as a parent.























I totally agree.

I will also add that the people in my life which I have admired and liked the most are people who used their authority with respect -- bosses who worked along side of me, negotiated hours and days off for special occasions, teachers who would let us take a test over if we really bombed and averaged the answers on both tests, police officers who have considered my perfect driving record and let me off with a warning if I was only going 5 miles over the speeding limit.

I don't want to raise my daughter to "get away with things" by any means, but I do want to raise her with a view of the world where she tries to see everyone's point of view and tries to work with people on an individual basis to find mutually agreeable and fair solutions for all situations if it is within her control. I don't want to present her with a view of the world that basically says "yeah, some things really suck but you have to do it because that is the way it is." I want to raise her with the knowledge that almost everything is a choice, and that there are some things we choose for the betterment of ourselves or our fellow (wo)man that may not be pleasant... but that they are still a choice. I will be honest with her about societal or legal consequences that come with some choices -- but again, not everything is black or white.

I want my daughter to take control over her own life and choices, with me here to love her, inform her, guide her, advise her (if she wants), keep her safe and to keep her wants, needs, and best interests (while she is pre-verbal, such as, it is in her best interest that I take her away from a hot stove etc) in tact.

I don't impose any authority over her (or very, very little anyway) except in cases of safety -- then again though, I would appreciate it if a close friend pulled me out of the way of an oncoming car and they have no authority over me so...


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Tool said it very well (it was my siggy for a short while) "[If] consequences dictate our course of action, [then] it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong of you get caught"
Rather than have my dc learn to "obey", I'd like them to have a good internal moral compass.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attached Mama*
We are talking about "rules" or "laws" one agrees to put themselves under (and children are put under by whomever or whatever gives them to you as a parent).

Yes, rules *one agrees to put themselves under* - those are the only kinds of rules I think people should feel obligated to obey. But even then, it's not an absolute obligation. If I want to attend school or hold a particular job, I should expect to obey the school or workplace rules most of the time. But I should also be willing to break them with good reason - if my boss orders me to do something immoral, for instance.

I don't think it should be any different for children. Children should obey rules they have agreed to obey, if there is no good reason to break them. Disobeying may be unwise, or annoying to other people, but it's not automatically morally wrong or "bad."

I do think that I have the right as a parent to have rules - like "no hurting other people" or "no damaging plants in the vegetable garden." And I can do things to "enforce" the rules, like physically stopping my kid if she's doing something that hurts someone. But she has the right to disobey me. If I tell her, "Don't rip the leaves off that plant," and she does it anyway, my complaint will be that she damaged the plant, not that she disobeyed me. And if she keeps doing it, I won't think that the problem is that she doesn't respect my authority. I'll think the problem is that she doesn't understand how ripping off leaves damages the plant, or why I don't want the plants damaged, or why it's important to take other people's wishes into consideration. Maybe I'll even decide my rule is selfish or impractical, and I'll change it.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Just subbing to this thread, I am REALLY enjoying reading this...


----------



## Attached Mama (Dec 4, 2005)

Daffodil said:


> But I should also be willing to break them with good reason - if my boss orders me to do something immoral, for instance."
> 
> I did say that in the last paragraph of my original post. I agree!


----------



## Attached Mama (Dec 4, 2005)

ok so here is the "authoritative"







word on the def of authority

"opinion, decision, power"
1.) citations used in defense or support, the source from which the citation si drawn
a conclusive statement or set of statements (as in official decision of court), a decision taken as precedent, testimony, an individual cited or appealed to as an expert

2*.) power to influence or command thought, opinion or behavior
freedom granted by one in authority: right
a person in authority*

3.) a persons in command specif: government
a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue producing public enterprise

4.) grounds, warrant, convincing force

Many different uses of the word, I think the one we are talking about (at lest the one I'm talking about is # 2

So acc to that definition, if you have the power to influence your child's thought, opinion or behavior - whether it be thru attachment or physically removing them or making them want to do what is in your best interest - then you are using authority.

I think authority has a really bad connotation to it. But IMO properly used authority is used to serve the best interests of another. That's the Biblical idea of authority as Jesus said "don't lord it over one another... whoever wants to be greatest among you, let them be the servant of all"

So when I think of authority over my child, I don't think of making them do my every wish, but of serving their best interest and like other's said so well, bringing them to a place where they have an inner moral compass and can learn to serve the best interests of themself and others.

As for the diaper issue in the other post - I would only "command" my child to get me a diaper if I was knee deep in poop and the baby had just peed on the fresh diaper etc. But I would say something like "Helena, Mama really needs you to help me and get a diaper for me please because...."

I grew up in an authoritarian home and church and know *very well* the abuses of authority.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Lots of good posts here...

One thing I haven't heard mentioned is the idea that authority is situational and fluid. My boss at work has authority over me in certain areas - he can tell me that I need to dress a certain way, for example, or complete certain training modules. He has no authority over me in other areas, however, or at other times... and if he comes to my house for dinner, I have authoity over him, in that I'll ask certain things of him (like that he remove his shoes at the door). Neither of us object to any of this, for the record - we're friends, and we're comfortable sharing power and authority.

Even with my daughter, we share authority. For example, at her dance studio she has the authority to chose classes, and she decides whether or not she wants me to come to parent watch week. Again, we generally get along and make decisions in concert, but the power and authority reside with her. At her dance classes, her teacher has authority and she does what he asks, but she has chosen to give him that authority - she's "hired" him, and she can choose to remove herself from the situation.

dar


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla*
I vote for "none of the above." Authority CAN be abused, but at times it's necessary. Children need their parents to take care of them, and part of that includes exerting authority. The goal over time is for the children to create an inner sense of discipline, but most children need some help along the way!

O.K, this is what I wanted to say, but didn't know how.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
I believe that voluntary, consensual authority is a good and necessary thing. But I think that coercive authority is almost always wrong. Ideally, authority should be something that a person chooses to give to another person. But it should be a choice. With a few exceptions, I don't think people should be coerced into obeying authority.

ITA with this. And with Yooper and Deva. While children can't choose to give authority to the parent, I kind of think that is what makes parenting so special. There is a trust that is inherently there, that we have this authority naturally, and that we must never abuse it. That's why I think coercive/punishment parenting is wrong because it's an abuse of the authority we naturally possess, when our children are unable to choose to be subject to it.

Great thread!


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
I vote for "parental authority is a natural thing, based on attachment, and if it has to be enforced, that's a sign that the attachment needs attending to."
I also don't think "authority" and "kids must obey" are the same thing at all.

yes no lol

This is how I see it, too.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Lots of good posts here...

One thing I haven't heard mentioned is the idea that authority is situational and fluid.


So very true. This is very much along the lines of what I was thinking. (Only my way was sounding all whack in my head lol) In my experience authority just depends. There are a ton of variables, and different environments that cause it to change from one person to another and then back again.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Wow, great thread.

I remember a while ago that someone mentioned that they consider themselves an "authority" to their children in the capacity of "a learned advisor", or someone who knows a lot about a topic and can guide/mentor another who has less knowledge or experience (like 'an authority on Early American History', or the like) and I see that as my role in my child's life. I've held supervisory positions (over people chronologically older than me) and have found that the best way to "manage" people is to remember that you're not better or more worthy than them, just perhaps more knowledgeable in certain areas, _and_ also acknowledge that you can learn from them, too...and I've always had good relationships with those I've supervised...that's the same kind of "us" as opposed to "me" vs. "them" mindset that I try to use in my parenting.

I also think that a lot of this depends on your view of children themselves and their capacities intellectually, socially, and emotionally. My personal belief is that while children have good intentions and want to act in a harmonious way a vast majority of the time, that simply by virtue of their ages and developmental stages, that until they are older (past early childhood) they aren't able to see 'the big picture' and how their actions may affect themselves and others, both in the short term and long term. So sometimes, because of my "authority" in having more life experience and knowledge, I feel it's my job to guide my child in situations...and sometimes, he won't like that (e.g., 'Sally doesn't like to have her hair pulled', or 'you need to be safely buckled in the car seat'). BUT, I feel it's my job to help teach him, while remaining sympathetic to his dissent, yet gentle and resolute in my guidance. Not necessarily to teach him that "sometimes life sucks but oh well", but that "sometimes we have to think of others as much as or more than ourselves." This is where compromise and mutual aggreeability come in. AND, the best way to do that is to model it yourself with your interactions with your child. I also believe that this is a very fluid dynamic; that the older and more able they are to see the impact of decisions on situations, the less I'll have to guide them. I also remember someone likening it to "gradually handing over the reigns", and I like that description, too. I think that it is possible to teach a child to respect those that have their best interests at heart (and I do think even small children are savvy enoguh to pick up on this emotionally), but not 'blindly obey' anyone who is older than them, or in a position of power.

Sooooo....I don't necessarily want my child to "obey" me because I'm his parent and I have authority over him...because, what happens when he's older and I'm not right there with him? I want him to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, and to not do the wrong thing because it's the wrong thing, not because he's worried about what might happen to *him* either way. That's pretty simplistic, I suppose, but that's my long-term goal. I think the way to move towards that goal is to work with your child, model the kinds of interactions you'd like them to learn, and have ongoing, age appropriate conversations with them regarding personal boundaries, societal boundaries, and how their decisions impact both themselves and others. There will be give and take on both sides...sometimes, it will necessitate using your 'authority'...but it can be done in a gentle, respectful way.


----------



## littlest birds (Jul 18, 2004)

Attached Mama, I cannot mark any one of those! The topic is great but the options are to narrowed-down. It seems somehow to be loaded.

Authority has a place, and careful, fair, wise authority that keeps to its place is good and necessary. Anyone in authority has a responsibility to make every effort to use it well and with sincere fairness, with empathy for the others. Authority is a difficult responsibility--but as parents the purpose of it is NOT to teach obedience (frustrating option that one) but to

delegate to the adults a basic leadership role to help the family function (the power to create a secure and healthy environment for the children through their decisions)

create a basic structure with boundaries so that children can be safe and sort out some basic yeses and noes when it comes to how to treat other people

designate experienced adults who can visual long-term concerns and use them to make decisions for the group when that is a better way to go about it than discussion and negotiation that includes children

teach, and open doors for self-learning

fulfill responsibility to offer what we can to protect and nurture the children

I guess I have always seen authority as much as a responsibility towards others as a privilege to have power to affect them.

Sometimes authorities do good things and sometimes bad, but regardless authority seems to me essential.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Blah... Yooper, Monkey's Mom and Captain Crunchy already said what I wanted to say!
















The fact that majority sees people as somehow flawed from the very birth bothers me. I believe we are seeing the fruits of our self-fulfilled prophecy in majority of the cases in modern society. We are automatically assumed to be "bad". One way or another. Since "they" know we ARE going to be "bad", strict rules must be in place fearcely inforced by authority.

I hear very often - "but that's the way society is now and no matter how it got to be that way we must learn to live with it". What if we try to change it? People WANT to do good. They don't have to be forced to be good. They don't have to obey anybody to be good.

Repeating myself from some time ago " We(parents) have the power to change this world. One child at a time."

ETA - when consensually agreeing to the way the group is to work towards common goal (like dance studios, jobs, other projects), the basic plan is created that is sometimes called "rules". In this case again I see people (who created those "rules" in the first place) WANTING to adhere to them and behaving accordingly.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Finally got back here!

This discussion has been great! One thing I have seen mentioned on this thread and many many other times is that people feel we need to teach our kids respect and that is a good reason to assert parental authority, even if it is done so soley for that purpose. I know I have heard a million times "some needs to teach that child some respect" or "My grown nephew was never taught respect and now he is the world's most self-centered person". I believe it is impossible to "teach" respect. I know I have very little respect for people who try to force me to respect them. My belief is that taught respect is false respect. And that is if we are luckly enough to even get the person to pretend to respect us (or whatever we are trying to make them respect).


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*

I don't think it's healthy for a child of any age to learn "because I say so" authority. I think that "because I say so" is an abuse of authority, no matter what kind of authority it is. I would lose respect for an authority figure who used "because I say so." And if he lost my respect and he wanted me to obey him, he would have to resort to more coercive means, which would make me respect him less--a reinforcing cycle. I think it's the same thing with parents and children.


I think we disagree on a few minor points in theory but I love this paragraph! I see this very thing often in parent-child relationships. It might work fine for the younger years and maybe even into adulthood for the more docile (or frightened) child, but the respect is often false and it can lead to major "discipline problems" in many children.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

There are so many absolutely awesome posts here! I'm loving this thread!

I just wanted to say, that our homes are not "the real world." There is a whole different dynamic in the relationships. So I really feel wierd about the concept of treating kids in a certain way at home, in order to prepare them for the real world.
I don't really know how to say it. Anyone have a good way?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna*
*I believe that voluntary, consensual authority is a good and necessary thing. But I think that coercive authority is almost always wrong. Ideally, authority should be something that a person chooses to give to another person. But it should be a choice. With a few exceptions, I don't think people should be coerced into obeying authority.*

(...snip...)

Government--I believe that the primary purpose of government is to protect the rights and safety of its citizens. I also believe that the ideal form of government is a constitutional republic--a system in which state power is limited from infringing on people's individual rights and in which the leaders are accountable through the electoral process to the people. *I think the government *should* have the right to use coercion to enforce its authority in order to protect the individual rights of its citizens.* So, for example, they should be able to forcibly restrict you, including punishing you, from killing someone, assaulting someone, stealing from someone, etc., because these things are infringements of other people's individual rights. Similarly, I think they should be able to restrict you from driving 70 mph in a residential zone because you are endangering other people's safety without their consent. However, I do *not* believe they should have the authority to require, for example, that you wear a seatbelt in your own car. Or ban you from taking drugs, or restrict you from expressing unpopular views, or spy on you without a warrant. So I think they should have coercive authority *in a very limited context* to protect the rights of others.

ITA with what I bolded. I love "voluntary, consensual authority"!
I guess I disagree with you somewhat on the coersion and toddlers thing. I dunno if its just your wording or what, because I do see what you're saying- it just comes across as a little bit harsh or something. I'm ok with coercing (in the least intrusive way possible) if it is necessary for safety and the rights of others. (kinda like what you said about government







)
But I also know that I have not often had to coerce ds to be respectful of others' rights. Explaining, and giving acceptable alternatives usually takes care of it. That's not to say I've not coerced at times that I shouldn't have. But I try to recognize that and learn from the situation, how to better handle it next time. And there is almost always a way to handle stuff without coersion or "enforced authority."


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I have nothing intellignet to contribute to this discussion, but I want to weigh in that I totally agree with Deva, Yooper, and CC.









Lots of great posts from everyone!! Wish I had time to join in!!


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

I'm sorry, but I don't particularly care for any of your choices. Any of your statements that begin with "all" are automatically too inclusive to be logical choices. I am not wild about your choice of the word "obey" in several of your examples. In short, I wish it were less filled with "leading choices," if you know what I mean.

Given my attitude toward authority, I would say that I believe far more in convincement than in force; I'd rather appeal to people's sense of reason, common sense, self-interest, societal interest, or ethics before forcing or compelling them to perform a particular action or refrain from one. Therefore, I think authority is necessary when reason breaks down and logic doesn't work, and it should be used judiciously and with respect.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attached Mama*
If you do not believe in authority, then how do you believe that these kinds of situations should be dealt with...
*
Classroom:* Time for math, but Tina wants to play on the playground because she has too much energy; Riley is currently playing tackle football - in the classroom - with a friend who is terrified of being tackled; Kai wants to do English first because it's his/her favorite. How do you resolve this without authority, without spending all day long trying to peacefully convince 10 or 20kids to do things your way? Is there another way other than to say "No, it's time to do math now."

In the classroom, you automatically are in an authoritative role whether you believe in it or not. You're the one who is legally and technically and ethically responsible for the children's welfare and for their learning; therefore, I think it would be fair to establish reasonable boundaries. If they are clearly playing -- and the kid in the classroom needs to stop playing because he is endangering others -- seek a compromise: play X more minutes outside safely, and then we'll do either English or math first.

Quote:


Workplace:[/B] Some people don't believe in traditional classrooms, so how about the workplace... The boss needs Riley to do this portion of the project for a team meeting tomorrow. The project came in last minute and Riley feels overwhelmed as he/she also has a prior committment and this will require some overtime. Plus, she/he wanted to do another portion of the project, not this one. Does Riley have the right to say "No" and expect to keep her/his job?
Or is it Riley's responsibility to defer to the boss's authority since Riley chose to work at this place? If Riley can say "No" then the boss still has the authority to fire her/him. Is that a wrongful authority for the boss to have?

Again, I think it's appropriate to seek for compromise here: Riley is overworked, the project came in last minute, and his or her talents would probably be most effectively applied if you let him or her do what she or he wanted to do. I think Riley needs to ask the boss for a compromise.


----------



## oregongirlie (Mar 14, 2006)

Quote:

If they are clearly playing -- and the kid in the classroom needs to stop playing because he is endangering others -- seek a compromise: play X more minutes outside safely, and then we'll do either English or math first.
So the whole class goes out for 5 minutes to play because of this one child? That would take at least 10 minutes out of instructional time. I don't think that's fair to the rest of the class.


----------



## ChrisCountryGirl (Dec 8, 2004)

I believe authority begins at home.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chrstn4ptsrc2me*
I believe authority begins at home.

 If anything, I believe that authority is _shared_ at home.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chrstn4ptsrc2me*
I believe authority begins at home.

Can you elaborate?


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oregongirlie*
So the whole class goes out for 5 minutes to play because of this one child? That would take at least 10 minutes out of instructional time. I don't think that's fair to the rest of the class.

No, actually because of two children who were already playing, and if they're at that point, then odds are, the kids need a break, and even if they do not need a break, they could probably use one in any case. It's often a case of picking your battles -- you could let them play for five minutes and get the ants out of their pants, or you could fight with them to sit still, in which case I guarantee no instructional time is actually taking place.


----------



## Attached Mama (Dec 4, 2005)

Hi!

Really enjoying everyone's comments. Some excellent points and some things I don't agree with, but really I can tell everyone has put a lot of thought into this topic and it's great to read and think and learn...

Well, some of you have said that you didn't vote for any of the topics. I guess they are pretty narrow, but I was trying to elicit response from those who don't care too much for authority - and really I am surprised at how many have voted for certain ones. Having grown up in an authoritarian home and church, the way a lot of people think is very enlightening to me. And I thought I was quite liberal...









I think a lot of what people say I agree with, but I still think kids need to obey their parents which I suppose isn't too popular an opinion here. But I try to live by the Bible and that's what it says. It also says tho that a leader, one in authority - should serve best by being the servant. So I suppose we really do agree in a lot of ways - just using different terms. I don't believe I have the right to coerce my kid to do anything I want, but that I am to serve their needs to live peacably, grow up and function in life etc. - all the things that a lot of you said so eloquently.

I really like what a lot of you said about obedience not being the goal, but rather the goal being to have an internal moral compass, to have them learn reasons and want to do what's right etc. Believe it or not, that was a really new way of thinking to me, having grown up with the whole "kids must obey because I said so" kind of mentality where even questioning "why" to something was considered rebellious. I remember so many times being told "obey first and ask questions later" but even so the questions were not accepted.

I would never tell my kid "because I said so" but still, your comments have made me really take to heart the fact that outward conformity is not the key - it's an issue of the heart. Even tho that is a very Biblical concept (oh oh - hope i'm not turning off anyone on it now







) it's not one commonly practiced in "christian" circles that I am aware of.

Anyway, keep the comments coming. This is fun!!!!


----------



## MistyB (Oct 20, 2004)

None apply in our situation. I think children need boundries but there are respectful ways for every exchange to take place. Most if not all of your choices suggested something majorly black OR white...I think it is always a shade of grey.


----------



## Hera (Feb 4, 2002)

I don't see one that really applies to me...

I do feel like I ought to have a certain measure of authority. For example, I have a very strong, athletic daughter. She likes to climb and jump and swing. She has already broken a chair, and I know the house and furniture cannot take the constant pounding that she would give it if given free reign. She does not have money to replace broken furniture and repair doorknobs and railings. This is our responsibility. Therefore, I feel that I ought to have the right to tell her that she cannot treat our house that way. She, however, feels that I am being unecessarily authoritarian.

Also, If I see dd doing something dangerous that she needs to stop Right Away, for my peace of mind I need to know that I can say "dd stop Now!" and she will stop, even if she doesn't know why. So, it seems to me that for the sake of practice she ought to be used to the idea of listening to me. So, we practice. I tell her to stop and she must stop and Then ask why. Only when she has stopped will I explain. I also retain the right to tell her that something is non-negotiable.

She also goes to a non-coercive school where the only rules are "be nice" and "stop when someone says stop." So, home life is the only taste of authority that she really gets.

All that freedom doesn't make her any happy with the taste of authority that she gets, though. She really resents it. To the point where I might say "OK, dd, it's time to get ready to do that really fun thing you wanted to do. The things you need to do to get ready are 1. Brush teeth 2. brush hair 3. find shoes" and she will stall and drag it out, not because she doesn't want to go but because I told her to do it. I always wait and give her plenty of time to decide to do that stuff herself before I remind her. I'll go through the list with her, telling her that I need to make breakfast and get the baby ready, she needs to eat breakfast and do 123, and then let her go for a while. But still, that much authority grates on her. It was never possible to redirect her or distract her from an idea as a toddler, so I guess she's just wired this way.


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

I believe as parents we have a responsibility and duty to make sure that all the members of our household have their needs met, feel loved and cherished, are respected, safe and given the opportunity to grow, flourish, learn and pursue their interests. As such we need to work together with all members of the household to ensure that is so, and if necessary enforce "rules" In a respectful, gentle, benvelant way.


----------

