I think that there is a difference between demanding obedience for obedience's sake and expecting a child to comply with reasonable rules without negotiation and argument. I question the wisdom of teaching children that they are entitled to a lengthy negotiation and/or explanation for every decision.
if the kids have suggestions for rule changes I am always willing to listen and discuss, as long as the rule is not currently being broken.
This idea is, I think, extremely important. I too am willing to discuss rules/expectations at a separate time, but I won't allow them to use negotiation as an avoidance or delaying tactic. That smacks of manipulation to me, and I definitely do not want my children to learn that manipulation is the surest way to get what they want.
I don't buy the assertion that teaching our children to comply with appropriate rules and expectations for behavior is the same as teaching children to obey inappropriate or unsafe directions given by other adults. That is a separate teaching point. As a parent I believe it is my responsibility to teach my children to differentiate between reasonable rules and expectations (which I expect them to follow without wasting everyone's time or making everyone else miserable) and inappropriate, dangerous or otherwise unreasonable rules, directions or expectations. I think that the evidence favoring authoritative parenting over permissive, neglectful or authoritarian parenting, is compelling.
(brief summary here for those interested but not familiar:
http://www.athealth.com/Practitioner/ceduc/parentingstyles.htmlI also recommend the book
Blessing of the Skinned Knee There is a drawing on religious teachings within the book, but it is not preachy and absolutely can be appreciated by someone of a different faith--there are thoughtful reviews on the Amazon site that speak to this. Like all parenting books, no one will find it a 100% fit, but I think it has a lot of wisdom contained within it)
I have become increasingly concerned over the past ten years or so by the entitlement mindset of so many young adults--there seems to be a sense that if they can come up with a rationalization for why they did or did not do something (e.g. fail to fulfill a responsibility; fail to meet criteria set by an employer or instructor), then the rationalization negates any actual problem or liability for the consequence. Is this because these young people were not taught to respect rules and expectations set by others? Is it because they were taught that if they didn't agree with a rule/expectation it could be discussed away? Or at least delayed by their right to negotiate or challenge it? Hard to say for sure, but it has definitely begun to inform the way I think about raising my own kiddos.
