RULES OF RESPECT

NO BACK TALK. If any rule can be considered universal among these families, it is this one. No parents condoned back talk, and most took an unbudging stand against it. Back talk here is not defined as respectful disagreement or questioning. Neither is it a whiney, complaining commentary―"When I'm a parent, I'm going to let my kids wear their socks as long as they want"; "I'm nothing but a slave around here"; "How'd you run the house before I was born?" Such comebacks are best described as grumble talk, which parents typically ignored or acknowledged with a silent stare. On the other hand, back talk is distinctly unpleasant. It is nasty, or abusive, or disrespectful in tone. It prompts a fast and firm reaction.

Pat from New Jersey, mother to five natural and dozens of foster children, states adamantly, "We did not tolerate back talk. When it occurred, we ceased dealing with any issue other than the rudeness. Later, we discussed the problem that provoked the back talk."

Carol, mother of two sons, said wryly, "Our children value their lives, and therefore we don't have too much of this problem.

"The standard response to back talk is to cut it off abruptly, and if necessary remove the offender from the scene―to his room, a chair, a couch. Time-out not only is quick, it keeps smoldering emotions from bursting into flame. With parent and child beyond eye-range, and preferably ear-range, back talk loses momentum. Sometimes kids still grouse more faintly while turning their backs and walking away. Veteran parents will recognize this as the "mumble grumble."

Sandy, a mother of nine youngsters―some more openly opinionated than others―preferred brief time-out early on, but added length and weight to her discipline as the kids grew. "Back talk was never tolerated by my husband or me. We have always told the children in no uncertain terms that they were being out of line and disrespectful. When they were smaller, they were sent to their rooms immediately to sit and think about what they did. As teens, they are grounded for a specific time or have other privileges taken away.

"Gary and Marge, parents of two teens in Fort Collins, Colorado, say, "Back talk, when it does sneak into the conversation, is pointed out as showing a lack of respect, and if not stopped at once, consequences such as not driving the car or going out for the evening are used. Usually, when the kids realize the potential consequences, the tone of the conversation changes." Older kids more closely regulate their self-control if the car keys, curfew, or telephone are linked to it.

Dale and Bev give Christopher (fourteen) and James (eleven) a warning, "Excuse me, do I talk to you like that?" Most of the time this is enough to shift the direction of the interchange; if not, action follows.

Debra from Oregon uses dual-benefit discipline. Back talk automatically earns a child an unpleasant task or chore. The conflict settles and the garage gets swept.

It's not uncommon for parents to be unsure occasionally about where respect ends and disrespect begins. Jerry, a father of four boys from Oregon, admits, "There is a difference between disrespectful back talk and respectful discussion, usually apparent in the tone of voice and attitude. Sometimes it's a thin line, and I don't always guess right." Raising four boys, three of whom are now teenagers, no wonder he doesn't always guess right!

Solid families are founded upon mutual respect. Back talk can breed mutual disrespect. It's not easy for parents to keep cool in response to a testy child. Therefore, strong parents urge: Stop back talk the instant it occurs and clamp consequences on it. Back talk is like any habit. The best way to overcome it is never to let it take root.

NO NAME-CALLING. Back talk most often is aimed at parents. Name-calling most often is targeted toward siblings. The rationale underlying this common rule is: Act with respect toward others, even when it's forced. With time, respect will feel natural. Consequences for name-calling include a verbal or written apology to the ill-named party, being her servant for an hour or day, writing five nice things about her, staying away from her, giving her the toy that provoked the fight that provoked the name. Bob and Joan let their three children substitute more benign labels―like turkey lips, moldy, bean-head―for nasty names. They feel these allowed the kids to blow off steam without exploding.

NO FOUL LANGUAGE. This rule is related to the last one. When first experimenting with language almost every child will gather a few colorful words from the environment. Most parents felt it was wise initially to draw no attention to such language. Young children are attracted to certain words for their shock effect on others, particularly parents. Show no reaction and the words lose appeal. "I acted as if I didn't hear my daughter when she first used some nasty words. To my surprise, they just disappeared," said one mother.

Other parents quickly gave the children substitutes, for example, "What in the world," "Rats," "Doggone." Essentially any word or phrase can serve as a good replacement, especially if the kids think it's as titillating as the original.Out of desperation, Naomi from Vermont stumbled upon a tactic that purified her four-year-old daughter's language. "On the way home from town, a drive that probably takes about twenty minutes, my daughter started saying a particularly coarse word. Like a machine gun, she rattled off the word for twenty straight minutes. I don't think she really understood what she was saying. She seemed to be experimenting. I tried not to overreact, and by time we got close to home, I said, 'Sarat, you don't want to waste all those words because you might need them someday and then won't have them.' That appeared to make sense to her, and I never heard the word again. You just never know what's going to work."

Back to the Family Pages 235-237
Copyright © 1990 by In The Company of Kids
Villard Books New York 1990