Substitute FEMINIST ASSHOLE above for ASSHOLE, fill in all the known behaviors of feminists and Jezebelites.

Demands a production?

Screams no to anything a non-feminist suggests?

Throws tantrums every time she doesn't get what she wants?

The kids are overly demanding spoiled assholes is a bit rich. Worse of course, the policies Jezebel demands we endorse for children and teens will basically just guarantee future generation of assholes.

I'm the eldest of my siblings. I was a quiet child. My immediate younger brother was a candidate for champion tantrum thrower of all time. He has grown into the titular head of the family, life organised, family, all that stuff. I'm the black sheep who lurches from crisis to crisis (in my defence, I don't ask for help and I deal with it myself - but we all know I couldn't handle a family).

It's hard to tell with these things. The same parents that raised me raised my brother, and we're only a couple of years apart. And did a good job. But at 3 years old, he was a fucking nightmare. Funny how things work out.

You might have been genetically predisposed to be an easy kid to deal with, making discipline not as important for you, and your brother may have needed more. My parents were too authoritarian but I'm glad they instilled discipline in me, because it gets me up for my deadline and made me work 19 hour days at the end to make my book the best it could be. (Waiting for my editor's comments, but there was bidding for the audio book version, so it seems they won't be asking for their money back! Nervous author here! I didn't tell my agent that because I knew she'd laugh at me!)

As a parent, watching my kids and others, I think in the younger years 90% of crappy kid behavior is due to lack of sleep or decent food. The parents who let heir kids stay up late or skip nap? They have tantrummy kids.

Later years, the lack of "no" rears it's head in tantrums in older kids who should know better.

Also from Jezebel:

"Worst Experience With Other People's Kids?"

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/worst-experience-with-other-peoples-kids-612061678

A couple years ago I was out for dinner in a really nice restaurant and there was a couple at the next table with a toddler (only kid in the entire place, its not exactly a "family restaurant.") Now I have no issue with people bringing their kids out for dinner, but when you allow your four/five year old monster to run around yelling, grabbing things off tables, yanking on peoples tablecloths to spill drinks and crawl under tables- then I have an issue.

I asked the parents if they couldn't get him to sit down maybe, or ask the Waiter to bring something for the little guy to munch on while he waited and they just gave a weak laugh, shrugged and said "Oh, hes just a little tired is all. This isn't even the worst of it." Yeah, well its pretty fucking bad for the rest of the people around you.

They continued to ignore him as he moved farther and farther away, expanding his radius of terror and pissing most everyone off. Our food came, shortly afterwards, the kid came over and shoved his grubby hand into my pureed root vegetables and pulled it out with a nauseating "Squelluuuurp" noise. His mother saw this happen and said "I'm so sorry, he's not usually so bad!" But she didn't collect her kid or say anything to him.

I took a photo of the handprint in my food. Got up, picked up my plate and dropped it onto the couples table and explained they could do what they wanted with their rack of lamb, because I wasn't going to eat it or pay for it after their kid, who had been crawling all over the floor, had put his hand in it.

People around us started to clap. The womans face turned red and the man was clearly mortified. Better late than never eh pal?

She very upset. With me, for not being understanding and for insisting they pay for the damage their horrible child did. She actually used her knife to smooth out the vegetables and tried to tell the Manager I was lying, I showed him the photo and another young couple came over and vouched for me.

The Manager came over when they had left and told me that if the Mother had been less of a witch about everything, he would have let it go. But she was so rude and refused to take responsibility for her kid, that he stuck to his guns and made them pay.

They ended up paying the 45$ but left the lamb, so I took it home and fed it to my dog.

I got a second rack of lamb with grilled vegetables instead of the puree of roots. It was heaven.

And this is as good a time as any to explain something I couldn't some weeks ago (the column, "Why Did Alec Baldwin Get A Pass When Paula Deen Does Not?", became invisible just after Cousin Dave had responded to me, so I couldn't read it) - a keyword search didn't work till now)

By Cousin Dave:
I read an article the other day, which unfortunately I wasn't able to find again, about how a language caste system is developing in America. Politically and culturally privileged groups are allowed to use words and phrases that are prohibited to others. Politically incorrect groups are facing increasing restrictions on what they are allowed to say and what words they can use to say it; almost anything that can be taken as a racial or sexual reference, no matter how oblique, is prohibited. And the boundary of the prohibited territory is growning fast.

I am extremely careful what I say, anywhere, any time. The only time I can ever let my guard down (other than here, where I can do it anonymously) is at home with my wife. Within earshot of anyone else -- no. No one at work has the slightest idea of what my politics are, because I've never expressed an opinion, nor have I agreed or disagreed with anyone else's opinions.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at July 1, 2013 6:51 AM
___________________________________

(Re being careful what you say and where) Is that so terrible?

As most people understand on one level or another, there are three verboten social topics when talking with people face-to-face: sex, religion....and politics. (That is, those who don't agree that these are sensitive issues often regret trying to convince others that they shouldn't be sensitive about them.)

Even on organized debates on TV, such topics don't get discussed that intelligently (between politicians, anyway).

So why NOT leave such discussions to the best and brightest writers, who have more time to think before they speak - and whose books, essays and columns we can read in quiet dignity instead of blurting opinions on issues we haven't always done much research on?

As a well-known journalist once wrote: "Think before you speak. Read before you think."
Posted by: lenona at July 2, 2013 5:56 PM

Lenona, you don't understand the problem. If I say anything that can somehow be cast into some context, then I have committed an act of political correctness, totally free of the context in which I actually spoke. If I say "I don't like the red man", then I have committed a mortal sin against Native Americans, even though what I meant was then I don't like to use the red piece when I play the board game Sorry. Before you speak, you have to think about the fact that anything you say can be put into any context whatsoever, and then used to cast you as a racist sexist homophobe.

"So why NOT leave such discussions to the best and brightest writers, who have more time to think before they speak - and whose books, essays and columns we can read in quiet dignity instead of blurting opinions on issues we haven't always done much research on? "

I can't tell if you are being sarcistic or if you are serious. The paragraph reads like sarcasm. However, in the event that someone takes it seriously, I'll supply the following:
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? Yes, I shouted, because this is beyond the pale. The idea that only our elites and "betters" are entitled to have opinions is straight out of age of Marie Antoinette. If this statement were to be enforced, there would be no point in Amy or any of us being here. In fact, there would be no point in us existing. I do not live to be a drone, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at July 3, 2013 8:32 AM
_____________________________________

I never thought I'd have to spell this out, but here goes.

What is so terribly important about boring people to tears, anywhere, anytime, with the details of your hobbies or your last night's dream OR irritating them with your opinions on anything not relevant to the moment? You know, like an impulsive toddler with no sense of boundaries?

You have every right to talk, debate, rant, or pontificate on any subject you please, with or without foul language, provided it's done at the right time and place. There is NO shortage of forums where you can do that, especially online, such as here. Yes, it's usually more prudent to use a pseudonym unless you're getting paid to be controversial, like so many radio hosts and at least some politicians, but so what?

One example of such forums is Bratfree (it's for those who do not want to have children and want to vent about badly behaved parents and THEIR children, etc), which is loaded with foul language - but at the same time, I'm sure most people who post or even lurk there know very well that the members do not necessarily use foul language or even bad manners in real life - or even on different anonymous forums that demand clean language. I.e., they can talk very much as they please, since it's clear enough that they're more anti-bad-manners (and anti-sentimentality) than anything else. I've noticed, too, that they NEVER seem to use racist language or even much stereotyping - and while they complain a good deal about children with mental retardation, it's mainly about those who are allowed to disturb the peace or (in the case of adults) ignore or harass the customers they're supposed to be serving, all of which are clearly unacceptable no matter who you are.

Alkon's blog may suit you well enough, but it wasn't good enough for at least one poster whom she told to leave - an MRA called PK, whom I suspect is also known as Polish Knight. (I wish I could remember just what rules Amy said he was violating.) Again, is that so terrible? Polish Knight seems to have found acceptance on quite a few other forums, so even HE is hardly being muzzled.

That doesn't change the fact that your flesh-and-blood coworkers have every right to be annoyed when you talk, for no good reason, about issues you know will likely irritate them, especially when they have nothing to do with work. If they do the same thing to you, you have every right to ask them to stop, even if it's benign. (And regarding that distortion of "red man," I find it unlikely - and ludicrous - that that's the sort of thing one has to worry about in the AVERAGE workplace; if it happens in yours, anyone who distorts facts like that should be fired, including any media people.) When it comes to casual conversation, no one wants to listen to those who don't always know what they're talking about, just as few people really want to hear non-singers sing, even if the listeners are polite about it. And how many strangers on the street do you insist on debating with? Again, online, you can do as you please - not so with real people.

Finally, I did not say only certain people are entitled to have opinions. I'm just saying that we're only entitled to our INFORMED opinions before it's POLITE to demand that other people listen to them - which, oddly, is something that only conservatives and libertarians seem to say these days. (And conservatives, incredibly, are the ones likely to argue that "elites" - i.e., those who are very well-read, with or without a college degree - are somehow ruining democracy.) Do we want non-surgeons to perform surgery on us? Of course not. Is there any point in having a bunch of teens - or adults - who flunked physics in high school express THEIR opinions on physics to ANYONE? No. It's just highly embarrassing.

And, of course, there's nothing to stop you from voting as you please on any issue. It's just that too many voters only think of the immediate results and not the long-term implications - assuming they're informed at all. (If we had never lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, I doubt many would argue that today's teens are truly informed enough to qualify.)

Miss Manners, BTW, had many pretty good columns on conversation, both in and out of the workplace. Here are a couple (of course, I can't link to both):

From 1998 (opening paragraphs - note that she's NOT talking about online chats):

"Here is a list of topics that polite people do not bring into social conversation:

"Sex, religion, politics, money, illness, the food before them at the moment, which foods they customarily eat or reject and why, anything else having to do with bodily functions, occupations, including their own and inquiries into anyone else's; the looks of anyone present, especially to note any changes, even improvements, since these people were last seen; and the possessions of anyone present, including their hosts' house and its contents and the clothing being worn by them and their guests, even favorably.

"Well, don't just sit there. Say something.

"Never mind -- Miss Manners knows what you are thinking. You are thinking that in its restless quest to stamp out fun, unchecked etiquette would drive the world to a state of blandness bordering on hysteria......."

(Of course, she goes on to prove why the reader is jumping to unfair conclusions.)

And, from 2002:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020205/NEWS/302059932&template=printart

Excerpt (from the Gentle Reader):

In order to avoid offending our more sensitive employees and minimize legal liability, I have been professionally and legally counseled that I should avoid using words such as "man," "woman," "please," "thank you," "I'm sorry," "excuse me," "unmotivated," "late for work," "absent," or especially the use of any color word.

(As usual, Miss Manners has a reasonable answer.)

Jerry goes 4 for 4, with a grand slam and a boatload of RBIs in one comment.

Dang.

As a parent of two young boys, I'll throw in my two cents.

I think there are two fundamental problems. The first is that the parents are self centered jerks who are far more concerned with getting a promotion at work or the newest Coach purse than raising decent humans. The second is that we're living in a society that rewards obnoxious behavior. Snooki, Johnny Knoxville...act like an ass, make big bucks.

I find it horrifying that discussing politics is impolite.

Good GOD how the hell do we expect good governance is the discussion of it amongst our peers is impolite?

The second is that we're living in a society that rewards obnoxious behavior. Snooki, Johnny Knoxville...act like an ass, make big bucks.
__________________________________

Yes. All the more reason (this is going to sound radical, I know) to reconsider having a TV in the house at all when one has kids. (Or at least one should refuse to let a kid have one in the bedroom!) There's just too much that's wrong with it and not enough that's right. Not to mention that it simply takes too much time away from everything else, as Paul Copperman wrote in "The Literacy Hoax":

"Consider what a child misses during the 15,000 hours (from birth to age 17) he spends in front of the TV screen. He is not working in the garage with his father, or in the garden with his mother. He is not doing homework, or reading, or collecting stamps. He is not cleaning his room, washing the supper dishes or cutting the lawn. He is not listening to a discussion about community politics among his parents and their friends. He is not playing baseball or going fishing or painting pictures. Exactly what does television offer that is so valuable it can replace these activities that transform an impulsive, self-absorbed child into a critically thinking adult?"

BTW, I'll say that Miss Manners, for once, was somewhat unfair on the subject of explaining to kids why they can't imitate the bad manners they see on TV (this is from 1983):

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19830123&id=oJJNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6760,2543524

........The traditional conversation begins when a child has gleefully discovered an example of someone (on TV) doing something he or she has been enjoined from doing, and says, " If he can do it, why can 't I ? "

The answer is, "Because you see how dreadful it is. We would never behave that way, would we?"

The question is not intended to be thought over; it is supposed to suggest its own answer and will, if repeated often enough, eventually succeed.........

(I mean, that's just going to make a child angry and frustrated, because chances are what the kid is REALLY asking is "if I can't do it, why can THEY? More to the point, why do we have a TV at all in the house when this is the sort of show I prefer, if you don't want me to idolize/imitate it? You wouldn't keep huge bags of candy around when you're always telling me it's bad for my teeth and I can't eat it every day, right?" It seems to me kids would understand the parents' point of view a LOT better if the parents DIDN'T have a TV.)

Worse of course, the policies Jezebel demands we endorse for children and teens will basically just guarantee future generation of assholes.

Posted by: jerry at August 13, 2013 12:51 AM
________________________________

Um, explain?

BTW, I only found the article via Bratfree. Not that they have a hard-and-fast set of rules about kids - they're just opposed to bad manners in general. E.g., it is not polite to ask someone to babysit a toddler for free - that includes asking store clerks! However, when there is an UNDERSTANDING that so-and-so will babysit for free, there's nothing uncivilized about that.

I find it horrifying that discussing politics is impolite.

Good GOD how the hell do we expect good governance is the discussion of it amongst our peers is impolite?

Posted by: Robert at August 13, 2013 8:26 AM
____________________________________

As I understand it, it's only rude when one or more of the group doesn't WANT to discuss it. After all, in a social gathering, it's hardly civilized for the others to say "OK, then you can leave" to someone who was invited - or who is the host. Unless the PURPOSE of the gathering was to discuss politics. (Miss Manners once said: "If you invite people over to play poker, they are not allowed to demand to play soccer instead." Once they get there, I presume.) I believe the same rule applies to using foul language in social settings, at least - but even women, regardless of age, who don't want to hear it often need to remind those around them of that, patiently. (Whereas if you work in a restaurant kitchen, according to Anthony Bourdain, you just have to accept it - during working hours, anyway. Even so, of course you can't use it with the customers!)

Here's the link to that other Miss Manners column I previously mentioned, if you like:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-01-01/features/9801010196_1_miss-manners-etiquette-vulgarity

More excerpts:

"......But she balks at the idea that we can all now be trusted to enliven our social lives by discussing important political, social and religious issues.

"How enlightening or enjoyable is social conversation among an assortment of people who have strong feelings about, say, the morality of abortion, assisted suicide or capital punishment, the effects on society of the welfare system or affirmative action, or whether sex education or prayer should be permitted in public schools?

"It isn't as though etiquette is opposed to airing controversy. On the contrary (so to speak): It prides itself on its specialty of providing rules for the very situations where controversial matters are most strenuously contested, such as courtrooms, classrooms and meetings. Etiquette (usually supplied by the rules of order of Miss Manners' colleagues Messrs. Robert or Riddick) is what keeps debate fair and to the point, rather than allowing one person to dominate or the whole thing to deteriorate into an exchange of insults.

"So it is a terrible insult to etiquette to characterize it as running around seeking superficial agreement at the cost of meaningful debate.

"But such rules cannot be invoked in social settings.

"Lightly held views and topics of no tremendous weight to those present may be bandied about pleasantly. People who trust one another enough to be able to discuss one of the supercharged topics peacefully (possibly because they are superpolite in spite of their differences, but more likely because they are all on the same side) may also do so without interference from etiquette, which knows enough not to disturb people who are having a good time.

"But confirmations of opinions already held and exercises in faking respect for people whose stupid or vicious opinions differ from one's own should not be confused with meaningful exchanges.

"So it isn't Miss Manners who is banning the casual airing of important topics; it is human nature."

Miss Manners is right. There's too much danger in discussing politics in social settings because people often can't be civil about it, even when they believe they ARE being civil about it. And it ends up being a game of trying to change each other's minds, which is a terrible game to play with people who don't want to play.

Besides, we all have this fantasy that we have the most well-reasoned argument available, and if we just explained our position to the rest of the world, everyone but the most stupid and broken among us would see the truth for what it is.

We're all morons.

I have a boy and a girl.

When my boy was small, he was a model child, now, not so much.

Most of it is hormones.

My girl on the other hand, is demon spawn in heels. She's very sweet natured, but bossy and managing. Since they were both raised the same way with the same parents, I think it has more to do with personality than people think.

I also think divorce and lack of discipline, along with the yuppie mindset, have alot to do with it.

And when the hell did it become a no-no to spank your kids? Big difference between a swat on the ass when the kid mouths off or hits a sibling, and abuse.

Wtf: And when the hell did it become a no-no to spank your kids? Big difference between a swat on the ass when the kid mouths off or hits a sibling, and abuse.

Logical corkscrew: "Don't you ever hit your little sister again!" SMACK!

She's very sweet natured, but bossy and managing.
_______________________________________

Speaking of bossiness, I don't know her age, but if you ever need to explain to her the difference between bossiness and assertiveness, just say that assertive people RESPECT others' opinions, experience, and rights - at least enough to listen. Regardless of age.

Bossy people, however, do not. They would push around their own parents, teachers and bosses if they could get away with it. That hit me when I was re-reading Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Farmer Boy." In one chapter, Eliza Jane, who bosses her younger siblings (or all of them?) FINALLY gets put in her place when she tells her mother that she's mortified by Father's common practice of drinking tea from his saucer rather than the cup (to cool the tea faster).

Bossy people could be said to be too insecure to think of anyone as an equal or as a superior. Clearly, that turns into unacceptable behavior.

And I'd add: While it's clearly unfair to order a child to sit next to the adults and not talk at all, it is NOT unfair to tell that child that it's rude to interrupt adult conversations when the adults are clearly not interested in any subjects the child would prefer to talk about. It's also not civilized for the child to inject opinions on an adult subject the child knows little or nothing about. If there's somewhere the child can go off and play, great. If not, and there's no other kid that the child can talk with quietly, the adults need to engage the child in SOME child conversation, if briefly.

Patrick - the difference is you are the parent and your child is not the parent to their sibling. When children no longer respect their parents, there is anarchy. I may not have realized it when I was younger, but I respected my parents because they set the rules and enforced them equally. There is a HUGE difference between beating the shit out of your child and swatting them on their well-padded ass. If they learn this as toddlers, it won't be as necessary when they are older. But if we keep reinforcing the "don't, you'll hurt their little feelings" attitude that is so prevalent, we might as well give up any form of discipline whatsoever. Time outs and grounding your child only works if they have already learned what happens next.

"Besides, we all have this fantasy that we have the most well-reasoned argument available, and if we just explained our position to the rest of the world, everyone but the most stupid and broken among us would see the truth for what it is.

We're all morons."

Posted by: MonicaP at August 13, 2013 9:15 AM

No, any thing matters more to some of us than to others. We're all right, at least as far as our own priorities and beliefs are concerned. Boot camp is possibly the only environment I have ever seen where someone can be made to care, or at least fake it convincingly.

Lenona, thanks for picking that old thread back up. No time to respond to it properly now; will get to it this evening.

"But if we keep reinforcing the "don't, you'll hurt their little feelings" attitude that is so prevalent, we might as well give up any form of discipline whatsoever. Time outs and grounding your child only works if they have already learned what happens next."

SCORE!

I will add that from the tone of his posts, Patrick sounds like he doesn't have children, or even particularly like them. Therefore, Patrick, you clearly do not understand that children under 5, frequently up to 7, are not logical, they run on instinct and emotion.

A swat on the butt after they smack a sibling can also teach them empathy. I will cite my children as examples.

When my children were still babies, as in 6-9 months, they both bit me. Babies frequently bite out of frustration.

I bit them back.

Not hard enough to break the skin, not even hard enough to leave a red mark. Hard enough, however, to sting.

They never bit me again.

Fast forward 8 years, to my sister-in-law, who feels that at 4 years old, her son is well able to understand the reasoning behind her decisions and rules; she explains decisions/rules to her son, and why he shouldn't do things, and enforces it with time-outs.

This child frequently bites her hard enough to draw blood. You should have seen the look on her face when I suggested she bite him back, or spank.

She looked at me like I had just given birth to a three headed alien with antlers.

End-result: Her child is not able to start kindergarten this year as he has "behavioral issues", has no friends, and he and his mother are frequently left out of family functions.

Spanking is not abuse.

@ Lenona;

She's 8.

I have tried explaining these things to her, but she is stubborn to the point of insanity. It isn't that she doesn't respect opinions or ideas, I don't think, it's that she wants her way, all the time. At least with her friends and her brother. She knows damn well better than to try it with me.

As an example, when playing hide and seek, she tells her friends where they should hide! She tries not to get upset if they don't, but she has difficulty with it.

I know she gets the stubbornness from me, and my mother is laughing her head off!

I'm unsure, however, where the bossiness comes from. I've asked around, and my family and friends assure me that neither myself or my husband are bossy. They could just be telling me what they think I want to hear, but I doubt it.

Any ideas?

The rotten brats we encounter these days are mostly the result of rotten parenting.

I agree. I have eight nieces and two nephews. My brothers and sisters (and their spouses) have done a great job raising them and there's not a bad apple in the bunch. All of them are great kids.

That's not to say that kids with great parenting never turn out bad, because I'm sure they can and do, but, in general, I think that great parenting results in great (or at least good) kids.

Chiming in here as a parent of a 7 year old and nearly 4-year-old.

They have both been delights at times. They have both been obnoxious at times. Whomever wrote above that being tired or hungry has a lot to do with it was partially correct.

My experience is that even the best kid will throw a tantrum during a growth spurt (even on a rigid schedule). They need extra food and sleep and sometimes simply cannot get enough of either.

They also go through testing-the-limits phases periodically. So, even if the last twenty times a tantrum resulted in a punishment and not getting what they want... well, maybe the 21st time will be different. These phases LOOK like lack of parenting at times.

Frankly, even the best of us have to pick our battles and there are days when an exasperated lippy sigh goes unpunished because it's an improvement over what we had before or I have a bigger fish to fry.

With all this in mind, I have trouble calling a young kid an asshole. Of course, they'll become one if there's no consequences, but if I'm only seeing them once in the store, I don't know enough to judge. Mind, there are kids I know who definitely fall into the "asshole" category and have since age 4, but I knew them well enough to know it was not a phase.

It isn't that she doesn't respect opinions or ideas, I don't think, it's that she wants her way, all the time. At least with her friends and her brother.
_______________________________

I can't help but wonder how long she's going to KEEP those friends with that attitude.....and how surprised she'll be if she loses them.

Sorry. I just felt the need to give the advice I gave in the previous post in part because there's been some debate over the last few years over what defines a "bossy" girl, and what is good, and when enough is enough. As one (Newsweek?) mother/writer pointed out: "I have never heard a little boy described as bossy."

And when one considers that there HAVE to be at least some boys who fit the description I gave, that IS alarming.

To clarify what I said: People who are merely assertive or have leadership qualities are still humble enough to DEFER to someone with an idea that's clearly smarter - even if it's someone who's younger. Or, of course, someone with a lot more experience. Bossy people, however, will argue that two and two make five just for the sake of pushing people around. Eustace Scrubb (supposedly based on his creator, C.S. Lewis!) was a prime example; in Chapter 2 of Voyage of the Dawn Treader, it's hinted three times in as many pages that he's a pseudo-intellectual who only cares about grades (bragging rights, that is) and not about education, imagination, adventure or anything but being the center of the universe - an attitude his parents never challenged, apparently. Therefore, he tried to push around those who were three times his age, despite having no real advice.

And Miss Manners also pointed out that (probably before 2008; I can't find it) that there's a difference between being smart and being a know-it-all, contrary to what your insecure high school
classmates might think. Quite simply: If you raise your hand all the
time because you always really know the answer, you're merely smart, even if it makes the know-nothings look even worse than normal. To be a know-it-all, however, you have to be domineering and/or act conceited. Anyone who disagrees is the one with the problem.

""I have never heard a little boy described as bossy.""

Interesting isn't it?

I've had some very strong women in my life, such as a former mentor/boss who was only the third woman in Canada to enter medical school. She too, was described as a bitch, (the feminine version of asshole, really) mostly by the very men who sought to keep her out of medical school. Then by women who were disturbed by her utter lack of concern over their opinion of her very alternative lifestyle and opinions.

She went on to have a very successful medical practice, which eventually turned into a very successful career as both author and speaker at university lectures.

While I dislike my daughters managing ways, it is probably these very ways that will enable her to go much farther in life than your typical "go to college, get married, pop out 3 kids and get a dog, yes dear no dear three bags full" type of woman. It merely needs to be channeled in the right direction, I think.

If she loses a friend or two, it will be a life lesson, one that she will learn well. Like my former mentor, she is very strong, and I doubt it will slow her down much.

I'm unsure, however, where the bossiness comes from.
To some extent, that's inherent, I think. Not that environment has no influence on it, but one thing that having more than one baby at once has shown me is that environment definitely isn't everything.

Some un-asked-for advice for your daughter: In a social context, she will likely have an easier time if she is also very helpful as a general rule. No, I'm not suggesting that she ignore her own needs for those of others, but there's a difference between doing that and being aware when others need assistance. Your bossy friend who you occasionally have to sit on (figuratively) when the group is trying to decide on a restaurant for lunch can be a godsend in a crisis/crunch-time situation when you're exhausted and part of you longs to have someone else come in and set things right. If your daughters' potential friends see her bossiness as one aspect of having a friend who does things for others and isn't afraid to do some extra work if a friend needs a hand, they will appreciate that aspect of her character much more. I have a bossy side to my personality, but I also show my love by helping people out; my friends may tease me a little for being forceful at times, but they have also made it clear that they have appreciated that forcefulness at other times when I was looking out for them. The bossy people who alienate others socially tend to be those who aren't useful to others. YMMV.

And regarding the need for ADULTS to restrain their opinions at certain times and places: If we can understand that (outside of online sites, anyway) no one really wants to hear about every little accomplishment of ours or every little problem we want to mope about - if only so other people won't bore US to tears with similar yammerings - what is so different or important about our OPINIONS on anything?

As Fran Lebowitz once said: "If people don't want to hear from you, what makes you think they want to hear from your sweater?"

(Of course, she has plenty to say - when she's INVITED, or paid, to speak on anything.)

She also pointed out that one big symptom of the dumbing down of our society was the fact that, as bad and shallow as TV news may have been years ago, it's even worse now, in part because the anchors are always asking viewers to chime in with their amateurish OPINIONS. What's wrong with just presenting the news and forcing people to resort to writing carefully thought-out letters to their newspaper editors, who may or may not consider the letters important enough to be printed?

"Consider what a child misses during the 15,000 hours (from birth to age 17) he spends in front of the TV screen. He is not working in the garage with his father, or in the garden with his mother. He is not doing homework, or reading, or collecting stamps. He is not cleaning his room, washing the supper dishes or cutting the lawn. He is not listening to a discussion about community politics among his parents and their friends. He is not playing baseball or going fishing or painting pictures. Exactly what does television offer that is so valuable it can replace these activities that transform an impulsive, self-absorbed child into a critically thinking adult?"

When was this written? Fist off how is a 3hrs old baby - old enough to walk/talk/understand supposed to help garden, read, or repair a car.

Secondly most cars these days need a computer to diagnose the problem, gone are the days where a single 50 page manual can walk you thru every last aspect of motor repair.

Also many women work and dont have time to garden, most parent dont let the rugrats watch TV until after homework anyway, so how many times should they be required to do it, exactly?

Baseball and stamps are boring, stamps are redundant, I always had to cut the grass before I could go fishing.

About the only thing recommended in this pile of junk that is easily accessible would be reading

Fist off how is a 3hrs old baby - old enough to walk/talk/understand supposed to help garden, read, or repair a car.
_________________________________

Have you really not heard that pediatricians now agree that children under two should not be watching TV at ALL, for multiple reasons?

And plenty of the same doctors would argue that since the first five years of a child's life are so important to development, the less TV the child has even AFTER age two, the better.

Even preschoolers can START learning some simple chores, BTW - like washing floors or unbreakable dishes. (Of course, it feels more like fun to them if a parent is working close by.)

It amazes me that so many parents, who understand that "you are what you eat" can't grasp that "you are what you do." I.e., kids who are not gently pushed toward useful hobbies (like carpentry) rather than useless, mindless ones - or those who are never firmly taught certain work skills and to take PRIDE in them - are not likely to be happy campers even as adults, since they will have likely fallen into the social trap that says that "fun," by definition, is ONLY that which is useless - and/or costs money instead of earning money. Obviously, there is only so much time and money for useless pastimes. So why DON'T we make more effort to combat that attitude?

I found the Newsweek article I mentioned - it's by Kathleen Deveny.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/06/21/we-re-bossy-and-proud-of-it.html

Excerpts:

.......Sure, some kids—and plenty of adults—go too far. Being physically aggressive or bullying is never acceptable. "Bossy, to me, is something that's going to turn people off," says Sue Wynne, a mother of four girls—ages 4, 8, 12 and 15—from Lincolnshire, Ill. "A good leader isn't bossy." But what is the difference, exactly, between being bossy and being assertive? We ask girls to walk a fine line between being strong and being likable. It's a line we typically allow boys to trample........

......In the end, playground justice may determine the fate of bossy girls. What they are often trying to do is to persuade a group of people to go along with them. Persuading a group and being a leader are excellent qualities. Not considering the feelings of others or pushing your agenda to the exclusion of all others are awful qualities. They often don't work. But girls need to try out bossy behavior in order to learn which strategies are most effective, says Allyn, who has a 10-year-old daughter named Jordan.

Maybe I think bossy behavior is acceptable because I actually am a boss. Or maybe I was able to rise to a management position because I've always been bossy—something my mother confirms without hesitation. "Women have a tougher time getting ahead," says Mary Sirl, mother of Rae, 5, and Ella, 3. "So what's wrong with making your demands known? I want bossy to morph into powerful, assertive, ambitious and, of course, kind. Those are all the qualities that will help my girls get ahead."

(end)

It isn't all parenting. My older sister was an easy child. If you told her not to touch it, she wouldn't.

If you told me not to touch it, it was the first thing I went for.

My son, has a lot of my temperament. He even reinvented my invention of headbanging. My sister's daughter, is calm and easy just like her mommy.

I'm by no means saying parenting isn't important. It can make a huge difference. But there are a lot of "good parents" who really aren't that good. They were just lucky to get a kid with a good disposition. I'd dare them to take mine for two weeks and see how good they really are.

@ marion:

Thank you. My daughter is generally sweet-natured, she'll be the first to make a get well card or congratulate her friends on accomplishments. She could however, be a little more helpful instead of managing, and we will work on that. It's a good idea.

@ Lenona:

This is what I'm thinking. I hesitate to get involved. I despise helicopter moms, and feel children learn better by mistake than by being hovered over in order to avoid and hurt feelings. She hasn't lost any friends over it yet, but I think that's due to her age.

I think it would do her good to lose a friend, in order to learn the consequences of her bossiness. She already has to some extent with her brother, who does everything he can to annoy her, simply because she is so managing. With him however, I think it is more a misguided attempt at being helpful, because like me, he is somewhat forgetful and disorganized.

She'll learn.