The word "have to"

Post Reply New Topic

Here comes another thread in the "the word" series. This one will be about the word "have to". I heard my parents, my friend's parents, and the parents on TV, use the word "have to" in constructs like "I'm going to have to punish you" or "I'm going to have to turn off the TV because you've been watching it for too long". My question is: where does the "have to" fit into the equation here? After all, the parents make the rules in the family, they enforce the rules, and then interpret them. Basically, they're the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, all in one unit. So, when my parents told me "I'm going to have to [punish you in some way]" or "I'm going to have to [stop something you enjoy]", I could never figure out why they "had to" do it. After all, since they made the rule, aren't they choosing to do it? They can just as easily reduce or cancel the punishment, or let me continue watching TV, being the ultimate decision-makers and all. So why would they say "have to" do it, when they clearly have a choice in whether or not to do it. Is it just a figure of speech, like "discuss" or "upset"? Is it supposed to evoke empathy in the child, because he/she actually has to follow family rules? Or whatever it is, I'm missing the point of it. Parents of WP, please clue me in. I look forward to another interesting thread.

There, I said everything. Now, discuss.

It's their job as a parent so therefore they have to do their jobs as a parent and that is discipline. If they don't do their job as a parent and they just let their kids do whatever they want, they are bad parents then and lazy so therefore they have to do their jobs as a parent.

People choose to be good parents and people choose to be bad parents. If you want to be a good parent, you have to do things like punish your child, doing discipline, teaching them manners, making sure they eat healthy, having them go to bed, not always giving them what they want. You teach them about life before they become adults.

Also, the implication is that the rules are a covenant or agreement between your parents and you. If you break your side of the bargain (by not following the rules) then your parent are responsible to follow through with the agreed-upon consequences. "Have to" is their way of saying that they consider their responsibility to be an important obligation.

It doesn't matter if you feel the rules don't apply to you - your parents are in charge, and are responsible for creating both the rules and the consequences for breaking them. This same system will apply to authority that you will deal with all your life: professors, police, employers. If you want the rules changed you have to find a way to work within the system to do so, meaning you will have to successfully negotiate (and the key here is successfully) to change things.

Being literal-minded, my own questions and logic there are very similar to yours.

At least in some cases, I think parents are wanting children to believe willing obedience is their preference, and I can believe it is at least sometimes true when a parent says, "This [punishment] hurts me more than it hurts you." However, and overall, I suspect most parents use those kinds of words quite unnecessarily and confusingly, almost as an apologetic, without stopping to think a child is not at all likely to sympathize.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I never said that the rules didn't apply to me. I was talking about how it's confusing that parents say they "have to" give a punishment or tell a child to do something, when it's clear that they can choose. Yes, it's because they want to be good parents. But still, the word "have to" doesn't fit. The parents technically have a choice; the child does not. So why would parents say that? If anything, the child "has to", not the parents.

"Have to" implies some outside force dictating what must be done, like a judge who must sentence a man to prison even though he sympathizes with his plight, because the law is defined in such a way that it cannot be avoided. For some parents, the enforcing of discipline is, in feeling, the same: They don't WANT to punish you, but feel like they are obligated to in order to properly raise you to be the kind of person they want you to be. But yes, many do simply trade "want to" for "have to", to give more weight to their decisions and make them seem less arbitrary.,

That's two words.

What sacrip said.

I say this and when I say it I mean I actually don't WANT to, I do HAVE to in order to properly raise my kids. I HAVE TO follow the rules and consequences that we have agreed on, I don't WANT to put you in the corner and listen to you scream for 5 minutes, I HAVE to because we both know that is the consequence of the action I've asked you to stop doing.

Example: Please stop hitting your brother. If you do not, as you know, the consequence is that you go to the corner. I don't WANT to put you in the corner, but I will HAVE to if you do not stop doing the action to which corner is the consequence.

(obviously I'm illustrating a point and don't say these things in so many words to 3 and 5 year olds, but the meaning is implied and mutually understood in whatever way I say it in a given situation)

Because when you want your kids to grow up to be good people, you have to do things that ensure that. If you didn't care what your child grows up to be, then it would be an option. I have to make my kid go to school, or else I go to jail.
Maybe that sorta kinda helps in a way.

Parents learn fast that not following through with specified consequences is not good for anyone. You will confuse the child, and lose your authority. THE golden rule of parenting is do what you say (and, by extension, be careful to mean what you say) when it comes to discipline. Since you are responsible to maintaining order, keeping the child happy, and raising them to act appropriately / follow rules, you don't feel there is any choice there - if you don't follow through, you've broken the cardinal rule of parenting, and may as well give up then and there on teaching your children anything, or having them lead happy or content lives (I've experimented a bit with different levels of structure and it is very clear that children are NOT happy living in a free for all).

If my kids seem honestly confused by my reaction, and had honestly thought they were not breaking the rule, I give myself license to make an exception, and will explain it as such. But, otherwise, the laws of parenting really do say, "have to"

You do learn fast to think through your threats. We've all made some we've lived to regret. I've gotten very creative wheedling my way out of enforcing out of my ill-advised ones, while trying to keep the appearance of consistency. Best just not to get into that position.

I'll be honest; I hate that phrasing. It seems to me as though the parents are really just trying to pass off responsibility - to make it seem like they "have to" do something (because of whatever reason out of their control), but they really don't want to. Like they're trying to imply that they can't help what they do. To me it just signals weakness and an inability to accept responsibility for their own actions (things like punishment or a not-absolutely-necessary halt to an activity you enjoy).

I think children deserve, at the very least, honesty from their parents. "You will be punished if... because..." or "I am punishing you because..." let the child know what behaviour will earn a punishment and, when a punishment is received, let the child know why. If the "have to" is imperative, the parent should at the very least say "You will have to be punished because..." - that is at least true, because the child does "have to" accept the punishment; he or she has no choice. The parent, however, always has a choice, especially from the point of view of a child, who sees the parent as basically all-powerful.

In short, parents who try to make it seem like they are not the ones making the decisions, who try to pass off responsibility and make themselves look like helpless "good guys," annoy me in their subtle dishonesty and disrespect toward their own children. They need at least to face up to the truth of their actions.

Thank you for starting this thread. You have just made me examine my use of this term. I see logic in all of these responses. Sometimes I think I use these words in the way Jeyradan described. I realize that's a cop-out and I can understand why you find it very confusing. On the other hand, I agree with what DW and others said, parents are obligated to create rules and to enforce them with as much consistecy as we can. What I am hearing you say is that you understand that you "have to" follow the rules but when your parents say they "have to" enforce the rules you find that phrasing confusing.

I caught myself using this phrase in another thread, so took a little time to think about it. To me, it indicates not exactly ambivalence, but a sense of reluctance -- I feel I have to do/say this, but I wish it didn't have to be this way.

I care deeply about my son's happiness; it is hard to do things I know will make him unhappy in the short time but that I feel are important in the long term. Although I find the phrase "this hurts me more than it hurts you" deeply offensive, especially since it comes from someone with more power to someone with less, there is a grain of truth in it.

Good points on phrasing, Jeyradan. I think my AS child has forced me over time to add those qualifiers. "I understand your point (whatever protest he made), but since we've agreed that consistency is important, you know I will still have to follow through with the consequence."

Aspie1, it is really fascinating to see common phrases examined through an entirely different lens. I'm not sure NT children think all those tangents, but I know my AS son does. You - and my son - really challenge me to look at so many common assumptions, and really ask, "why?" "what does that mean?" It is a good process for a parent.

Do these discussions help you deal with some of your lingering childhood issues? I hope so.

I think this is a very good talking point because I find my daughter does have trouble with "have to". Not only when I say "I have to____" but when I tell her "you have to". She will ask why? and a ton of follow up questions. While I find that when I am in the moment and just need the thing to be done (such as get up, or get dressed, or brush your teeth, or buckle your seat belt) she tries to find the "why" behind it (and the why not many times). It's frustrating for me to have to justify why anything needs to be done but I do understand some things seem silly to her and need extra explanation. This also goes along with an inability to generalize so when I tell her she has to do something in one situation, the question can pop up in another and I have to explain things again. Many times it's a confusing social rule like "say excuse me" or "you have to put your napkin on your lap". I know this isn't exactly on point, but we do all use "have to" to imply well, it just needs to be done.

Very good thread.

Speaking as a parent, I don't ever enjoy punishing my son. I know what he did was incorrect and against a rule, but I don't like to make him cry or be upset (even when he is wrong). So I can (on that level) understand why one might say "have to".

I don't use that term. When I warn (which is kind of what saying "have to" is in that instance) I say "you will [receive punishment] if you don't stop x,y,z".