Obedience is not always apppropriate: 'The father who had a son that would remonstrate with him would not sink into the gulf of unrighteous deeds. Therefore when a case of unrighteous conduct is concerned, a son must by no means keep from remonstrating with his father, nor a minister from remonstrating with his ruler. Hence, since remonstrance is required in the case of unrighteous conduct, how can (simple) obedience to the orders of a father be accounted filial piety?' (Book of Filial Piety) Thus absolute obedience is not a part of a child's duty. On the contrary, respect for our parents is our most important filial duty. 'The rules of propriety are simply (the development of) the principle of reverence. Therefore the reverence paid to a father makes (all) sons pleased.' (Book of Filial Piety) Thus disrespect is much worse than disobedience.
Disobedience is usually just how kids naturally behave. It's never done with malicious intent. Most kids disobey their parents, not disrespect them. Of course it's a sin, but it's not the same as disrespect. So I believe that disobedience is bad, but it's not the same level as disrespect in my opinion.
As a mother, if I had a son who respected me and my opinion, but chose to go a different way, I would consider myself a success. It matters much more to me that I have raised a thinking individual who makes his own choices, even if I don't agree with them. Respect is by far the greater virtue. Anyone can just obey, a dog can obey, but it takes an individual of intelligence and high morals to respect the viewpoint of his parent and still choose to do things differently.
My son is only eight months old right now, and I have to say I still feel the same about this now. Would I like for him not to touch something I don't want him touching? Of course I would! But not ever at the expense of his natural born desire for experience and learning. If he breaks a couple of crystal vases now, I have to deal with some broken glass, but if later in life, having been taught to only obey his superiors, he were to do something unconscionable for the sake of obedience (like firing at civilians in a war) it would mean I have failed him completely.
I also object to the idea that teaching obedience for the sake of obedience. It's the American in me, the revolutionary perhaps, that says it is not okay for someone with power over you to treat you unjustly. If I were to indicate to my son that he should obey someone he did not respect, I would be in effect telling him he should obey orders he did not respect. What if some old pedophile who happens to have authority over him tells him to drop trow? I want a child who will look at that decision from a standpoint of "is this a good thing to do?" and not one of "I must obey even though I don't want this." I firmly believe that to teach obedience without putting respect first creates a little robot who can't think for himself and is therefore too handicapped to be sent out into the cold cruel world. I will not always be around to tell him that his boss can't harass him and belittle him and still expect him to do good work. He needs me to teach him to follow leaders deserving of his following, of his respect, right now.
Then what I decided was still put into action. Why should I put so much emotional connection on whether or not someone says something "disrespectful" or whether or not they like doing what I want them to do? I'm more concerned with tangible results. That would be the case if I had children and is even more the case if I were to have employees. Still might take issue with disrespect in so far as it may foretell disobedience in the future and in so far as confronting it may have an incidental impact on the likelihood or not of disobedience in the future.