Parenting

I think rules are healthy. You have to learn the rule before you can break them. Speaking from personal experience, my mother was way too lenient with me (in reaction to her authoritarian mother). Anyone else raised by the hippie generation knows the drill: You have no discipline, very little the way of resolve, and sort of expect good things to come your way on their own.

I see no problem with making kids pull their own weight. In fact, I think that's where parents should concentrate most of their authority. They have no place telling their child how to dress, or what music to listen to, or who to sleep with and so on. However, their do have a responsibility to mold their child into a well-adjusted, useful citizen who is at ease with him/herself. This is not going to happen by showering them with gifts all the time, because kids need to feel self-sufficient. They need to feel like they earned their privileges, and can acquire more glittering prizes by working even harder. Who among us dreaded growing up and getting a job, and working until you die? And once you started working, it was a relief to buy your own clothes and expand your horizons.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:45:10 AM by johnnyfog

We feel Ships "go to Church" rule falls under this.

I specifically renounced the fundamentalist teaching of my childhood because I realized it was bullshit. Part of that is because my abusive parents still taught me to think with my own brain. And I did.

@Tentacles - Well Doctor I don't know what answer will make you happy. Short of going into the future and retroactively getting permission from people on whether or not to be born, then no, nobody gets to decide to be born.

If people feel parents in charge over their children is heinous, I honestly don't know what to say to make it make more sense.

@Silasw - That's an interesting question. If at 15 they're showing great maturity we greatly reduce our input. Certain things are still the rules of the house, so no matter how mature you are, until you're moving-out-on-your-own mature, then no, you still have to acquiesce to my will.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:48:05 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Well, putting money in a plate and watching your ass go numb for an hour is not what I consider harsh. Wouldn't Starship's neighbors raise an eyebrow if he suddenly pulled out of church, or his son never came with him?

And if you want to be cynical about it, a big part of life is sitting in rooms and waiting to leave.

This is going to look funny, but I have to take Starship's side vis-a-vis church for one important reason no one has brought up yet:

If the child doesn't go to church with the family, what do they do instead? Stay home alone? That's illegal in many jurisdictions, at least up to a certain age. Some people may have workarounds—such as letting the kid chill at a neighbor's house—but if that's not an option, then yeah, she pretty much has to come with.

Maybe she could bring a book or something.

Yeah, depends on the rules, IMHO. There are reasonable rules and unreasonable rules.

Politeness, basic helping out to ones's ability, no illegal actions, reasonable. These are necessary to the running of a household and a child's ability to perform in adult society.

But curtailing freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom to pursue one's own goals and happiness? Once a person can understand these and desire to exercise them, although they are a minor and can be coerced into giving them up - I don't think this is reasonable. You can teach why what you think is right, you can take away luxuries or remind them of other consequences they face. But coercion? I say no. They are their own person with their own path to follow.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:50:51 AM by TheGirlWithPointyEars

Probably Fog, but I wouldn't give a shit what my neighbors think. I have an obligation to God and my family long before I give a shit what Ms. Collins next door thinks.

ARH! What do you not understand Ship? Were not saying parents shouldn't be in charge of their children. Were saying your rules are unreasonable and potentially harmful, and your mindset of authority coming first over letting your kids make more "bad decisions" could be used to justify any number of bad parenting decisions.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:58:02 AM by Wildcard

What you don't seem to understand Card is that I don't share your conviction my rules are unreasonable, or that my "You live with me and thus we will do things my way in any disagreement" is harmful.

We can all share our thoughts on each other's parenting styles, but that doesn't make them right or true.

Even the most liberal of parents would hit the roof if their underage child started having sex, straight or otherwise. Isn't that just a reality of the world we live in? "It's only punishable if you get caught."

I know some parents that would go along with that. They are also the types who allow their children and friends to drink at home, under the idea "I'd rather they do it here than out there."

As I see it such rules had better have a pretty good reasoning behind them. A reasoning that the "no same sex relationships" rule lacks. On the church front, yeah if Starship doesn't have another option then take the kid. Tell the kid that you can't leave them at home alone and that thus they have to come with. They'll probably understand.

You've never met the parents of me and some of my friends. It's a surprise that one of them managed to hold out till 15 before losing her virginity. Though her mother is less 'liberal' and more 'negligent'.

edited 5th Apr '13 10:07:27 AM by Silasw

I really don't see the problem in that. Honestly would you rather them do it at a teen party or where you can see them? Cause there gonna do it, just sometimes where you won't see them. I had that "it's okay to sip it here" rule in my house and I only ever used it at 20. As long as their something like 17-18 they can probably handle it.

That's just common sense. What you don't seem to get is that the mindset can and is taken to far. I feel this is too far.

edited 5th Apr '13 10:13:20 AM by Wildcard

It also means that if you're having people over and getting drunk you'll be willing to go to your parent if something goes wrong. You're also less likely for something to go wrong in the first place.

A few things I disagree with Maxima.

• "You DO NOT have rights because you simply exist. You have rights because you exist and because you have certain duties and obligations to your family, your community, the State, and humanity."

I dispute that. Certain rights should be essentially unconditional simply based on personhood. I'm stressing this in particular since I know we're both leaning pro-life. A baby, until perhaps 2 1/2 years old, doesn't really have obligations yet other than his/her survival instinct. Yet we don't say the baby has no right to life.

• "But....I cannot abide this idea that she is simply entitled to our providing for her, in the sense that; she has no obligation to obey our rules."

I'll say that yes, child is entitled to your care and guardianship. It's not conditional on the child's behavior. Of course, the child also should do best to please one's parents and concede, trying to harmonize the family while keeping a distinction between his/her thoughts and theirs if they happen to clash.

A parent-child relationship isn't a social contract. It's more of a binding covenant. That means if one side doesn't uphold it, it doesn't void the responsibility of the other side. Both sides have an obligation to not give up despite the shortcomings on the other.

• "Certain things are still the rules of the house, so no matter how mature you are, until you're moving-out-on-your-own mature, then no, you still have to acquiesce to my will."

I don't think a person should abide by anyone's "will". You abide by the reason behind the will, because you share that person's overall beliefs or vision, or because you know that he/she is doing it for your sake; therefore you trust the person. Even if you disagree with the person on a particular instance, you trust that the person has some plan in mind, and for some reason is not able to explain it at the moment, for time/personal hardship/other complex reasons.

Most of the other things you said seem to be more or less agreeable in a basic sense.

edited 5th Apr '13 10:11:57 AM by Trivialis

Here is where I disagree with some of you:

A child does not have the right to indulge in whatever media they want. A child does not have the right to wear whatever clothes they want. A child does not have the right to have whatever friends/activities they want.

Part of raising your child means you give them everything they need, and just enough of what they want. You have to be selective in how and what you give them what they want as well.

My son does not have the experience to recognize what I do in what path he may want to take. It is my job to guide him so that he doesn't develop bad habits, get hurt, or turn out to be an entitled little shit. That means putting reasonable restrictions on his ability to express himself or his interests until he has demonstrated or earned the right to have that, if at all.

There are some things he will not have permission to do at all. And there are some paths should he take I will completely kick his ass. I will always love him, which he knows.

If wearing certain clothes are so important or listening to vile music with no merit, he can wait until he's 18 and buy it his own damn self. There are some things that will get him kicked out of my house. But I accept how I handle his education can contribute to his chances of taking these paths I don't want him to take.

It's a balancing act.

Sure, but if you're gonna ban such a thing (not simply refuse to spend your money on it, actually stop them spending money they've earned on it) you should have a pretty good reason. You can and should stop your kid hanging out with criminals, but that's because they are dangerous and could easily get your kid hurt (either directly or via having him hurt others). If Starship can tell me a good reason as to how getting his kid have a same sex relationship will hurt someone then I'm all ears.

edited 5th Apr '13 10:43:34 AM by Silasw

Bingo: balance. With bribery: some of the extra stuff? Like... "If you really want to go Goth, including the room, then raise your grades so they're all above a B+ average and start saving. Then we'll get out the black netting which you will help pay for: until then, you're sticking with magnolia walls, what's currently in the wardrobe and the old duvet until it falls to bits." That's called "incentive".

edited 5th Apr '13 11:36:03 AM by Euodiachloris

I would like to point out that Starship and Gabrael are parents, as far as I can tell, and actual parents do have some more experience and insight on parentship than prospective ones. And I (along with some others here) may not have had a normal family, so I'm not very good on the subject.

Starship doesn't have a child as far as I know.

Gabrael does.

If Starship was a parent I think some of us might have phoned child services by now. Not because he'd be a terrible parent, but because his kid's probably being neglected with all the time Starship spends arguing with us.

edited 5th Apr '13 10:55:52 AM by Silasw

You'd be surprised...There's a fuckton of terrible parents. And there's certainly no universal parenting method agreed upon by all parents. Nor is one agreed on by experts. It's kinda like politics. Well, it is politics actually.

Euo has it.

I don't mind if my son wears a dress so long as it is modestly cut and the length goes past his fingertips. But as soon as he comes home crying about it he has to wear traditional clothes and we'll start working on his confidence.

I don't mind if my son thinks it's the best thing in the world, ICP will not be played in my house.

I know his friends because I meet them and their parents. I know his tastes because I ask him and have him show me. When we go to the library to pick out books, we read them together. He can pick out movies but if I am concerned I watch them first.

If I watch the movie and don't think it's fitting. I just explain that he is too young to watch it now, but if he is patient he can watch it when he's older and will understand it better.

The key to this is keeping promises. If I tell him he can have this privilege if these obligations are met, I better deliver. That means you have to make the rules clear and consistent. And you have to be open to kid's ingenuity.

My son likes to make deals. Sometimes he has some really cool ideas, or we just need to tweak it some.

Yes, there are terrible parents. But being a parent firsthand does put you in a different position. We should respect that.

edited 5th Apr '13 11:31:02 AM by Trivialis

Heh. What parents should we listen too? Are parents some monolithic hivemind?