To think people who say "your child your rules" should be taken out and....

(54 Posts)
seeker Mon 12-Nov-12 10:07:47

.....sh........oh, ok then, severely reprimanded.

Dahlen Mon 12-Nov-12 10:21:10

Sort of. wink <sits on fence>

I'm all for live and let live generally. My way may be the best way for me but I'm not arogant enough to believe it's the way everyone should raise their own children.

However, I do think the world would be a better place for a lot of children if we were slightly more judgemental - and openly so - about some of the things that get ignored under the philosophy of 'your child, your rules'.

A lot of so-called low-level abuse, for example, continues because people are afraid to comment. Not only can this lead the victim to believe it's their fault and that they deserve it, but it can also normalise it in the wider family and community. This is why it's so often perpetuated it in the next generation.

Then there's feeding a diet dominated by junk food. This may not be breaking any laws and it may not be maliciously-intended abuse, but it's still neglect and thus a form of abuse that can have life-long consequences for the child's health and emotional well-being (particularly if the child is obese).

nellyjelly Mon 12-Nov-12 10:23:11

Hate that phrase. Suggests a parent can just do what they like with their child.

It does seem a little like saying your child so you can do what you want IMO

Sometimes just because it's your child doesn't make what your doing right so yanbu and what dahlen said

GhoulWithADragonTattoo Mon 12-Nov-12 10:26:44

99% of the time it is your child your rules. You might politely listen to the advice or suggestions of others and would be sensible to listen to health care profs,teachers and social workers. But generally your child your rules prevails. Why do you disagree with this?

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 12-Nov-12 10:40:18

As long as there continues to be parents who are irresponsible to their children and to society, YANBU.

I would love to live in a world where every parent could be trusted to make sensible choices for their children so that the phrase could apply to everyone, but sadly, we don't.

FreudiansSlipper Mon 12-Nov-12 10:41:17

yes smile

and my house my rules what is the need for a set of rules hmm

Kalisi Mon 12-Nov-12 10:44:36

Depends really. I kind of agree with the sentiment that, as I love my child, live with them every day and genuinely want to do what's best for them, I have no qualms making decisions based solely on MY opinion of what is best. However, I too hate that phrase as not everyone is as great a parent as me and shouldn't be encouraged to do the same wink

niceguy2 Mon 12-Nov-12 10:45:12

Obviously the 'your child, your rules' line has limits. But we all have our ways of raising children and within reason we have to just put up with it.

For example, personally I think children should play out and not be watched over all the time. We live on a safe estate on a cul-de-sac with few cars. I allow our 5yr old to play out on his own and he happily peddles his bike around and calls for friends. The neighbour opposite, his classmate. His parents NEVER allow him to play out unsupervised and sit outside watching him like a hawk. He's not even apparently 'old enough' for sleepovers whilst our son goes to friends houses all the time and thinks nothing of staying over.

Who's right and who needs to be 'severely reprimanded'? Me for wanting my child to get some freedom and learn to be independent? Or them for mollycoddling their child.

Tee2072 Mon 12-Nov-12 10:47:02

So whose rules should I follow if not my own?

The reason there is no test to be a parent is because there are a million different ways to raise children.

Yes, some things are harmful, i.e. all junk food all the time. But if you make a rule about that, what's to stop a rule being made about, say, toys. You may not like your child playing with a certain toy, I have no problem with it. Whose rule reigns?

Tee2072 Mon 12-Nov-12 10:48:10

Also, define sensible choice. Sensible choice based on what criteria?

One parent might find it sensible to send their child to a faith school and insist they go to a religious activity once a week. Another may find that a form of brain washing.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 12-Nov-12 10:51:05

Niceguy, maybe neither of you are right or wrong. You are just being parents to different children. For an example such as the one you gave, I think it's fine for it to be a case of 'your child, your rules' in each of your positions.

In other, equally simple examples, such as one parent who sends a child into school with a lunchbox full of biscuits and crisps, and another who sends their child in with healthy, possibly less child appealing options, then I don't think the phrase should apply. The first parent is making a descison that is it only not the best for their own child, but is also making it harder for the second parent to successfully implement their choices, and in examples like that the first parent shouldn't be able to apply whatever rules like to their own child.

Well, DS is my child and he does live my my rules obviously....whose rules should he live by then??

Obviously this is within reason but we all parent differently and as long as my rules are not detrimental to anyone else then the way I bring him up is up to me.

InNeedOfBrandy Mon 12-Nov-12 10:59:06

I have that exact same situation niceguy I feel really sorry for my neighbours dc stuck in playing playstation then out and about. But their mum is a lovely lovely person who worries to much, who is to say who's right.

I do in a slight control ly like way think my way is best. My friend for instance didn't feed her dc any form of proper food when he was a baby for fear of him choking, she wouldn't even let him have a sandwich at 14months, it used to really annoy me because I could see he would end up/was a terrible eater because of this. It wasn't my place to tell her what to do with her child even if I really wanted her to do them my way.

ICBINEG Mon 12-Nov-12 10:59:12

YANBU. at all...complete crock of shite IMO.

Especially in a world where 'my rules' can include chopping off bits of other peoples genitals....

Tee2072 Mon 12-Nov-12 11:02:10

"The first parent is making a descison that is it only not the best for their own child, but is also making it harder for the second parent to successfully implement their choices"

No. Sorry. I do not make decisions for my child based on hard it makes your life.

You're the parent. You parent. So my child has crisps and yours aren't allowed them? That's your problem. Not mine. Learn to say no, for example, and stick to it.

ICBINEG Can we not go there, please? I'm begging you. grin

Everlong Mon 12-Nov-12 11:04:59

Agree.

If anyone in RL says this to me I will flick them hard on the conk.

I can just imagine someone saying it with babe or hun at the end of the sentence too,

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 12-Nov-12 11:05:38

Tee, I think that's a really selfish attitude, and it's the reason why so many people who are perfectly capable of making healthy choices by their children end up getting chased by the lunchbox police.

If in school, your rule makes it harder for my child to have what is best for him, then yes, it is my problem. But it's my problem that has been created by someone else who doesn't want the best for their children. I think it's ok for people to get annoyed about that.

Dahlen Mon 12-Nov-12 11:08:03

I think known to be harmful either to the child or the rest of society is the key point. So 'benign neglect' v 'helicoptering' is a classic case of 'your child, your rules' being perfectly acceptable, since neither method is proven as better than the other, despite all the opinions to the contrary. Same goes for BLW v purees, co-sleeping v crying it out, etc.

A diet dominated by junk food is proven to have a negative effect on health. Calling your child names and hitting them is proven to be detrimental to a child's well-being.

Tee2072 Mon 12-Nov-12 11:09:24

Well, I disagree.

Bringing us to the crux of the conversation!!

If you don't have the ability to control your children and their eating habits because my child has junk food (Which he doesn't, BTW, he loves fruit and veg. I'd be smug but it has nothing to do with anything I've done.) then you need to look to your own parenting.

And keep your beak out of mine.

niceguy2 Mon 12-Nov-12 11:13:33

Niceguy, maybe neither of you are right or wrong. You are just being parents to different children.

Exactly. Hence why we need to let parents parent their own child. I know my child best and there's not one way which is right or wrong.

Obviously if I am beating my child with a big sharp stick then that's different before anyone tries to suggest that rule is rubbish because I may be a violent psychopath.

Tee2072 Mon 12-Nov-12 11:16:37

::adjust spreadsheet to uncheck 'Niceguy2 is a violent psychopath':: grin

Kalisi Mon 12-Nov-12 11:19:11

The main reason I dislike the phrase is because the only context I ever hear it used is " I have run out of logical reasons/arguments to explain my choices so I will bring up the fact that they are MY children and I can do whatever the hell I like with them"
Ofcourse it is "your child, your rules" as someone mentioned before, our children are ours and our rules are all we know, but the mere fact that people feel the need to quote it suggests to me that the rules in question are difficult to justify any other way. Sorry, I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense. I guess for example, if a HV/GP were telling me that something I was doing was not the best option, I wouldn't dream of just sprouting out that bullshit to justify my choice. I would seriously ask myself WHY it was best before going ahead and doing it my way

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Mon 12-Nov-12 11:20:05

Ok, I don't want to keep harping on about the lunchbox thing, but it's not about whether I have an ability to say no, control my children, or need to look at my own parenting. I don't mind my job being made harder because of other people's choices, it would only be harder because of choices I had also made.

It's about it being harder for a child to understand why something is beneficial to them when someone else in their class is being taught the opposite.

Surely you can see that it will be harder for a child sitting in at the lunchbox table to understand why it's important that they eat their savouries first when the child next to them is never given savouries.

I have a child who doesn't happen to like fruit that much. I can get him to eat it at home, but at school he needs encouragement. Part of that encouragement comes from support from the school. I think my child's need for encouragement to do something healthy is more important than a parents right to do something unhealthy.

Tee2072 Mon 12-Nov-12 11:28:10

And I think a parent's right to make the decisions they want to make for their children without interference from the school or government or the parents at the school gate is most important of all.

The exceptions being actual abuse, of course. I'm not saying people should be free to abuse or neglect their children in anyway.

But if I want to put crisps into my son's lunch or let him play outside or stand on his head or whatever, that's my right.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now