Child's Bill of Rights

[mommymilkies]

I was reading through CTT's Child's Bill of Rights curriculum as it looked interesting. I was wondering what others think of these passages:

 

"A child should at least be told why he must go or be somewhere, as he may have had other

interests or plans. A child should at least have the right to have explained why his time is

to be used by others as they wish, or why his time is to be used a certain way though it is

not what the child would choose. Each child should at least have these rights. As the child

grows toward eight or nine years of age, these rights really need to extend to a more

complete control of his motion on the part of the child. Certainly by a child’s mid-teen

years, he should have nearly complete control of his own time and motions."

 

"Every child has the right to have constructive interests of his own. Every child has the right

to expect family and friends to support those interests."

 

"Every child has the right to decide for himself where he will go or be. Every child has the

right to determine how their time shall be used."

[Impish]

"A child should at least be told why he must go or be somewhere, as he may have had other

interests or plans. A child should at least have the right to have explained why his time is

to be used by others as they wish, or why his time is to be used a certain way though it is

not what the child would choose. Each child should at least have these rights.

Sure, I'll explain. "B/c I said so."

As the child grows toward eight or nine years of age, these rights really need to extend to a more

complete control of his motion on the part of the child. Certainly by a child’s mid-teen

years, he should have nearly complete control of his own time and motions."

Seriously?! Have the author dealt w/real world preteens/teens?! Can you think of a single teen that would willingly CHOOSE to do school work, chores, as often and as completely as it needs to be done?!

 

"Every child has the right to have constructive interests of his own. Every child has the right

to expect family and friends to support those interests."

Ummm...What about family budget? Other sibs?

 

"Every child has the right to decide for himself where he will go or be. Every child has the

right to determine how their time shall be used."

Uh...no. It's my job to guide my children safely, learn to make good chocies, etc.

 

Honestly, if this had been labelled a how to manual on how to raise entitled, spoiled, narcisstic adults, it sounds dead on.

[CupOCoffee]

....and LIKE and LIKE and LIKE again, for IMPS post!!

 

What is "CTT" please? Long long ago I heard of a kind of child rearing philosophy that sounded a LOT like this...I forget what it was called, but I remember that I thought it was whacked.

 

~coffee~

[BigMamaBird]

What a load of hooey.

[mommymilkies]

Connecting the Thoughts. They have a variety of curricula. I like the look of it, but downloaded this free one to try first. I consider myself quite AP. but this seriously threw me through a loop. It sounds more like radical unschooling. I mean, I would try to support my kids' interests, including the time and money sucking violin program we are in. But I can't imagine them "expecting" me to support any of their interests, or their friends to do so, either!

[SKL]

Every child has a right to a parent who establishes boundaries and demands respect. :)

[Shawna in Texas]

Reading, then rereading it, it's kinda the way we do things with ours.

[Orthodox6]

Is this an excerpt from that United Nations document on "the rights of children"?

[DarlaS]

Is this an excerpt from that United Nations document on "the rights of children"?

 

 

No.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

Is this an excerpt from that United Nations document on "the rights of children"?

 

 

That was my first thought.

[Jen500]

http://www.connectthethoughts.net/childrens-bill-of-rights.php

[shanvan]

I think the parent police are going to be very busy rounding up all the violators!

[Rebecca VA]

I would like to see the corresponding Parents' Bill of Rights. Surely this organization doesn't expect children to have all the rights and parents to have all the responsibilities.

[Jen500]

I would like to see the corresponding Parents' Bill of Rights. Surely this organization doesn't expect children to have all the rights and parents to have all the responsibilities.

 

If you read the link I posted, you will see each of the child's rights has the chid's responsibilities that go along with having that right.

[jillian]

Sure every child has a right to their own interests outside of their parents but that doesn't entitle them to pursue those activities until they can pay for them. Should a child be allowed some determination of their schedule? Perhaps. I give my little one a list via picture chart what she needs to do chore-wise each day. She is on her own to determine when she does it. If we are getting to dinner time and she hasn't I will toss out a reminder that they need to be done. Dd is 5 so the chores aren't complicated or involved--clean up anything you brought out, clean off table after meals, wipe down bathroom counters after teeth brushing. Dd also is in her room at a certain time but she decides when she goes to sleep.

[Rebecca VA]

The responsibilities sound very nice, but what if the child doesn't want to do them? Children don't always want to do the right thing. They may not want to be honest, or learn to the best of their ability, or be productive, or control themselves. And biologically, they aren't always able to do those things. Brain development goes on until children are in their early 20s.

 

What happens when a child wants his rights but doesn't want his responsibilities? At what point does a parent step in to save the child from himself?

[Kathryn]

No. Just no. Maybe in Fantasyland, but my children are real.

[Cindy in FL.]

How does said child get to the places his desired motions take him? Order his parents to take him? What if you have more than one child. How do you determine which one gets what they want?

 

It's ridiculous. A family is a unit and while each member is an individual there has to be give and take from everyone. Becoming an adult and a citizen of the world requires that you learn to put others before yourself sometimes and that you do things you don't necessarily want to do. This Bill of Rights doesn't sound like it teaches that.

 

Imagine the employers of these children when they grow up....

[abacus2]

I agree with the part about not requiring children to go places and do things with no explanation, but but the rest is ridiculous and impossible. Kids can't be allowed to go where they want when they want. A family unit cannot function like that.

[TammyS]

I was reading through CTT's Child's Bill of Rights curriculum as it looked interesting. I was wondering what others think of these passages:

 

"A child should at least be told why he must go or be somewhere, as he may have had other

interests or plans. A child should at least have the right to have explained why his time is

to be used by others as they wish, or why his time is to be used a certain way though it is

not what the child would choose. Each child should at least have these rights. As the child

grows toward eight or nine years of age, these rights really need to extend to a more

complete control of his motion on the part of the child. Certainly by a child’s mid-teen

years, he should have nearly complete control of his own time and motions."

 

"Every child has the right to have constructive interests of his own. Every child has the right

to expect family and friends to support those interests."

 

"Every child has the right to decide for himself where he will go or be. Every child has the

right to determine how their time shall be used."

 

Here's what I think:

:smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5:

[mommymilkies]

Well I do explain those things to my kids. I also do my best to help them explore their interests. But I'm limited by various things. It's definitely not a free for all. I don't know if anyone needs to spell this out as a set of "rights". I guess I'm just the type who has always wanted to know why why why. My kids are the same and I like that about them.

 

 

Absolutely. I am a "why" person, and so are my kids. I don't disagree that, especially late in childhood, they should have what's going on explained to them. But the problem I have is that they have the right to do whatever they want with their time and go wherever they want. That's unsafe and unfair, even in a one child single parent household. S unless the kid is on a desert island, I just don't get it. Sure, it states that they have responsibilities, but lets be honest. We're talking about kids. How many kids do you know would even see those. My kids would say woo how to the rights and skip the rest. Lol The fact is that until they are an adult or on a deserted island, it doesn't seem possible or responsible (for parents) to let kids choose what they do with their time all the time. I'm pretty lax, but this unschooling attitude really ruined things around here for a long time. i wasnt expecting to see it in a curriculum written to kids! But even as above where the kid gets to choose from the chore list, you're still telling them what to do with their time, just not in which order.

[Impish]

My kids like to practice for law school. "Why do we have to do math?" "B/c it's a legal requirement for your education." "But WHY?!"

 

and on, and on, and on. They can keep going forever.

 

So, I've learned, answer ONCE, and then, "B/c I said so." ends the questioning.

[Farrar]

Well, I'll dissent a little. I don't think it's completely ridiculous.

 

Rights is a funny term here. There are legal implications that just don't exist about these concepts and nor should they - the idea of trying to legislate this stuff as "rights" is downright silly - thus the idea that this would be part of the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child is a bit absurd. But I'll just simply address how I personally believe children deserve to be treated.

 

"A child should at least be told why he must go or be somewhere, as he may have had other

interests or plans. A child should at least have the right to have explained why his time is

to be used by others as they wish, or why his time is to be used a certain way though it is

not what the child would choose. Each child should at least have these rights. As the child

grows toward eight or nine years of age, these rights really need to extend to a more

complete control of his motion on the part of the child. Certainly by a child’s mid-teen

years, he should have nearly complete control of his own time and motions."

 

Yes. I agree. I never tell my children to do something or go somewhere without explaining why. When they were younger, I certainly felt free to pick them up and take them if I had to, but I also felt like it was part of the covenant of making a good relationship with my child to say to the crying 3 yo, "We have to leave the park because we need to eat dinner." Or whatever. While I know from the parents' perspective, this seems to make little difference, I think it helps build a sense of trust between parent and child. I personally think it's disrespectful to use "because I said so" as a reason. That's a terrible reason. All it does is emphasize power over a child and reinforce a sense of powerlessness for the child - a sense that I think tends to backfire when they get old enough to feel a greater sense of control. Not only that, but there usually are good reasons - why not just say them? You don't have to belabor the point and you don't have to make them "get it" with long conversations with a toddler. But what's the harm in saying, "because it keeps you safe" or "because I'm too tired to do this now" when the potential payoff is greater?

 

I would never tell my 8 yos now that they had to go somewhere and not be willing to say why. And I can't remember the last time I forced them to go anywhere against their will. They don't want to go to the dentist next week, but of course, we've talked about why they need to and no forcing will be necessary. By the time they're teenagers, I do expect that for the most part they will decide themselves where they're going and what they're doing - with the guidance of dh and myself, of course.

 

"Every child has the right to have constructive interests of his own. Every child has the right

to expect family and friends to support those interests."

 

Yes. I agree. This does not mean that friends and family must outlay huge amounts of money or time necessarily, but I believe children should develop their own interests and parents, even if they think that there are "better" interests out there, should allow them to like what they like in their free time and not confiscate their projects or throw them away or say dismissive words about their hobbies or refuse to allow them to trade cards with their friends or whatever.

 

"Every child has the right to decide for himself where he will go or be. Every child has the

right to determine how their time shall be used."

 

This may go too far for me. Ideally, I want a child to understand why sometimes we need to use everyone's time to accomplish other things - errands, etc. And for a child to understand why they need to study math when they don't want to. That, to me, is why explanations are a responsibility of the adult and something the child deserves and should have - as I said above. But should the child be able to make the ultimate decisions? I mean, my own time isn't always mine to decide how it should be used - I have obligations and responsibilities and I am grown up enough to know I must fulfill those first. I don't expect that from my kids even though they also have obligations like chores and responsibilities like learning and schoolwork. I know some other families, like unschoolers, go this far, but for me, once the explanations have been given and an effort has been made to get the children on board, then the use of that obligatory time is just not negotiable. I make the ultimate call.

 

However, my kids' free time is their own. I would say here that I think all children should have the "right" (again, the legal implications of that term bug me, but I'm going with the style of the writing) to have free time on a regular basis - ideally every day - that is completely their own to determine how its used. And that I would agree with.

[AnIslandGirl]

Overheard at a yacht club masquerade ball this weekend, "Why would anyone have more children than they can cater to?"

 

Wile I certainly don't feel as though I "cater" to my children, I do feel that I have an obligation to entertain their interests to the best of my ability.

 

"Every child has the right to have constructive interests of his own. Every child has the right

to expect family and friends to support those interests."

I would even take this a step further to say that each family member has these rights. Part of our family dynamic is supporting each other in everything that we do. I may not like fancy cars, but I support my husbands interests, just like he finds ways to support my love of the arts. By modeling this type of mutual respect, our children too are learning to encourage one another in pursuing their own interests.

 

"Every child has the right to decide for himself where he will go or be. Every child has the

right to determine how their time shall be used."

We take pride in "self-ownership" here as well. By being in charge of your time, you are also responsible for your own decisions and any consequences they shall have. If you choose to be productive, then you have more time to pursue your interests. I don't see this as a bad thing. It doesn't say that you drop everything for your child's interests, but I do think that by around age 10, each family member should have a pretty strong say in what activities they want to do, and therefore we find every opportunity available for them to be actively participating in things they are passionate about.

If you are limited by finances or other resources, then you give the child the option... "You have $$$ how do you feel it could best be spent so that you will find fulfillment in your interests?"

 

Maybe I just come from a liberal viewpoint, but peaceful parenting has always been part of our parenting approach, and this mindset actually fits our lifestyle quite well.

[SKL]

Oh, I'm not against many of those as "ideals," but certainly not as rights.

 

In my mind, there is a "need hierarchy" when it comes to parent-child relationships. #1: parent meets child's basic needs. #2: child respects parents. #3: parent sets sensible, age-appropriate boundaries. #4: child and parent figure out how to pursue desires within the framework of boundaries and respect.

 

Good communication between parent and child facilitates all of these, of course. It is great to always articulate the "why" of the boundaries as long as the "respect" part doesn't get trampled. However, if the "why" somehow fails to be articulated, that doesn't change the fact that the child answers to the parents. And at the same time, respect for parents doesn't trump the parent's responsibility to meet a child's basic needs.

 

The wording in the OP just seems to suggest that the child's desires have to determine decisions the parents make, regardless of anything else. No. What if my child's "interest" involves something I absolutely don't believe in? Let's take KKK membership for example. My child has a right to have me support that?

 

As I often tell my kids, "you can do whatever legal activity you want to do after your 18th birthday." If I followed the "rights" statement in the OP, I would be downplaying my God-given responsibility to parent my children. And there's nobody else to pick up the slack. Parenting is no joke.

[Impish]

As I stated above, I *do* say, "B/c I said so." I explain ONCE, and that's that. My kids, being who they are, are almost NEVER content w/a first answer, they want to debate forever.

 

It's a stalling tactic from them. So, 'b/c I said so.' is a reasonable response to short circuit what would be a waste of time, going off on tangents, etc.

 

A 20 discussion on why math needs to be done just isn't going to happen. Or why they need to clean their rooms, pick up after themselves, etc.

 

There's no disrespect involved in refusing to get into a pointless debate so that they can stall endlessly.

 

And yes, I can tell the difference btwn a genuine question and a stall tactic.

[TammyS]

 

 

And yes, I can tell the difference btwn a genuine question and a stall tactic.

 

 

Exactly.

 

If it's a real question, and you have time, and the child is going to be able to understand, fine. Answer the question.

 

Most of the time it's not a question.

 

And answering the question should not be confused with justifying it to the kid. Even when you choose to answer, you are doing it as a courtesy and a help to the child, not because they are OWED an explanation and not because you are trying to convince them that you are right.

[Catherine]

Here's another POV: I think it is laid out in the way it is to present this program as "not school". Ie: because schooled children have less freedom of movement, they include a "right to decide for himself where he will go or be. Every child has the right to determine how their time shall be used."

 

Because schooled children must follow rules that they are not consulted about, the is this "right": Every child has the right to have explained to him, in a manner easily understood by the child, any pending decision that is being thought about and that would change the life of that child. The child also has the right to have his own ideas and opinions about such decisions, and to express them. The child has the right to be consulted regarding any decision that will change his life.

 

I am ambivalent about the list of rights. I think that as parents, we probably try to follow these guidelines, to some extent, with our responsible and respectful older children. The sticky part comes when you have a child who is NOT responsible or respectful, when the child is not being rational, when the needs of the rest of the family come into consideration. But I draw the line with any situation where I must to what I think is in their best interests, and they do not agree. I think I can say with absolute certainty that my 11 yo would not have chosen to spend so much time this year on writing and math, his weaknesses, if I had presented it to him as a choice. But honestly it never occurred to me to do so, although I told him I was doing it and that I would try to help him improve as much as possible, so that he wouldn't suffer from them so much in the future. I guess what I see as the problem with allowing young children so much freedom of choice is that few of them have the foresight to plan well for their futures, whereas we do.

 

But the bottom line is that it's an attempt to show how their curriulum will free your kid from the bonds of conventional school.

[DianeW88]

Uh....no. Not in my house. My children have none of those rights until they're 18.

[Orthodox6]

Now it sounds like a "child's manifesto" to support unschooling. Unschoolers do their thing and would not need such a document as this. Hence I'm perplexed.

[Orthodox6]

I just skimmed the website. Great fodder for a university dissertation. In the document's present content, I'm close to calling it liner for the birdcage. We here (board) are doing well already, each in our respective ways.

[Miss Mousie]

Interesting...this came from the CTT Manners course I had, but haven't used.

 

 

Quote

 

And there is someone in charge of every household. A ship at sea cannot have more than one captain. Two captains issuing orders at the same time will surely sink the ship. Life is a pretty rough sea, and your home is the ship you’re sailing it in. Usually, in a family as in any group, both authority and responsibility are split up between various people. But it’s very important that everyone in the family know who has the authority at any given time, for any particular activity

 

Usually, the parents in a family share both the authority and the responsibility for the well-being of the family, and for what will or will not be done. They earn this right because they work hard nearly every day to make certain that money is made, food is on the table, the house is still standing, things in the house work, and that everyone is safe and doing well.

 

A parent who does his job definitely deserves the respect and admiration of their children. Parenting is very hard work. It’s a long-term job, starting when a child is born or adopted, and never actually ending while in this life. It’s very important in a house for the child and the parent to know who is who. A child who issues orders to their parent is not actually doing their job in the family. This is true no matter how capable the child is, and no matter how old, and no matter how old and capable the parents are. The only exceptions are an “adult child†(one of legal age) or an incapable parent (one who is not able to normally functioning some way. p.7

 

 

 

 

Yeesh, the grammatical errors alone have me in a tizzy! People who write curriculum ought to have some idea how to, you know, write.

Grumble grumble.

 

Off to finish reading posts before I spout off on the BOR.

[Miss Mousie]

SKL, Impish and Catherine all have made good points, IMO. (Others too, of course, but those three resonate most with me.)

 

There are just too many situational caveats to make blanket statements, or to declare "rights." Sure, I will answer "why?" when it is reasonable to do so, but I don't care if the child doesn't think it's a "good" reason, and I'm not going to debate it for half an hour. Conversely, if a child makes a request of me, and I ask why, I do expect a reasonable justification, and sometimes the answer will be no regardless.

 

Can my kid spend twelve hours straight on the computer? No. Can he expect me to pay for and allow him to participate in Boy Scouts despite my philosophical objections? No. Can he wear the same outfit for three weeks straight because he wasn't interested in doing laundry? No.

 

But, as farrarwilliams pointed out, we do let him pursue some interests that are just time-wasters/eye-glazers (like most of his Nintendo DS games). We keep a lid on the amount of time spent, though.

 

I think Catherine's take, that it stems from a "school vs. unschool" perspective, is probably what the writers intended.

[jhschool]

What about their right to be brought up properly (listening

to parents, understanding that the family budget doesn't stretch

to everything, playing as a family team, pitching in with chores/family

activities), so they

can be responsible individuals when they grow up?

[albeto]

I was reading through CTT's Child's Bill of Rights curriculum as it looked interesting. I was wondering what others think of these passages:

 

"A child should at least be told why he must go or be somewhere, as he may have had other

interests or plans. A child should at least have the right to have explained why his time is

to be used by others as they wish, or why his time is to be used a certain way though it is

not what the child would choose. Each child should at least have these rights. As the child

grows toward eight or nine years of age, these rights really need to extend to a more

complete control of his motion on the part of the child. Certainly by a child’s mid-teen

years, he should have nearly complete control of his own time and motions."

 

"Every child has the right to have constructive interests of his own. Every child has the right

to expect family and friends to support those interests."

 

"Every child has the right to decide for himself where he will go or be. Every child has the

right to determine how their time shall be used."

 

My children have these rights, as do I and my husband. In my opinion, this works very well, as my kids have learned to extend these same considerations to others.

[reign]

I don't understand how it's possible. For kids to have complete control of what they do at all times.

 

Example

I have to go to the library to return books that are due. Kids want to play outside instead. I explain why we must go and that we can play outside when we get home. Kids still protest. I say get in car now it is time to go. Are other children more rational and just agree the first time? Do other parents just get late fines or have babysitters available?

[shanvan]

I don't understand how it's possible. For kids to have complete control of what they do at all times.

 

Example

I have to go to the library to return books that are due. Kids want to play outside instead. I explain why we must go and that we can play outside when we get home. Kids still protest. I say get in car now it is time to go. Are other children more rational and just agree the first time? Do other parents just get late fines or have babysitters available?

 

From what I've seen, they repeat themselves over and over, reason with their children, explain, explain, explain why, and then either give up, or start pleading with them. A few will finally impose their will on their children and lead them into the library while continuing the argument, some will just sit and wait until their children are ready to go to the library. Have you ever seen an episode of Supernanny? That should give you an idea.

[albeto]

I don't understand how it's possible. For kids to have complete control of what they do at all times.

 

I don't know of anyone who has complete control of what they do at all times. These rights don't extend to complete control, they articulate respect and mutual problem solving.

 

Example

I have to go to the library to return books that are due. Kids want to play outside instead. I explain why we must go and that we can play outside when we get home. Kids still protest. I say get in car now it is time to go. Are other children more rational and just agree the first time? Do other parents just get late fines or have babysitters available?

 

When there's a problem (you have library books that need returning), respecting kids' rights means respecting their input with regard to solving that problem (they want to finish playing), rather than dictating what they do and when for the sake of convenience. If convenience isn't the motivation (the library is going to close, or it's a 20 mi drive and you're in the area now), then explaining this to them is more respectful than simply expecting obedience.

[Audrey]

Every child has a right to a parent who establishes boundaries and demands respect. :)

 

 

You lost me at "demands respect."

 

No. You earn respect or you don't deserve it. Period.

[DragonFaerie]

I try very hard to explain the "whys" of things to my children. "We need to run to the library because this book is due back today, and we need to go before I start dinner." They usually see this as an invitation to argue/debate/whine/complain, at which point it becomes, "I'm not going to argue with you. You can play some more when we get back, or you can continue to argue and get sent to your room. Your choice. Now get in the car."

[mommymilkies]

 

 

You lost me at "demands respect."

 

No. You earn respect or you don't deserve it. Period.

 

I kinda agree here. I "expect" respect from my kids...well, respectful behavior, at least. If I say something, 90% of the time I don't even have to get to the "mom look" to have it done. I don't hit, threaten, (rarely-we're loud here in general lol) yell, etc. I treat my kids respectfully and they know my expectations. If you treat someone respectfully, usually they will do so back. Barring behavioral or developmental issues (like ODD, etc.). I have two VERY difficult oppositional children...but you have to understand where they are at developmentally. Of course the 2 year old does NOT want to ride in the back of the stroller. No big deal, pick your battles. KWIM? Dh, on the other hand takes the demanding approach which we'll just say does not work out well for him. Kids are pretty good at picking up that sort of attitude. Think about the subs in high school everyone knew could be messed with (if you went to ps, you kwim!).

[SKL]

I kinda agree here. I "expect" respect from my kids...well, respectful behavior, at least. If I say something, 90% of the time I don't even have to get to the "mom look" to have it done. I don't hit, threaten, (rarely-we're loud here in general lol) yell, etc. I treat my kids respectfully and they know my expectations. If you treat someone respectfully, usually they will do so back. Barring behavioral or developmental issues (like ODD, etc.). I have two VERY difficult oppositional children...but you have to understand where they are at developmentally. Of course the 2 year old does NOT want to ride in the back of the stroller. No big deal, pick your battles. KWIM? Dh, on the other hand takes the demanding approach which we'll just say does not work out well for him. Kids are pretty good at picking up that sort of attitude. Think about the subs in high school everyone knew could be messed with (if you went to ps, you kwim!).

 

 

I guess it depends how you define "demands." I wasn't talking about going all Fred Flintstone. Rather it's a way of dealing which says you will approach/respond with age-appropriate respect or you will be doing some remediation and/or failing to get your desires met.

 

I strongly believe that respect from child to parent is necessary for a child's basic needs to be truly met. It's necessary in order for a child to feel secure that the parents are powerful enough to protect him. It's also necessary in order for a child to learn that he too deserves basic human respect.

 

In general parental respect doesn't have to be "earned" IMO. But it can be forfeited, if the parent goes to extremes such as abuse and neglect.

 

What exactly does it mean to have to "earn" your child's respect? Doesn't everyday ordinary parenting from infancy justify it? I don't call that "earning," but if that's what you mean, then fine.

[mommymilkies]

 

 

I guess it depends how you define "demands." I wasn't talking about going all Fred Flintstone. Rather it's a way of dealing which says you will approach/respond with age-appropriate respect or you will be doing some remediation and/or failing to get your desires met.

 

I strongly believe that respect from child to parent is necessary for a child's basic needs to be truly met. It's necessary in order for a child to feel secure that the parents are powerful enough to protect him. It's also necessary in order for a child to learn that he too deserves basic human respect.

 

In general parental respect doesn't have to be "earned" IMO. But it can be forfeited, if the parent goes to extremes such as abuse and neglect.

 

What exactly does it mean to have to "earn" your child's respect? Doesn't everyday ordinary parenting from infancy justify it? I don't call that "earning," but if that's what you mean, then fine.

 

 

First of all, I just Reread my post and I'm sorry if I sound high and mighty. I really didn't mean to! It's hard to come through clearly on the Internet. Especially when dealing with a cranky chocolate filled toddler. Oy.

 

I do mean just regular parenting. I'm sure we can all think of times when that respect should be forfeit. In fact, I'd say it's more about trust than respect. My kids trust that I'm not demanding them to do something stupid or dangerous when I tell them to do something. I try to be firm and consistent and pick my battles. Maybe it's just that I was a hot blooded child and now adult. I agree about your definition of demand. I don't think everyone would, but I do. I know many parents whose demands a more Flintstone in nature.

[albeto]

I do mean just regular parenting.

 

I think this is what this "bill of rights" addresses - not everyone's idea of "regular parenting" is respectful and children are human beings who deserve respect (as defined by the way in which they are treated).

 

I know many parents whose demands a more Flintstone in nature.

 

Which makes this "bill" an interesting concept. If those parents who demand a more Flintstone tyranny in their families think they are doing "just regular parenting," how can we be sure our parenting is respectful to our own kids? I wouldn't consider demanding obedience as being respectful to children any more than I would consider it respectful to adults. We have this idea in our society that children are unable to behave decently until they can mimic our behaviors without our direct supervision, but does this inspire us to treat them respectfully? Is it a credible idea in the first place?

[mommymilkies]

 

 

I think this is what this "bill of rights" addresses - not everyone's idea of "regular parenting" is respectful and children are human beings who deserve respect (as defined by the way in which they are treated).

 

 

 

Which makes this "bill" an interesting concept. If those parents who demand a more Flintstone tyranny in their families think they are doing "just regular parenting," how can we be sure our parenting is respectful to our own kids? I wouldn't consider demanding obedience as being respectful to children any more than I would consider it respectful to adults. We have this idea in our society that children are unable to behave decently until they can mimic our behaviors without our direct supervision, but does this inspire us to treat them respectfully? Is it a credible idea in the first place?

 

 

But I still can't imagine that kids should have the right to do what they want, when they want, where they want. They are children and frankly, I've met few 9 year olds who would choose something responsible like clean their rooms or do math over Nintendo. lol

 

Or that anyone should expect support for their activities/hobbies. Hope for? Expect within reasonable means? Sure. But flat out expect reminds me too much if this culture of entitlement we see every day in our society.

 

But those are a far cry from children having the right to be treated humanely and kindly.

[Audrey]

 

What exactly does it mean to have to "earn" your child's respect? Doesn't everyday ordinary parenting from infancy justify it? I don't call that "earning," but if that's what you mean, then fine.

 

Between parent and child, it is generally a simple matter of you, the parent, respecting the child from the beginning. So, yes ordinary care and parenting should, in theory, earn you at least some respect. But, you are absolutely right that it can be forfeited, and not just by extreme abuse either.

[bolt.]

I think people are interpreting freedom of choice and movement here in two different ways. I think the framers if this document mean that however parents choose to influence children's activities, there is a difference between influence and CONTROL. By the time a child is 9 or 10, almost all of them (nerotypical ones in average households) are not being physically controlled or actually "limited" in concrete ways. At that age, such actions are almost entirely inappropriate.

 

They are "sent" to bed at bed time, but they are not physically carried to bed or physically controlled or held there. As such they are physically free to disobey bring sent to bed -- they are physically and concretely entirely in control of all their movement etc. as the document says. The document does not say there will be no consiquences for their choices. It does not say parents will be equally happy with all options, or that all options will be "allowed" -- free of consiquences, free of influence, free from guidance.

 

I would find a household where typical children older than 10 were frequently having their movements controlled by physical manhandling (rather than by disciplinary influence) to be inappropriate.

 

I do not find high levels of "disciplinary influence" inappropriate. I am not in flavour of permissive households.

 

I'm just saying that there is a fundamental philosophy that the choices about one's body belong to the 'driver' of that body. Parenting is about setting kids up to make good choices and avoid bad choices (and the consiquences that follow) -- but it is not about imposing physical constraint on children except when they are very young.

 

Knowing that children are physically capable of choosing things that are 'not permitted' and parenting accordingly is not the same as permitting everything.

[albeto]

But I still can't imagine that kids should have the right to do what they want, when they want, where they want.

 

There's nothing in this "child's bill of rights" that suggests a child should have the right to do what they want, when they want, where they want.

 

They are children and frankly, I've met few 9 year olds who would choose something responsible like clean their rooms or do math over Nintendo. lol

 

The thing is, kids who are raised in an environment in which responsibility is par for the course learn to be responsible. One need not be coerced into obedience under threat of punishment to learn the value of having clean living spaces. These "rights" aren't about spoiling kids and cleaning up after them, they're about treating kids with the same respect adults expect.

 

Or that anyone should expect support for their activities/hobbies. Hope for? Expect within reasonable means? Sure. But flat out expect reminds me too much if this culture of entitlement we see every day in our society.

 

But those are a far cry from children having the right to be treated humanely and kindly.

 

Supporting a child's activities and hobbies and helping is entitlement?

[mommymilkies]

 

 

There's nothing in this "child's bill of rights" that suggests a child should have the right to do what they want, when they want, where they want.

 

 

 

The thing is, kids who are raised in an environment in which responsibility is par for the course learn to be responsible. One need not be coerced into obedience under threat of punishment to learn the value of having clean living spaces. These "rights" aren't about spoiling kids and cleaning up after them, they're about treating kids with the same respect adults expect.

 

 

 

Supporting a child's activities and hobbies and helping is entitlement?

 

 

Read the word for word quote.

 

And yes, if it is expected for their interests and activities to be supported. Emotionally supported, why of course within reason (most parents would probably disagree with supporting that hobby being something like collecting Playboys ;) ). Financially? That's where the problem is. I think it's good for families to try to financially assist children with activities. Our family has been struggling to pay for music lessons for a few of my kids. That is a time and money investment from *everyone* including 3.5 hours of driving a week, because we want to support them. But it may not always be possible. I certainly don't think every family should financially support every kids' hobby. To do what they can, but not to be expected to do so just because a kid is interested. I'm tired. Does that make sense? But maybe I'm biased because I have teen brothers who are entitled and expect every whim to be supported whereas I never even had a pair of socks provided to me after age 13. I do what I can for my kids because I love them. Not because they expect me to do what they want.

[Laurie4b]

Heck, I wish I had control over my time and got to expect family and friends to support my interests! :lol: