to wonder if adults should automatically win over children

[noblegiraffe]

My DS is nearly 2 and a half and has developed a very bossy streak. Part of this bossy streak means that if he is watching Thomas and DH and I are talking, he will turn to us and say 'No, stop talking, watching Thomas'.

Now, it drives me mad if I'm trying to watch TV and people are talking. To say 'Tough, Mummy and Daddy are talking' just feels wrong as his complaint is reasonable and we could be quieter. But then I don't want him becoming a little dictator with us bending to his every whim and tiptoeing around him.

What would you do?

What Worra said.

If he plays awkward after that, the TV goes off.

If you want to be in charge, then yes your wishes take precedence.

This is a small example, but if you teach him it's OK to talk to you like this in this way he will do so in other circumstances to. You might think this is a good thing. Or you might discover it's a bossy streak. Who do you actually want in charge?

For us, it's the parents - especially during the toddler years as a) mine weren't ready for unfettered responsibility and b) it's a time which lays the foundation for future family relationships. My answer would be to tell him very firmly that that's not how to talk to people and turn the telly off, as people are more important than transmissions and asking nicely is a skill that must be mastered.

I would say, "Don't be cheeky." Then dh and I would probably go and talk elsewhere if it wasn't inconvenient and if the child didn't think he was ruling the roost iyswim.

I know what you mean OP. If we want children to respect our rules, then I think it's only fair to show them consideration within limits.

Otherwise it's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do" which used to drive me mad growing up.

Some things are the privilege of the adults. They pay the bills, they have the rights and responsibilities of adults.

Being able to hear a tv programme you're interested in isn't one of them imo.

(Our friends' 2 year old tells her parents they're not to sit on the sofas as they belong to her. So, they sit on the floor instead. Sod that! THAT way, madness lies. I just think you're being courteous to your son.)

FredFredGeorge Mon 16-Jan-12 22:53:42
"Personal discussions trump the TV always regardless."

So if you are watching a music programme or a film you really want to see, the right of your teens to have an argument in that room at that very time should trump that

Ds would think that a great idea, as he doesn't like anything the rest of us want to watch, so he always wants to talk right through it and draw other people into a conversation just to make his point.

Personally, I don't want my dcs to be cheeky in the way they speak to me.
But I am also very aware that it is my job to show them what courtesy and good manners look like and I would hate them to grow up thinking that they can walk straight into a concert or a play somebody else is watching and just start talking right through it. I would think that very rude so I try not to do it to my children.

Otoh we also have rules about how often the telly is allowed to be on, as we don't want the living room to be a room where you can never talk.

Teach him to ask politely and show him that asking politely gets results, being cheeky doesn't.

In short, I would do

I wholeheartedly disagree that adults should always win over children- what's that teaching them? If you are bigger and earn the family income, you call all the shots?

Yes, that's exactly what it teaches them...which is handy really considering you are legally responsible for them until they become an adult.

We only have the TV on if it is being watched by everyone in the room, so yes, I would expect everyone to be quiet (ish) when it's on. But then I have a hearing loss, and can't hear the TV if there's a loud conversation going on, so I am biased.

I would teach him to ask politely, as cory said. And I don't think adults always trump children. Or vice versa. It depends on the situation. That's hard for children to understand, so it means a bit of explaining and negotiating. Which takes longer, is harder, but is a better lesson for life.

WorraLiberty - does that mean that a bigger, income-earning DH should always win over his smaller, SAHM wife, for example? I think blanket rules always risk giving rise to unfairness.

No it doesn't redriding it means the adults win over the children because the adults own the home and provide everything in it.

It's not a new idea...it's one that imo has worked very well over the centuries.

My kids don't particularly like sitting on the floor...so that that mean adults should have to sit on the floor because the kids were on the couch first?

Like it or not, there is a pecking order (or should be) Adults at the top and kids much lower down.

When they're old enough to afford their own homes, they'll be top of the pecking order...voila!

I know what you both mean, Worra and LeQ, and I'm not as hippyish as my post probably sounds. Just as you are probably not as authoritarian as your posts sound.

I just think it's really wrong to say that contributions to household finance is what dictates your say. If you had an elderly/disabled relative living with you, would they be 'bottom of the pecking order'? Or if you became sick or disabled, would you drop to the bottom of the pile.

Generally, what's fair isn't a clearcut rule. So, if my 2yo gets 20 mins of TV per day (actually, mine gets none at all so it's an imaginary question for me), I'd think it's fair enough for some quiet when he watches (if he asks politely). But if he's bossing everyone around all the time, then I'd think he needs to learn that he's not always in charge.

When my DCs grow up, I want them to be kind and thoughtful people, not just free to be 'top of the pecking order' in their own houses.

LeQueen you have just described me!

I think parents usually win. That's just the way it is. However, if you were talking loudly over a television programme there's no harm in lowering your voice - after the DC has asked you nicely to do so (to the best of their ability).

It's not a dichotomy between letting children take over the whole house (inc. settees) and refusing to consider their feelings, in an attempt to model your family after a wolf pack!

This is a small island, where many people live in close proximity. If he doesn't like you talking over Thomas, then you can make sure he grows up to respect others' views on noise.

As opposed to becoming nuisance neighbours, who sincerely believe that paying the rent on their individual house entitles them to annoy the rest of the street.

Or the teenage children of apparently-okay neighbours, who think "it's okay to turn the music up, if MUM's out".

Call me bitter, if you like, but this thread has genuinely given me an insight into how people develop like that. I've always simply been bewildered at how they didn't care about upsetting people before.

Redriding We're talking about children/offspring here...not SAHMs or elderly relatives.

Worra - yes, I know - I've quoted your post below:-

QUOTE
I wholeheartedly disagree that adults should always win over children- what's that teaching them? If you are bigger and earn the family income, you call all the shots?

Yes, that's exactly what it teaches them...which is handy really...
END QUOTE

I realise you were being light-hearted so I don't mean to go on about it. Just pointing out that being bigger and earning income doesn't give someone all the rights in a situation.

BigJessie - great post. Living with other people is all about thoughtfulness and compromise and learning that starts when we are very young.

LeQ - yes, I agree with everything you've said in that last post.

What BigJessie said. I do want to be in charge, but not to the extent where I can never model polite behaviour to dcs or involve them in family discussions as to how we use the various rooms.

Obviously, this is something that evolves as the children grow, I would give less say to a 2yo than to an 11yo. But the idea that I never have to show consideration because I own the home would make it very difficult for me to teach consideration, and in particular to teach them consideration for people who are not older or bigger or provide anything for them. I want them to know that we have certain standards of behaviour in this family.

People are not more important than transmissions means that ds, or dh for that matter, can come in and talk straight over the documentary I'm watching. I'd think that was very rude.

But RRW, we are talking about adults above children, not other adults. If children grow up with no respect for their parents, then they will have none for any other adult around them either.

Adults do not sit on the floor while children are on the sofa. Adults make the decisions, children do as they are told. When they are adults, then they get to make those decisions.

There isn't much point in trying to talk to children while they are watching the TV shows they like anyway.

Personally, I would not interrupt unless it was very important.
I think adults should respect children as they wish to be respected. Respect should be mutual. Arbitrary authority can create problems, IMO.
However, I would insist that she turns the TV off when the show is over and then talk to her.

Of course, this is one of the advantages of being able to pause TV shows and resume transmission at a convenient time.

I wasn't being lighthearted at all.

I'm old enough to have seen (and am still seeing) the consequences of (usually teenagers) who are used to calling the shots in their own home.

Often, they are out of control...have no respect for authority and are generally miserable in themselves because they think that any adult who tells them what to do, is 'out to make them miserable' in some way.

And what if you have more than one child?

If one child is dictating that everyone in the room should be quiet because they are watching TV, does that mean their siblings are not allowed to hold a conversation with their parents?

What if that sibling needs homework help or they've had a bad day at school and they need to talk about it?

Does that mean they have to leave the room to talk because a 2 year old is watching Thomas the Tank?

OP yes, parents should win, they are in charge. It is up to you how much you give, but for Gods sake don't fall into the trap of being bossed around by a tot, that is truly pathetic.

Actually, I have just had a thought.

Have you checked his hearing lately? If he happens to have problems, background noise can be a nuisance.

I'm certain letting a child be in charge will be disasterous. Never actually seen a family with a child in charge, but I don't doubt it happens.

I just don't believe that the opposite parenting style is wholly good. It shouldn't be about "winning" or "losing". I don't know how to explain this properly, except to say that people need to be taught to truly consider what is fair to others as children. Otherwise they can become truly unpleasant adults.

YANBU to wonder that at all. In your example, I don't think your ds was being rude. Assuming he was watching tv with your permission his request was perfectly reasonable. OK, he should have said "please can you be quiet", but given he is only 2.5 I am sure not all hope is lost :-)

I guess we all know people who pander to their children's every whim and allow them to control nearly every aspect of their lives. But treating children with a bit of courtesy and respect only backfires if you don't expect them to treat you the same way.

I fail to understand why so many people on this thread think it is perfectly ok to be rude to children just on the basis that they are smaller, weaker and don't earn any money. What a strange example to set.