I went to a parenting lecture at dd's school this week, and the speaker said these things are generally (and statistically) present in 'happy' families with 'well adjusted' children....

[Earlybird]

1. Eat together as a family most evenings, and use it as time to share information, experiences, points of view, etc. No telly, radio or phone use at family meal times.

1. Children are expected to keep their rooms tidy as it teaches them to care for their own space in the home

1. Children have regular chores which is part of what they contribute as a member of the family.

1. No telly or computers in dc's rooms, and limits set on telly and computer time.

1. Family has some sort of spiritual dimension in their beliefs, routines, and home life (could be something as simple as talking about/recognising the things you have to be grateful for on a regular basis).

1. Family contributes in some way to their community (school, church, neighbourhood, etc).

All of the above are supposed to help prevent the dc feeling spoiled, entitled, angry, and isolated . Also helps show/teach them respect, gratitude, manners and support.

Your thoughts? Agree or disagree? Anything you'd add or take away from the list above?

But ABat, why does a well ordered routine have to be based around these particular 5 points and not some other points?

Yes, lots of families bond around the dinner table and clearly this is a good thing. But other families might bond going on evening walks, or playing music together every night or whatever. Surely, the important thing is the bonding (and as you say, the routine), not the place and activity that symbolise it?

If you grew up in family where playing instruments together was an essential part of bonding, or sailing boats together (both these important in my family)- would you then assume that children that did not have the opportunity to bond round the piano or in the dinghy would be unloved and bereft of a routine?

Again, I could perfectly happily imagine a family routine that takes in playing on the WII placed in one of the dcs' bedroom.

It sounds wank to me.

I think that these are all good and desirable points.

However, I do think that you can have happy families with well adjusted children without most of them.

Actually the one I think most important is the spiritual dimension - defined by other posters more as a 'moral dimension' or simply 'giving a shit' about people and situations other than themselves.

We eat together only on weekends (DH works shifts) and I am constantly having to tidy up after DS, but I don't think either of these things are at all important if DS is brought up with a background of love and respect for others.

I tripped over 'spiritual". Would be happier with "moral", perhaps.

I offer for consideration our 3 family rules, which I feel cover most eventualities-

Don't be a Dingbat
Keep Calm and Carry On
It's Good to Know Stuff.

hahaha at seeker's family rules

A rule I like is:

Be excellent to each other

(Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure)

Eat together as a family most evenings, and use it as time to share information, experiences, points of view, etc. No telly, radio or phone use at family meal times

Disagree with this one. Yes families should eat together most days if possible but if you work ft that?s not possible. Also the no telly radio or phone is bollocks. No telly I agree with, but phone? If it?s something urgent/ needing to arrange and it lasts for 3 minutes, no problem. If it?s a half hour chat counselling your friend who is getting divorced, then not OK at mealtimes. Radio I?m mixed about ? having the news on in the background can spark up topics of conversation and discussion about issues, ideas etc. And seeing as how that?s the time everyone?s sitting round the table, that?s the most likely time a child is going to ask a question ? ?why is there a post strike?? ?what?s a testicle?? etc.

Children are expected to keep their rooms tidy as it teaches them to care for their own space in the home

Hmm. Yes, well, agree re the gap between expectation and reality. Good rule in general, but what about when they?re teenagers and where?s the line between expecting them to care for their own space and invading their space?

Children have regular chores which is part of what they contribute as a member of the family.

No, agree that they should just pitch in and do as and when, rather than artificial ?regular? chores which then let them off the hook re other necessary stuff because they?ve done their chores that day. I suppose you could hook in regular chores with the keeping their own space tidy though ? my DC?s have ?regular? theoretical chores in that they?re supposed to ?chuck-- clothes in a ball -hang clothes up neatly in the wardrobe every day.

No telly or computers in dc's rooms, and limits set on telly and computer time.
Disagree, think this is a middle class thing where people have lots of space in their house. If you don?t have lots of space and you have 2 TV?s. a bedroom may be the only other place in the house for a TV. I think this is more broad-brushstroke ?symbolic? stuff, symbolising values ? the assumption is that parents who allow kids to have screens in their room, don?t police the screen time and content and in many cases that?s true, which is what has brought this into disrepute. But it isn?t always the case and as long as the necessary policing goes on, it isn?t automatically a Bad Thing.

Was going to do the other rules but it's turnign into a bit of an essay

My adoptive parents fulfilled all such criteria (except the telly was often on during mealtimes)

I am currently in counselling because they were emotionally abusive.

I don't feel spoiled or entitled. In fact I was never spoiled and for a long time my damaged self esteem meant I felt entitled to nothing. Yes I felt angry and isolated but that was because I felt no one would believe what went on behind closed doors due to my parents seemingly good community spirit.

Respect, manners and gratitude were drummed into me in an authoritarian manner. I had to be grateful to them as they were so good to bring me up in such a wonderful way .

A CROCK OF SHITE

That list should go as follows

1. Unconditional love
2. Unconditional love
3. Unconditional love
4. Unconditional love

I think you get my point!

I think that it is all common sense and quite correct.Unconditional love goes without saying but it isn't enough on it's own! Unconditional love alone can produce a spoilt little monster and/or a very sad DC.
I think all parents need seeker's point 2.
I paricularly like don't be a Dingbat!

Don't be a Dingbat covers practically every eventuality, we find.

We only have the other two rules because ds's school has 3 rules and he thinks that there have to be 3 to make it 'official'!

justabout, my point was not what every family would be likely to do, but the fact that every family might be different and that several different approaches might still be valid- if one family communicates best around the piano or the dinghy or in the carthere is absolutely no need for them to feel guilty because the communication doesn't happen around the dinner table

my brother communicates with his kids round the WII- it's still good communication. We don't watch much television in this house, but when we do it is usually about communication. (And if you do do musical instruments, then you are likely to do it every day as that kind of thing requires maintenance.)

families are all different

I fully sympathise with your desire to get your dh to eat with you, but I still maintain that we were communicating as a family the other night round that ghastly dvd of Oklahoma

I think HerB sums it up neatly: to the speaker in the OPs post, it seems to be about the symbolic value that certain actions have for him, rather than about the function various actions might fill in the individual family

as other posters have pointed out, it is perfectly possible to fulfill all these points and still be a cold and unloving family

seeker's rules will do me very nicely

to me, a family car has very negative symbolic connotations: it was something I never thought we would have to get, it was not what we stood for, it is a desperate concession to the fact that we now have two dcs with disabilities and are never going to be the independent out-of-doors family that we imagined ourselves

but I have to admit, the communication aspects are brilliant in ways I'd never imagined- we talk, we have singsongs, there are all sorts of things you can do in this hated space

function is far more important than symbolism

I think that OP fits in with Tolstoy's famous opening line:

'All happy families are alike but an unhappy family is unhappy after its own fashion.'

You don't always have to do all the things listed but they will be a very good indication of happy families and well adjusted children.

If you apply the 'Dingbat rule' before you do anything then you can't go far wrong!

1. Eat together as a family most evenings: Yes, we do this, however we do sometimes bundle into the sitting room to eat off our laps as there is something we want to watch on telly. I think you can have as much bonding as a family laughing together at Malcolm in the Middle or something, as you can whilst chatting tbh. Think it is very importnat in our family to eat together as we are out of the house a lot. Sunday lunch (even if we only have pasta) is sacrosant.

1. Children are expected to keep their rooms tidy as it teaches them to care for their own space in the home: I do agree with this in principle, however rather than nag nag nag Iw ould prefer to pick my battles tbh. DD if left to her own devices would live in a pig sty. So I generally leave her to it and make her have a blitz every fortnight or so.

1. Children have regular chores which is part of what they contribute as a member of the family. Yes - dd has to clean the bathroom, clean the cars and occasionally has to do the dishes (like all teenagers she is purposfully crap at washing up so don't ask her too often)

1. No telly or computers in dc's rooms, and limits set on telly and computer time. DD ususally uses laptop downstairs with us, however she is allowed to use it in her bedroom (is turned off at a certain time and laptop put in another room to take away temptation). She has had a telly for about 2 years (is 13) but doesn't have an aerial, so is just used to watch DVDs.

1. Family has some sort of spiritual dimension in their beliefs, routines, and home life (could be something as simple as talking about/recognising the things you have to be grateful for on a regular basis). Yes, certainly. DP and me had very little whilst growing up, and I in particluar had a vile upbringing, I am desperate to make sure that DD is happy.

1. Family contributes in some way to their community (school, church, neighbourhood, etc). I wish! I support the school in any way I can by attending meetings in the evening and contributing financially, but as both DP and I work looong hours that's the limit to our community involvement tbh.

Yes I think that's it Pisces - a lot of families who are functional and happy will do a lot of things on this list.

But as someone else said, it's not doing these things which makes them functional and happy. They do these things because they're functional and happy and in our culture if you're middle class, that's kind of what f and h families have done and it's just habit. Which doesn't mean that if you don't do them, you're not functional and happy - it might mean that a) very obviously you are a different class/ culture and don't share these activities and/ or b) that you do what these things symbolise in a different way, as Cory is saying.

INdeed. Our family is functional and happy despite the fact that DS dad doesn't live with us, for instance. And I regard household chores as low priority, and don't fuss over screen time.

Blu, well done for pointing out that the statistics show that there is a correlation between the points. There is not cause and effect link between the list and 'well adjusted' kids.

I guess that the people who bring up their kids well tend to do similar stuff to that in the list automatically. Hence all the mumsnetters agreeing with the majority of the points

Clearly posters on this thread, esp. Blu, are a. brighter and b. have a much better grasp of cause and effect than the person delivering the presentation.

Do we deduce that the speaker's parents spent far too long fussing about sitting down to eat together and not enough time actually making sure their child understood basic logic?

My personal prejudice would be to add 'lots of books' to the list. But I know that's my opinion rather than a God-given fact (although there is a statistical correlation between levels of educational attainment and the number of books in the house but that's probably to do with class). I'm sure there are lots of happy families who don't have to constantly shift piles of books off chairs and tables in order to accommodate each other...