"My house, my rules"

[Aragarthiel]

I'm wondering where everyone stands on parents saying this to their underage children.

To me, it seems like the parent is trying to say, "Despite the fact that you're underage and cannot live on your own, I will not respect that this is your home." I understand that "house" and "home" are two very different things, but if you're underage, they are forced to be the same. This can get especially touchy when parents make a place that is supposed to be safe and welcoming seem otherwise with the use of rules.

I guess it's more the phrasing that bothers me. I'd much prefer "I'm the parent/adult/authority, I make the rules" over a statement that seems to say "This place is not yours, you don't belong here."

Opinons?

[SkullKing]

"I'm the parent/adult/authority, I make the rules" is an argument based on the asumption that the right of autority wil be respected and that it will be accepted that teh authority derived from such statement will be considerate legitimate by the child.

"My House, My rules" is a more epratical argument, the parent is reminding the child that the parent has actual control over the child´s life, andf has the benefit of being able to be sait to adult children as well, giving consitence.

One is a "de jure" argument, the other is a "de facto" argument.

"my house, my rules" does indeed have the efect of the child not seeing the house as their own, but sometimes is is a more pratical argument, and sometimes the parent wants to purposefully remind the child the house belongs to the parent.

[TheHuckster]

"This place is not yours, you don't belong here."

I never interpreted the phrase to mean that way, although admittedly my parents didn't word it exactly the same. Their argument was something along the lines of "because we pay all the taxes and the mortgage, you have to abide by our rules."

And that argument was usually for stuff involving the house (or more specifically my room) itself. Like if I wanted to paint my room's walls black, or leave it a mess, I'd argue that it's "my room" at which point they'd retort with, "No, until you pay your percentage of the mortgage and taxes, it's not."

The other rules were usually argued with the "we're the parents" retort.

[HYHYBT]

For issues NOT related specifically to the house, it also implies that they don't have to behave when they're not in your house or, especially, when they're in someone else's.

Used in relation to the house itself, it makes more sense... but it still to me feels too similar to those parents who are against their offspring having any semblance of privacy.

[s_stabeler]

frankly, for a LOT of rules, depending on the age of the kid, then resorting to a justification that can be summed up as "because i said so" - which "because I'm your parent" and "my house, my rules" ultimately boil down to- is fairly hollow. (by that, I mean that for most rules, there is usually a better justification available- as such, it smak lazy parenting. That's why it depends on the age of the kid- a 12-year old is still young enough that "because I'm your parent" i fine, but a 16/17 year old, for most things, can be reasoned with to an extent. (basically, don't treat your almost-adult child as if they were still a young kid. It's go advice in general, actually- I remember advising someone who had a problem with their kid resenting measures taken after being caught looking at - IIRC- porn. I advised them to loosen the restrictions they imposed- the restrictions were no internet at all- and explain to the kid that they were concerned because the site in question was for adults only- that being the reason they freaked out. Next time I saw the person? they told me it had worked, and the kid (who was within a year or two of being old enough anyway) was happier.

but yeah, the issue, ultimately, is that some parents don't seem to get that it isn't supposed to be an adversarial relationship with their kids- so harsh rues, not letting the kid have (a reasonable amount of- if the kid is running a meth lab in their room, I think we can all agree the parents were too lax.) privacy, and in general, acting arbitrarily is a bad idea. (another bad idea is treating kids differently than their siblings- or at least, accounting for relative ages. (for instance, my parents were significantly less harsh on my little sister than they ever were to me. Yeah, it's a bone of contention with my parents.)

[Aragarthiel]

frankly, for a LOT of rules, depending on the age of the kid, then resorting to a justification that can be summed up as "because i said so" - which "because I'm your parent" and "my house, my rules" ultimately boil down to- is fairly hollow.

That makes a lot of sense. As a younger kid, you might not understand that Mom doesn't want you playing with her dolls because they're family heirlooms and irreplaceable. You just see dolls as toys, and "Because I said so" is the buffer that keeps Mom from having to explain something you won't necessarily understand. But as you get older, "Because I said so" becomes an excuse rather than a reason, and you learn to see through it though don't learn the real reason why you have to/can't do something. It makes it seem like there IS no reason for the rule. "Why can't I have Jennifer over? We have the space/food, it's not a school night, Jennifer's parents are okay with it, and we don't have any plans as a family, so why can't she come over?"

I don't know if it's this way for everyone but IME, it seems to be a way to say "I'm annoyed/stressed/angry/unable to deal with you so I'm just going to say no." It would come across much better if the parent just said "I'm just not in the mood for it, can you ask again later?"

[HYHYBT]

I don't think "because I said so" should be the first response at ANY age. If (when) they argue after being given an age-appropriate reason, try it then, but any child old enough to be asking can understand, for example, "because they're old and break easily."

[TheHuckster]

I don't think "because I said so" should be the first response at ANY age. If (when) they argue after being given an age-appropriate reason, try it then, but any child old enough to be asking can understand, for example, "because they're old and break easily."

I agree. I never liked that method of parenting. To me it's important to explain reasoning so that maybe someday they'll actually apply their own logic and reasoning when they have to make a decision themselves. In your example referring to "because they're old and break easily" if they were told not to touch delicate china with the "because I said so" they'll more likely touch different delicate china and break it. Whereas if they had been told they break easily, if they're old enough to apply critical thinking, they'll (hopefully) come across a similar situation in the future and understand why they shouldn't touch any delicate china.

And it's especially important for issues of safety, like explaining why you don't want them to climb trees or rummage through the medicine cabinet.

[dendawg]

Technically, Raps could play this card at any time. Just saying.

[s_stabeler]

I don't think "because I said so" should be the first response at ANY age. If (when) they argue after being given an age-appropriate reason, try it then, but any child old enough to be asking can understand, for example, "because they're old and break easily."

Again, it depends on the kid. For instance, is the kid likely to care? (my sister, for quite a few years, was pretty self-centred, and may not have actually cared about the distress breaking the delicate china would have caused, and punishing her after the fact would not have resulted in unbroken china. Therefore, both keeping it out of her reach, and not letting her know the china was delicate would be a good idea.)

but yeah, Aragarthiel, that's pretty much the idea. (it also helps, because if the kid knows you tend to explain the reasons for something unless there's a good reason not to, when you DO bring out "because i said so" they usually treat it as "they have a reason they can't explain right now" rather than "they have no reason for this" which will cause kid's to start ignoring their parents. (that is, if they feel a parental diktat had no reasons behind it))

[Rapscallion]

Technically, Raps could play this card at any time. Just saying.

Occasionally, I've said that. I offer a place to vent or debate, and if people like it and the rules they stick around. Simple. I don't want to dominate the world.

This debate for me boils down to one distinction. Are the parents trying to raise a child or protect their house? If raising a child, good examples are ideal. If protect a house, such as a rule saying no drugs in here, then that's protecting themselves and the local environment.

I'm willing to persuasion in either direction as I'm most definitely not parental material.

Rapscallion

[protege]

"my house, my rules" does indeed have the efect of the child not seeing the house as their own, but sometimes is is a more pratical argument, and sometimes the parent wants to purposefully remind the child the house belongs to the parent.

...and then you have my family. My mom was of the "it's my house, I do what I want" type. For example, you could be sitting in the den watching TV. She would answer the phone in the kitchen...and sit in the damn doorway. Keep in mind that she tends to talk loudly--loud enough to drown out the TV, and would flip out if the TV's volume went up. When we'd ask nicely to carry the conversation into the kitchen, she'd scream about how "it's my house."

Ok, fine. It's your house. Don't ask any of your kids to cut the grass or shovel the driveway. Your house, your problems

[bainsidhe]

I don't think my parents really made the distinction between phrases, though I recall Mom used to say "Because I said so" all the time.

In junior high I was over at a friend's house, and her dad was upset about something and went on tear yelling how my friend didn't own anything, he paid for everything and so everything was his. Her bed was his, her clothes were his, etc. To have someone tell you that all your personal possessions, including clothing, don't belong to you? What a feeling of worthlessness.

[protege]

In junior high I was over at a friend's house, and her dad was upset about something and went on tear yelling how my friend didn't own anything, he paid for everything and so everything was his. Her bed was his, her clothes were his, etc.

My dad tried that once. Once. Why? I called him out on it. For most of my childhood, he was either working crap jobs or unemployed. Naturally, I said "you're out of work again. You've been raiding my bank account to pay your bills. You don't own shit." He was pissed, but oh well.

[s_stabeler]

it's also- to an extent- not even true legally. (legally speaking, anything bought for a child are considered gifts, and the legal property of that child.)

but yeah, it's a pretty shitty thing to say to a kid- if nothing else, it makes the kid thing they are nothing but a burden on their parents- which, to be blunt, can cause suicidal thoughts.

edit- oh, and Protege? that's pretty funny. yeah, I think that would make him shut up fast.