# John Rosemond's Bill of Rights for Children :)



## cris (Aug 30, 2010)

Hello my brothers and sisters
I came across this guy, John Rosemond. It looks like there are not threads about him here.
No sure whether he is a Christian (it looks like he claims he is), in any case, he seems to advocate a traditional way of raising children:


Because it is the most character-building, two-letter word in the English language, children have the right to hear their parents say "No" at least three times a day.
............................................ 
Children have the right to find out early in their lives that their parents don't exist to make them happy, but to offer them the opportunity to learn the skills they will need to eventually make themselves happy.
............................................ 
Children have a right to scream all they want over the decisions their parents make, albeit their parents have the right to confine said screaming to certain areas of their homes.
............................................ 
Children have the right to find out early that their parents care deeply for them but don't give a hoot what their children think about them at any given moment in time.
............................................ 
Because it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, children have the right to hear their parents say "Because I said so" on a regular and frequent basis.
............................................ 
Because it is the most character-building activity a child can engage in, children have the right to share significantly in the doing of household chores.
............................................ 
Every child has the right to discover early in life that he isn't the center of the universe (or his family or his parents' lives), that he isn't a big fish in a small pond, and that he isn't the Second Coming, so as to prevent him from becoming an insufferable brat.
............................................ 
Children have the right to learn to be grateful for what they receive, therefore, they have the right to receive all of what they truly need and very little of what they simply want.
............................................ 
Children have the right to learn early in their lives that obedience to legitimate authority is not optional, that there are consequences for disobedience, and that said consequences are memorable and, therefore, persuasive.
............................................ 
Every child has the right to parents who love him/her enough to make sure he/she enjoys all of the above rights.
............................................

Taken from :
Rosemond's Bill of Rights for Children

Did anyone heard about him?
I think he is mostly right, from what I've seen

Cristian


----------



## Tripel (Aug 30, 2010)

Yes, I'm a fan of his. I have a couple of his books and have greatly enjoyed them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 30, 2010)

I use to read his articles more than 10 years ago. He has some good stuff.


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 30, 2010)

> Because it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, children have the right to hear their parents say "Because I said so" on a regular and frequent basis.



I don't know about this. My parents always explained the reasoning behind the rules to us and I think I would want to do the same with my own kids. A couple of times as a teenager, I really didn't understand certain restrictions, but after hearing the explanation, I was fine with it. Of course, your kid should obey you no matter what, but I don't know why you'd purposely keep them in the dark.


----------



## Theoretical (Aug 30, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> > Because it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, children have the right to hear their parents say "Because I said so" on a regular and frequent basis.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about this. My parents always explained the reasoning behind the rules to us and I think I would want to do the same with my own kids. A couple of times as a teenager, I really didn't understand certain restrictions, but after hearing the explanation, I was fine with it. Of course, your kid should obey you no matter what, but I don't know why you'd purposely keep them in the dark.


 
Agreed. I think should only apply to one of two situations:

Situations with an immediate crisis where explanation can only be given after the fact
A situation where the child does not yet understand the reasons you have given but he/she cannot be allowed to do this for safety/moral/prudence reasons.
Situations where the child is being obstinate by refusing to accept the wisely and founded reasons. In other words, it should be the last word, not the first. 

In both cases, it should be rare, and the parents should have a generally explanatory motivation. Hones


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 31, 2010)

I've seen his columns on and off for years. He's generally good, but does have an attitude that there's one way to parent and that's his way. I'd hate to see him trying to deal with a special needs child! As far as "because I said so" I think this should go from an absolute at a very young age, to a more reasoned discussion as the kids get older. Otherwise, they won't know, for their own safety, when they must obey instantly and when something may be discussed further.


----------



## Tripel (Aug 31, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> > Because it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, children have the right to hear their parents say "Because I said so" on a regular and frequent basis.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about this. My parents always explained the reasoning behind the rules to us and I think I would want to do the same with my own kids. A couple of times as a teenager, I really didn't understand certain restrictions, but after hearing the explanation, I was fine with it. Of course, your kid should obey you no matter what, but I don't know why you'd purposely keep them in the dark.


 
It's perfectly acceptable to give a more detailed reasoning, but Rosemond's point is that it is not required. Children are not owed an explanation of how parents came to a particular conclusion. If I tell one of my children "No", they need to learn that it is not up for debate and I do not need their agreement. It's fine for me to explain my conclusion further, but they are not entitled to it. That is what Rosemond is speaking to. Far too often, today's parents feel the need to have their decisions justified by the children. Decisions are made by majority vote, and parents have to persuade their kids that their conclusions are best. It's backwards.

---------- Post added at 08:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 AM ----------




jwithnell said:


> IHe's generally good, but does have an attitude that there's one way to parent and that's his way.



Don't we all pretty much think the same? At least I know that I tend to think that.
I've read a lot of Rosemond. I don't think he's saying that his way is the only way, at least not as much as he's saying the popular way to parent in these days is definitely twisted.

---------- Post added at 08:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 AM ----------




jwithnell said:


> I'd hate to see him trying to deal with a special needs child!


 
I don't think that's fair. Who in their right mind would not adjust their approach to a special needs child?

(By the way, I'm not some John Rosemond nut. I disagree with him on a few things, but by and large, I think he's right on track)


----------

