How far does a parent's "double standard" go?

[Soldier of Entropy]

In their private residence, a teenager is working on homework after school while his father/mother is on an online non-betting card leauge (poker, hearts, etc.).


I thought leauge implied mutliple humans in the game. Sorry. I should have made that more clear.

Wait a second, then...

The parent was involved, socially, with other adults and refused to drop everything for the teenager at the exact moment the teen wanted them to? The parent made the teen wait a whole HOUR??!!??

Then, afterwards, the teen tries to guilt the parent into giving them more Internet time.

SoE, as has been pointed out a couple of times, you've got two scenarios here. In the first, a parent doesn't help a child when asked. In the second, the child whines about not having the same privileges as the parent. Honestly, they have nothing to do with each other.

I voted the teen was out of line. If the game could have been paused, then I could see the parent helping right away. The parent could've handled it differently, but I'm willing to bet that the hypothetical teenager has whined and bitched about his "rights" and "priviliges" and the "unfairness" so often in the past that the parent has gotten tired of trying to explain things logically and has finally resorted to "Because I'm the parent".

Christ, this whole scenario reeks of whiny teenage angst.

I know I adressed this somewhere... ahh, here it is:

I was asked for more info, and here it is:
The whole idea of "is it the parent's responsibility to get off now to help?" was actually not what I was origionally going for (though I am glad it went this way, it is interesting); I was using the scenario of homework help just to form a catalyst for the situation. What I was getting at at my original post was more along the lines of what Darth Servo was getting at; that the parent restricts web time, yet on a daily basis plays on the card leauge over more hours per day on average then he/she allows for his/her child. However, on the subject of other work, yes the teenager had other work, but he could come back to the current work later and work on other work. I hadn't given much thought to that; it wasn't my origional issue idea.

As you can see, I never had even intended for that part to become the main focus. I never said that the parent is being unreasonable there. If you had read this post, I believe that it would have answered your question, unless I am missing something.

PS-Ghost Rider and Dark Servo: I believe that this particular part of the OP may clear some things up:

...the teenager respectfully points out to his/her parent that the parent imposes restrictions on the teenager's websurfing time, but does not impose said restrictions on his/her self.

Nowhere there do I mention the words "in the home." Whithout such a modifier, this statement means "in all places," unless I am mistaken (which I may be since I am new to this) this means that you, Ghost Rider, need proof to prove that the rule applies only in the home.

[Darth Servo]

And you're asking for me proof of my statement of saying "The parents owns the object in question, tough shit for the kid."

yes, since the OP NEVER states that the issue was about JUST the parents PC but rather only the amount of TIME the kid spent surfing.

"the teenager respectfully points out to his/her parent that the parent imposes restrictions on the teenager's websurfing time, but does not impose said restrictions on his/her self."

Notyhing about who owns the computer. Only TIME is mentioned.

Your claim was the one requiring extraoridinary proof, because until it was stated later it was not in any form represented by the OP.

The time of statement is irrelevant. Your assumption was not in the OP any more than mine was. This is NOT aabout whether or not something exists. Its about what the OP meant and you have LESS supporting your assumption than I do.

The OP says NOTHING about the object in question being the parent's property. You made that ASSUMPTION without one shred of evidence.

Thus it was up to you to demonstrate that your claim had proof since it was never presented in the original premise under any circumstances.

Niether was your's dipshit. What is so fucking hard to understand about that?

And you wonder why I took umbrage to your statements. Maybe I did take your for too much and getting lucky and is what you've been.

Maybe you're just a shithead who can't admit his own violations for what he criticizes others for.

GR, your statement of "The parents owns the object in question, tough shit for the kid" is not stated or implied in the OP in any way, shape or form.

You criticize me for using "anecdotal" evidence, even though your FIRST response to it was NOT, "thats anecdotal and therefore not valid" but rather was sarcastic "Gee, I'm shocked...no, really...you don't say. Under their household? Holy Fuck, what a concept, I'm glad you're here to tell us this, Einstien." thus admitting that its common practice for parents to set rules for their kids regarding things that are NOT the parent's personal property. Here's another news flash for you Einstein, the kid's parents do NOT own the kid's friend's house yet still set rules about what the kid can and can't do over there. (Please note, I am NOT saying said rules are a bad or good thing. I'm simply stating that it happens).

GR, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR ASSUMPTION? STOP EVADING THAT KEY ISSUE.

[Darth Wong]

Ghost Rider and Darth Servo: your tedious bickering contributes nothing to the thread. You aren't even arguing about the subject matter. You are arguing about which one of you made more mistakes in debating the subject matter. Get the fuck over it.

[Darth Wong]

As you can see, I never had even intended for that part to become the main focus. I never said that the parent is being unreasonable there. If you had read this post, I believe that it would have answered your question, unless I am missing something.

Either proposition is absurd. The idea that the parent has some obligation to give the child as many privileges as he gives himself is retarded, as is the notion of the parent being forced to immediately drop everything the instant some kid asks for easily-deferred assistance. So I don't really see how it makes any difference. They're both equally ridiculous. In both cases you are projecting an implied moral obligation onto the parent without explaining why this obligation should be presumed to exist in the first place.

[Ghost Rider]

As Mike's point, I will end it here for me.

I still stand by the thought that the kid is making some real bad judgements by thinking he stands on equal ground with the parent, since he is not the one at all paying for the object and is using it because the parent allows him to use it.

For me, the thought is no different then asking for the car.

[Darth Servo]

As Mike's point, I will end it here for me.

Agreed.

I still stand by the thought that the kid is making some real bad judgements by thinking he stands on equal ground with the parent, since he is not the one at all paying for the object and is using it because the parent allows him to use it.

For me, the thought is no different then asking for the car.

And I agree that the kid is being a dick but for different reasons.

[Darth Servo]

As you can see, I never had even intended for that part to become the main focus. I never said that the parent is being unreasonable there. If you had read this post, I believe that it would have answered your question, unless I am missing something.

Either proposition is absurd. The idea that the parent has some obligation to give the child as many privileges as he gives himself is retarded, as is the notion of the parent being forced to immediately drop everything the instant some kid asks for easily-deferred assistance. So I don't really see how it makes any difference. They're both equally ridiculous. In both cases you are projecting an implied moral obligation onto the parent without explaining why this obligation should be presumed to exist in the first place.

Agreed. The Parents' primary moral obligaiont with raising their kids is to bring the kid up properly, make sure the kid gets a good education, doesn't break laws, etc. The parent can usually help the kids with their homework just as much after the game is over as they can by dropping everything.

[glass]

I voted neither.

A parent is not required to drop everything at a moment's notice, and they have a right (and duty) to set rules different from the ones they follow themselves.

OTOH, if the child perceived and injustice, the respectfully discussing it with the parent was exactly the right approach. Much better than silently bottling it up, or throwing a screaming fit.


not-a-parent glass.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The kid's in the wrong.

The fact is, it doesn't matter if he was put off until later, the parent still helped the kid out with his homework. Thus, the parent fulfilled his obligations to the kid without issue.

Granted, the parent was stupid in giving nothing more than authoritarian reasons for the internet-use thingie, but that doesn't make him wrong. It was just a poor choice of reasons given. Ideally, he would have explained that he was working to give this kid food, water, a warm place to sleep, and an education, and thus, the breadwinner would have first dibs on sources of entertainment that he bought with his own money.

[Big Phil]

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of how people voted by their ages and whether they have kids or not.

[Big Phil]

Hit submit too soon - I know we can't do that, but I have a theory about how and why the results turned out the way they did.

[Spyder]

First off, the issue with the homework. Yes, parents definitely need to make an effort with the child's learning which does mean helping with homework, however we also need to have a look at whether the homework was hampered by the parent postponing their assistance. Did the child need help with the homework right then and there or did they simply want help with their homework right then and there? If it was just a want then it is unreasonable to expect the want of the child to outweigh the want of the parent.

The second issue is the supposedly double standard. Does the child actually have a right to use the internet as much as the parent? I highly doubt that the parent has the same need for external encouragement for the formation of good study habits and time management skills that the child does.

"Because the teenager has to put up with it." Doesn't provide any logical backing for imposing the same restrictions on the parent.

[Spoonist]

I voted both.

Its a whiny teenager problem. "It's all about me".
But as a parent, even if it might be exhausting, if you have teenagers it is extra important to take the discussion and explain the logic and reasoning behind your actions.

[Pick]

I disagree with the parent not giving their child a more thorough answer. If they make a judgment that goes against what the child thinks is right, then they should explain why that decision was made. This also helps the parent think about their own actions for any personal evaluation.

On the child's remonstrance, I reserve judgment.

[AidanMcfay]

If it wasnt for money, why did the parent see that it was more important then their own child? Well, even if it was for money, the parent should of atleast tryed to help the child anyway.

[Lord Poe]

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of how people voted by their ages and whether they have kids or not.

I have no kids, but I still remember what it was like being one. I'd never guilt my dad into stepping-to the second I wanted something. If he were in the middle of his hobby (tinkering with the car, or making fishing sinkers) and I tried to equate that with me building model cars when he called me to help him with some chore, that would have been ridiculous.

Try thinking of the times your parent has dropped everything for you in a real, meaningful situation. My dad had to be forced to go home, shower and rest after spending three days in a hospital waiting room wondering if his only son would survive a bad asthma attack.

[Major Maxillary]

You can't expect people to obey your rules if you don't obey them yourself. I say this from experience. I always remember my parents going on about how I shouldn't smoke, and how profanity is bad. but they'd always smoked like chimneys and cursed like bleeding sailors around me, and when ever I pointed this out to them, they'd always either say "I don't ever ______ around you." or "Do as I say, not as I do."


And I always thought to myself; "why the hell should I listen to them when they don't listen to themselves?"

[Darth Wong]

You can't expect people to obey your rules if you don't obey them yourself. I say this from experience. I always remember my parents going on about how I shouldn't smoke, and how profanity is bad. but they'd always smoked like chimneys and cursed like bleeding sailors around me, and when ever I pointed this out to them, they'd always either say "I don't ever ______ around you." or "Do as I say, not as I do."


And I always thought to myself; "why the hell should I listen to them when they don't listen to themselves?"

No one is saying that using a computer is bad, the way smoking is. It's a matter of sharing time on the computer which Daddy bought and paid for. Any amount of time on someone else's computer should be considered a bonus, so demanding equal time is just ridiculous.

You're just stick in a "teen brat" mentality, where kiddie is right and daddy is wrong. Let's take this down to your level, so you might understand. Imagine if you had a roommate, and he wanted to use your computer (your own computer, which you paid for with your own money) and your Internet connection. You say "OK, you can use it for 2 hours". And he says "But you use it for more than 2 hours. You're a hypocrite!" What would you say?

Now imagine that this roommate has been eating your food, drinking your drinks, and expecting you to buy his clothes for him. Oh yeah, and he doesn't promise to ever pay back one red cent.

[pieman3141]

We have multiple problems from what I can see.

Yes, the parents have the right to restrict the kid's surfing time, should they choose so. Perfectly fine.

Morally (based on my own morals), the parents, by not setting a good example, are in the wrong.

Should the parents help the kid at the drop of a dime? I don't believe in that obligation. However, it's morally right to do so, IMO. Just like it's immoral (in our culture) for murder or theft, but we do it anyway, a person cannot be expected to follow morals (I'm a cynic regarding human behaviour). While some may bring up the (possibly valid) objection of spoiling kids, it's not like the kid's asking for a Ferrari or whatever, although a parent should teach their kids to rely on their own resources before they go to the parents.

The real question is: So what?

Personally, I hope I'd help the kid. My parents have helped me too when I asked. Yes, double-standards exist at home, but my view has always been, "So what?"

[Magus]

You can't expect people to obey your rules if you don't obey them yourself. I say this from experience. I always remember my parents going on about how I shouldn't smoke, and how profanity is bad. but they'd always smoked like chimneys and cursed like bleeding sailors around me, and when ever I pointed this out to them, they'd always either say "I don't ever ______ around you." or "Do as I say, not as I do."


And I always thought to myself; "why the hell should I listen to them when they don't listen to themselves?"

The important difference betwixt this situation and your hypotheticals is an implied, unspoken qualifier tacked on to the end of the rules. Namely:

Profanity is bad for people.
Smoking is bad for people.
Using the computer longer than X is bad for my children

You can argue that the third statement is unfair, broken, whatever - but as a general rule of thumb, the parents decide what is good and bad in their own household, so long as they don't break a law doing so.

[glass]

You can't expect people to obey your rules if you don't obey them yourself. I say this from experience. I always remember my parents going on about how I shouldn't smoke, and how profanity is bad. but they'd always smoked like chimneys and cursed like bleeding sailors around me, and when ever I pointed this out to them, they'd always either say "I don't ever ______ around you." or "Do as I say, not as I do."

"Do as I say, not as I do" is not an unreasonable position for a parent (or any adult) to take when addressing a child.

Or, am I being a hypocrite when I don't let my 11-month-old niece get her hands on my beer, even though I obviously have no compunction about drinking it myself?


glass.

[Darth Wong]

I must be a terrible hypocrite because I drive the car every single day and yet I won't let my kids drive the car at all. Gee, what a horrible person I must be!

[Darth Wong]

To put that in a more serious light, is it really so inconceivable that a parent might decide that long periods of Internet use won't be as bad for him as they are for the kid, and that he might have a point? After all, when I was a kid, my weekly Internet use was zero hours. I think people are making up a new definition of "hypocrite" here.

A smoker who tells his kids not to smoke is a hypocrite because the reasons he gives them for not smoking apply to himself in equal measure, so he is defying his own rhetoric. But when an adult says that a schoolkid has to ration his Internet use more than an adult, what's hypocritical about that? Is it that inconceivable that being a working adult is different from being a fucking schoolkid?

There are certain activities that we do not deem kids ready for, but which we regard to be OK for adults. Driving, drinking alcohol, watching hardcore porn, etc. This does not make us hypocrites. I also expect to be able to supervise my son's activities on the Internet, but I don't expect him to supervise mine. Is this also a "double standard"?

[Big Phil]

I also expect to be able to supervise my son's activities on the Internet, but I don't expect him to supervise mine. Is this also a "double standard"?

It is when viewed through the eyes of a teenager or college student living at home.

[Magus]

I also expect to be able to supervise my son's activities on the Internet, but I don't expect him to supervise mine. Is this also a "double standard"?

It is when viewed through the eyes of a teenager or college student living at home.

Which makes it quite clear where the problem lies.