children saying no

Gurgle

mountainyman wrote:

Save the emotional intensity for soemthing other than wellies.

I wonder if the Daddy wore his wellies into the office that day.

mountainyman wrote:

I understand the theory that if youare aggressive with rules they wll rebel in harmless ways, but in my opinion it is not accurate.

More likely they will rebel in every way at every opportunity.

Ayla

One question that hasn't been raised yet and may shed some more light on the opinions of the parents in the OP would be this:

The OP mentioned that the wellies & raincoat were newly purchased. Did the girls agree to/ask for this purchase? Sometimes teens will get caught up in the moment of shopping and ask for something, only to realize later that it was a bad idea and that they'd never actually wear what was bought. In that case, I think the parents would be justified in expecting the girls to wear the clothes.

Of course, if a well-intentioned but dillusional distant aunt bought the wellies & raincoats for the girls, it would be understandable that they got their backbones up. There could then be a compromise (ie: the girls wear them if/when they ever visit the aunt on a rainy day, etc.)

But if the girls had the clothes bought for them (maybe they were cute patterns and looked like a good idea in the store) they should have to justify the purchase by wearing them.

Of course, by the time teens are 15 & 17 the threat of spanking looks ridiculous and the parents usually wind up losing face. Instead the parents could say "fine, get wet, see if I care." Then the girls will spend all day in their wet clothes, get a cold, feel miserable, and be more responsible the next time they have to walk to school in the rain. We've all done it, it's almost a rite of passage

greenkittie

Thaedydal wrote:

But even when mine are over 14 if they were ill I would want to stay at home and nurse them, it is a parents duty of care.

The idea of my mummy ever nursing me when i was younger is hillarious to me, she was more likely to try and convince me i wasn't infact ill at all

magnumlady

Just had a quick look at the OP's other posts, she's quite a fan of wellies and raincoats.

Nevyn

magnum lady I fail to see what that has to to with the topic of the thread.
If you have an issue with a post or poster use the report function button or pm a mod.

kelle

Thaedydal wrote:

If a child under the age of 14 is left at home alone that is infact criminal neglect and a parent can be prosecuted and if the circumstances are extreme such as the child is ill the child can be taken into care.

Over the age of 14 they can be left to mind themselves at home.

But even when mine are over 14 if they were ill I would want to stay at home and nurse them, it is a parents duty of care.

I started babysitting my brothers at the age of 9- my parents found me a lot more responsible than the 15-17 year old babysitters that looked after us till then (one NEVER once checked on my 14-month-old brother one night). I knew which pub they'd be in in case I needed to phone them in an emergency.
I would've found it ridiculous if a babysitter was brought to our house when I was 12 or 13. It never did me any harm, though I know we're living in different times now. However, I don't intend getting my children babysit at 9!

Making 15 and 17-years olds wear wellies is ridiculous. Once they reach school, they change into slippers anyway, and their wet shoes have the whole day to dry.

kelle

Joanna Broad Bug wrote:

It's way, way past the age of your parents being held responsible if you get sick because you were trying to look cool. If you DID get a cold - well then a lesson learned. It's not going to kill you.

A cold is caused by a virus, and you will catch it whether you're wearing warm clothing or not if you come into contact with it!

magnumlady

Thaedydal wrote:

magnum lady I fail to see what that has to to with the topic of the thread.
If you have an issue with a post or poster use the report function button or pm a mod.

Oops, sorry I just mentioned that because people were wondering why the OP hadn't been back.

Blush_01

"Designer" wellies are still not suitable school attire - most schools have a uniform policy, dictating the colour of socks and shoes, as well as jackets these days.

To be honest, I walked between the local CBS and my school on a daily basis in 5th and 6th year for Physics and Economics. I had an umbrella and a jacket - both by choice - and would have been horrified if my mother attempted to make me wear wellies. Granted, they weren't a fashion item 4 or 5 years ago, but still. My mother could have asked me to please wear my wet gear, but if I didn't want to, it was my tough luck if I got sick. A cold is not reason enough to miss school. Ma's a PHN and we had to have a decent temp or be vomiting to miss school at any stage.

I find designer wellies ridiculous anyway. Unless they're functional - if you're going to be in seriously muddy situations - they're work wear. Different strokes, I guess, but they look silly and cheap, even if they cost a fortune, unless they're doing some proper welly-work, imho.

I think the OP (and her friends) are a bit out of touch with reality. If you have enough faith in the job you've done as a child rearer, you should know you've taught said child to be sensible in most situations, i.e. wear something to keep the wet out when it's wet outside; wear a coat when it's winter; don't get into a stranger's car; look right and left before you cross the road. If you don't, then how do you expect your children to live outside of home? At 15/17 the average "child" (eh... young adult anyone?) should know enough about their environment to attempt to protect themselves from any risks said environment may pose.

Gurgle

Blush_01 wrote:

At 15/17 the average "child" (eh... young adult anyone?)

I always found the phrase 'young adult' to be condescending. 'Child' is just downright patronising of course.

Maybe 'teenager' is best?

Shellie13

Winnie001 wrote:

At 15/17 I have to say that they are old enough to decide what they wear (apart mayb from really slutty gear!) .

Id say at 17 slutty is FINE!:p

Blush_01

Gurgle wrote:

Blush_01 wrote:

At 15/17 the average "child" (eh... young adult anyone?)

I always found the phrase 'young adult' to be condescending. 'Child' is just downright patronising of course.

Maybe 'teenager' is best?

I never had a problem with the term young adult. *shrugs shoulders*

Billiejo

katiemac wrote:

My friend was sending her teenage daughters to school yesterday morning and as it was raining heavily told both to put on their newly bought wellies and raincoats. They are 15 and 17 respectively
Both refused to wear them for the usual reasons being laughed at by their friends, not hip etc.
I called to her last night amid a major row between my friend, her husband and both daughters over the matter. The father told them that the next time it rained they would wear them of get a good spanking.
I think he was just threatening the spanking as she said he has never laid a finger on them.
She is beside herself with worry over what next to do with them.
Any suggestions?

Surviving teenagers. Normal behaviour. Peer group Very important.

SilverChair

Wellies?!
Dear god dont force that on the poor child.

When buying clothes for teenagers you should always get their input. Wellies is a bit rediculous, but together you should be able to pick out suitable rain coats that are fashionable and practical