WWYD? Different Parenting styles in the same family

[jacksmomma]

My husband and I parent our son much differently than our siblings parent our nieces and nephews. I would like to think that we are following the higher path (I do not want to say better, because everyone has their own way of doing things) in that we do not spank our son, try not to yell, and hold him to a pretty high behavioral standard. We run into conflicts at family gatherings because the other kids behave very differently. Some of that transfers to our son and when we get on him about it the other adults make comments. Those of you who have been in a similar situation, how do you handle it. How do you enjoy your time visiting without compromising your standards?

 

[MSSANDRA]

Been there done that....

It's hard sometimes... Continue to discipline as you see best and perhaps some of it will be a role model for other family members.

We sorta followed this rule. In our home, our rules. Food, language, clean up rules etc. In other family members houses we picked the issues and sorta let some things slide "because others familes do things differnt". Of couse any big or safety issues you have to stay firm. Things like snacks, picking up toys etc, we let go but reminded DS as soon as we left, back to our family rules!!!!

DGS divides his time between three homes and knows and follows different rules at each and does a great job. He is 3.

 

[PiperPizzaz]

Sometimes you have to pick your battles but, of course your kid, your rules. They are raising their children how they see fit and so are you. I would remind them of this next time they say something to you.

 

[Erica09M]

 

[princessmom29]

I have been there done that with my cousins and the way they parent thier kids. Unless it is a safety issue I typically don't intervene with thier kids. I don't allow mine to misbehave just because she is around them either though. The only time I would ever say something to them about their parenting choices would be when it puts my kids at risk. We have had that convo about their hitting, punching,kicking because they think it is ok to do it to DD, and about not bothering to get them vaccinated b/c it puts my child at huge risk of contracting a deadly disease. Another of my cousins almost died at 11 months because he contracted measels from an older child who had not been vaccinated, so it is a really sore subject for our family. If they choose to put thier own kids at risk it does bother me, but I have to speak up when it effects my child. Essentially, I do my best to limit the amount of time DD has to be around them. They live next door to my grandmother so we see them over there, but that is pretty much it. I literally cringe when I see them coming over to Grandma's to play with DD because thier mom just sends them over, and assumes I will be watching them.

 

[Erica09M]

 

[indimom]

I wouldn't get into a debate over "the rules" with extended family, but I would not change my expectations for my children when we are visiting relatives or friends. We stick to our own personal rules no matter where we are. If the extended family begins to "argue" with our rules (especially in front of the kids) then we will speak with them privately.
If it's DH' family, he does the talking. If it's my family, I will talk to them about it. We're lucky that most of our family parents the same way, but we have had a couple small issues over the years and I do see how a lot of times people think you are judging their parenting skills when you do things differently.
One suggestion I would make is to correct your child privately at family gatherings. Take him into another room if you need to talk to him or if he needs to sit for moment. This gives the rest of the family less to talk about and no room to butt in.
I'll also be honest and add that we have had a couple family gatherings over the years where the other children were getting out of hand, and we just left before our children got involved and it got ugly. We'd rather do that than have a huge family arguement and hurt feelings. We just make our excuses and leave, there will always be more parties and get togethers.

 

[princessmom29]

Someone not vaccinating their child does NOT put your child at a huge risk for contracting a deadly disease. A non-vaccinated child is not disease infested. And believe it or not, children who are vaccinated can still contract the exact disease they were vaccinated against.

That's all I'll say about that.

The chance of contacting a disease you were vaccinated for is less than 1%, while the transmission rate for measels for example is more like 80% in infants, with a significant mortality rate. So yes, an unvaccinated older child does put an infant as significant risk of contacting something potentally deadly if they are ever exposed to something they were not vaccinated for. That is why vaccinations are required. I never said an unvaccinated child is disease ridden but they can and often do unknowingly carry disease to infants that can potentally be deadly. They may or may not get sick when they are exposed, but can be a carrier and infect smaller children with deadly results. I am a biochemist who has done research on infant disease processes. The research I have read supports what I am saying. An unvaccinated child who is exposed to measels has about an 80% chance of passing the pathogen to anyone they come into contact within the 48 hours or so afterward. In older children and adults the infection rate is lower, but an infant under age one has on the order of a 70-80% chance of becoming infected after exposure, and there is a very high incidence of complications in children under one. High fever is usually the culprit in fatal cases in infants. I call an 80% chance a huge risk. The more unvaccinated individuals there are in the population the greater the risk to small children becomes becuase ther are more potental carriers out ther to trasmit the disease to them. It is an exponential growth pattern.
Wether or not you choose to vaccinate your child is up to you. That does not change the fact that unvaccinated children can and do carry diseases to infants that can prove fatal. I chose not to expose my infant to that risk, and to have her vaccinated as soon as possible to protect her from those potentally deadly diseases. I realize that some poeple have a different opinion on things. As a sicentist I feel that the evidence does not back thier viewpoint, and as a mother I am doing everything I can to protect my child.
BTW: My cousin and his wife are not opposed ot vaccinations, they just couldn't be bothered to take the kids in on time for their shots and boosters. That's why I used that termonology.

 

[Joyful3Heart]

The chance of contacting a disease you were vaccinated for is less than 1%, while the transmission rate for measels for example is more like 80% in infants, with a significant mortality rate. So yes, an unvaccinated older child does put an infant as significant risk of contacting something potentally deadly if they are ever exposed to something they were not vaccinated for. That is why vaccinations are required. I never said an unvaccinated child is disease ridden but they can and often do unknowingly carry disease to infants that can potentally be deadly. They may or may not get sick when they are exposed, but can be a carrier and infect smaller children with deadly results. I am a biochemist who has done research on infant disease processes. The research I have read supports what I am saying. An unvaccinated child who is exposed to measels has about an 80% chance of passing the pathogen to anyone they come into contact within the 48 hours or so afterward. In older children and adults the infection rate is lower, but an infant under age one has on the order of a 70-80% chance of becoming infected after exposure, and there is a very high incidence of complications in children under one. High fever is usually the culprit in fatal cases in infants. I call an 80% chance a huge risk. The more unvaccinated individuals there are in the population the greater the risk to small children becomes becuase ther are more potental carriers out ther to trasmit the disease to them. It is an exponential growth pattern.
Wether or not you choose to vaccinate your child is up to you. That does not change the fact that unvaccinated children can and do carry diseases to infants that can prove fatal. I chose not to expose my infant to that risk, and to have her vaccinated as soon as possible to protect her from those potentally deadly diseases. I realize that some poeple have a different opinion on things. As a sicentist I feel that the evidence does not back thier viewpoint, and as a mother I am doing everything I can to protect my child.
BTW: My cousin and his wife are not opposed ot vaccinations, they just couldn't be bothered to take the kids in on time for their shots and boosters. That's why I used that termonology.

I have to agree here. As a pediatric nurse, I have seen pertussis (Whooping Cough) making a comeback as infants are exposed to unvaccinated older children and immunized adults whose immunity has faded. The younger infants can end up on ventilators and with permanent complications. I believe that immunizations are not without risks, though. As a mom, I have tried to strike a balance by spreading out the vaccines over a longer period in the hope that their immune system can recover from one or two instead of 5 -7 at a time. Every parent has to gauge the risks and benefits for themselves and has a right to vaccinate or not. Just remember, though, that an unvaccinated child is still reaping the benefits of vaccination, just passively. If the majority of parents would choose NOT to vaccinate, we would most definitely see a resurgence of many illnesses which we only read about in the history books...such as polio, measles, pertussis, german measles (rubella, known to cause severe birth defects), etc. This is why I vaccinate.
Sorry for hijacking your post OP. My husband and I also are pretty strict with our children. We do relax a little, though, when with relatives, as long as nothing dangerous is going on. Good Luck

 

[Erica09M]

 

[mrsbornkuntry]

I learned a long time ago that other people are less likely to comment on your choices if you show you are confident in them.

If I want advice how to handle a situation with one of my children I may talk about it to one of my family members, but otherwise they're raised the way we want to, period. I do loosen up the rules for family gatherings (they eat more junk food then, for example), but I hold my kids to high expectations and there have been times that they've shamed the adults, like when they've helped clear the table after meals.

 

[princessmom29]

I have to strongly disagree with your "science" ... especially any research/studies that are funded by the government, CDC, etc. I'd love to debate this further, and would debate you all day long, but this probably isn't the appropriate place for it.

And for your misinformation, vaccinations are NOT required. My God, quit spreading false information.

If you have anything further to say about this topic, please PM me.

What about independent studies with no agenda, or basic science about disease process???You cannot argue with the fact that these diseases are communicable. They are absolutely with no doubt transmitted preson to person. I do not see how a reasonable person could argue with the fact that a preson with immunity to a disease is less likely to contract it than a person without immunity. I am sorry, but these are porven facts backed by many, many decades of proven research by both independet companies, non profit groups, and places like the CDC. Unvaccinated people have a greater chance of being infected when exposed. The more unvaccinated people there are in a population base, the more infected individuals there will be. Numbers don't lie. It has beeen porven over and over agian .Vaccines are required by certian organizations. Some will except exmptions, but they are not legally compelled to do so if they are totally privately funded. Schools will accept religios exemptions so most peole lie and say they have a religious problem with vaccines. Just because people find a way around the law, does not change the fact that according to the law children should be vaccinated before attending school. I am NOT spreading false information. Sorry, but just like gravity, infectious disease processes are inevitable. You can argue all day that gravity doesn't exist. That doesn't make it so. Again, what you do is your business, but please don't think that saying "I don't believe in it" will make the fact that these diseases are cotagious and potentally deadly go away. You put children at very real risk of death by doing so. If you are not going to vaccinate at least understand the disease process to be prepared for the day when someone you know is gravely ill with one of these diseases and you need to portect your children. That is all I was trying to point out. The diseases vaccines are designed to prevent are highly virulent and contagious and have the very real possibility of making children gravely ill. That fact should be considered in making vaccination decisions.

 

[Erica09M]

 

[polineedyan]

kids' behavior mirrors their parents'. if u dont yell,spank, and are able to discipline your children in an effective way..then u can expect a child who doesnt hit, or yell, can communicate and have discipline.

 

[Alesia]

What about independent studies with no agenda, or basic science about disease process???You cannot argue with the fact that these diseases are communicable. They are absolutely with no doubt transmitted preson to person. I do not see how a reasonable person could argue with the fact that a preson with immunity to a disease is less likely to contract it than a person without immunity. I am sorry, but these are porven facts backed by many, many decades of proven research by both independet companies, non profit groups, and places like the CDC. Unvaccinated people have a greater chance of being infected when exposed. The more unvaccinated people there are in a population base, the more infected individuals there will be. Numbers don't lie. It has beeen porven over and over agian .Vaccines are required by certian organizations. Some will except exmptions, but they are not legally compelled to do so if they are totally privately funded. Schools will accept religios exemptions so most peole lie and say they have a religious problem with vaccines. Just because people find a way around the law, does not change the fact that according to the law children should be vaccinated before attending school. I am NOT spreading false information. Sorry, but just like gravity, infectious disease processes are inevitable. You can argue all day that gravity doesn't exist. That doesn't make it so. Again, what you do is your business, but please don't think that saying "I don't believe in it" will make the fact that these diseases are cotagious and potentally deadly go away. You put children at very real risk of death by doing so. If you are not going to vaccinate at least understand the disease process to be prepared for the day when someone you know is gravely ill with one of these diseases and you need to portect your children. That is all I was trying to point out. The diseases vaccines are designed to prevent are highly virulent and contagious and have the very real possibility of making children gravely ill. That fact should be considered in making vaccination decisions.

You can't reason people out of things they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[princessmom29]

First of all, do NOT talk to me like I am stupid. Because I am not. I absolutely know the disease process, and about each and every single one of the diseases that can be vaccinated against. The difference between you and I is that I don't believe that vaccines are as great as what you think they are. I do not believe that vaccines work the way the government and the CDC want you to believe they work. Yes, diseases are communicable. But you can not assume that just because one is not vaccinated, means that they will automatically get said disease. Nor can you automatically assume that if one catches one of these diseases, that the worst case senario will happen. You also have to look at how living conditions have changed throughout the years.
Vaccines provide very poor munological memory because the immune system is deprived of the learning experience that comes with clearing an infection via a Th1 response. Vaccines mainly target the Th2 cell instead of the Th1. Passive immunity is different from active immunity in two ways, 1) the antibody source and 2) the degree of protection it provides. When someone is given a vaccine, the antibodies are harvested in serum from a human or animal donor instead of being made by your plasma cells. And as a result, our B cells are not challenged and the protection provided by the "borrowed" antibodies end when it naturally degrades in our body.
It's really just looking at the immune system in a different way. However, you've been programed to look at it one way and one way only. Many of us non-vaxers don't see the cause of complications and death from diseases as a lack of vaccination, and see it more as a lack of a properly-functioning immune system.

And again, vaccines are not required or mandatory. Everyone has the right and the choice to either vaccinate or not. Therefore, it's not required. There is no law requiring vaccination. It's also very ignorant for you to assume that most people will lie inorder to get a vaccine exemption. Not only that, but there is more than one type of exemption. Infact, there are 3 exemptions (religious, medical, philosophical). Not every state offers all 3, but there are 3. So no matter if there is a private school that says you much vaccinate to participate... one still has a choice to either vaccinate or not vaccinate. They can participate or not participate. But it is not the law.
The truth of the matter is that vaccines hurt people as well. Don't be blind. It happens. It's real. People don't want to accept it. But it's the truth. Vaccinating particular children could be very deadly to them as well. I can not and will not risk my children's health for the sake of another. Just like you wouldn't risk your child's health for the sake of another. We are parents, and those are the choices that we make.

Again, like I said, do not assume that I am stupid because you have no idea what my background is.

I think it's best that we just agree to disagree.

You can "not believe" all you want, but that doesn't change scientific fact. Actually Th1 vs Th2 immunity is not the issue you are making it out to be. The th2 cells are the "gatekeeper cells" of the immune system and the ones that it is most important to maintain immune memory in. Th1 cells are generated rapidly once the th2 cells recognize a pathogen. It is that recognition that is vital and what vaccines work to achieve. Immune memory is achieved thourgh vaccines by repeatedly challenging our bodies to have an immune response to the pathogen. Live virus vaccines are just that, live virus in a weakened form, not "borrowed immunity". Vaccines for the most virulent dieses are live vaccines. They challenge the body to porduce their own immunity. Once the vaccination series in complete, it is just as valid as immune memory achieved through contarcting the disease. I actually had chicken pox, twice. It happens.
Vaccines hurt people yes, and I am not blind to that fact, but so do diseases as more and more people choose not to vaccinate more and more poeple will be infected. That is basic immunology. There are very rare occurances of vaccine related complications, but many of the things that parents claim are vaccine related simply aren't. There are many,many more claims than actual documented cases.
Every school or daycare I have ever been a part of states that vaccines are required for admission, unless there is a religious exemption. In fact it was closer to a 50/50 split the last time I checked as to states that accept other exemptions. If a non vaccinated child is in one of those states they are either truly a member of a religion that porhibits it or lying to get around a STATE LAW saying vaccinations are required.
I never called anyone stupid. I don't like the word, and wouldn't use it. Ignorance and stupidity are two very different things. Soemone can be ignorant of facts or refuse to believe them without being stupid. I truly think you are burying your head in the sand here, but you are certianly free to do so. To each his own. I agree that we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[eeyoremum]

Co - sleeping was a huge "issue" in my family.

In DH family it was that I monitor junk food and pop.

Also, the ADULTS run the show in my house. My DHs aunts, uncles and cousins allow the CHILDREN to run the show. So of course they think I am the meanest #itch in the world.

 

[roscoepc1]

The chance of contacting a disease you were vaccinated for is less than 1%, while the transmission rate for measels for example is more like 80% in infants, with a significant mortality rate. So yes, an unvaccinated older child does put an infant as significant risk of contacting something potentally deadly if they are ever exposed to something they were not vaccinated for. That is why vaccinations are required. I never said an unvaccinated child is disease ridden but they can and often do unknowingly carry disease to infants that can potentally be deadly. They may or may not get sick when they are exposed, but can be a carrier and infect smaller children with deadly results. I am a biochemist who has done research on infant disease processes. The research I have read supports what I am saying. An unvaccinated child who is exposed to measels has about an 80% chance of passing the pathogen to anyone they come into contact within the 48 hours or so afterward. In older children and adults the infection rate is lower, but an infant under age one has on the order of a 70-80% chance of becoming infected after exposure, and there is a very high incidence of complications in children under one. High fever is usually the culprit in fatal cases in infants. I call an 80% chance a huge risk. The more unvaccinated individuals there are in the population the greater the risk to small children becomes becuase ther are more potental carriers out ther to trasmit the disease to them. It is an exponential growth pattern.
Wether or not you choose to vaccinate your child is up to you. That does not change the fact that unvaccinated children can and do carry diseases to infants that can prove fatal. I chose not to expose my infant to that risk, and to have her vaccinated as soon as possible to protect her from those potentally deadly diseases. I realize that some poeple have a different opinion on things. As a sicentist I feel that the evidence does not back thier viewpoint, and as a mother I am doing everything I can to protect my child.
BTW: My cousin and his wife are not opposed ot vaccinations, they just couldn't be bothered to take the kids in on time for their shots and boosters. That's why I used that termonology.

Amen and hallelujah!

 

[disfan07]

Vaccines are not required in gneral but they are required for school ( I am so pro-vaccine its not funny) but i understand expemtions for religious reasons but tehre are too many parents using the religious reasons as a way to get their kids exempt form vaccines.

I believe that vaccines should be mandatory if you ever want to send your child to school...if you want to make the decision not to vaccinate, fine. But your childern should not be allowed around other children then. YOUR choice, should NOT put other kids at risk.

I believe thinking outside teh box with vaccinations is using a delayed schedule. I DONT believe that choosing NOT to vaccinate is thinking out of teh box. I believe that is a poor choice.

 

[kidshop]

The chance of contacting a disease you were vaccinated for is less than 1%, while the transmission rate for measels for example is more like 80% in infants, with a significant mortality rate. So yes, an unvaccinated older child does put an infant as significant risk of contacting something potentally deadly if they are ever exposed to something they were not vaccinated for. That is why vaccinations are required. I never said an unvaccinated child is disease ridden but they can and often do unknowingly carry disease to infants that can potentally be deadly. They may or may not get sick when they are exposed, but can be a carrier and infect smaller children with deadly results. I am a biochemist who has done research on infant disease processes. The research I have read supports what I am saying. An unvaccinated child who is exposed to measels has about an 80% chance of passing the pathogen to anyone they come into contact within the 48 hours or so afterward. In older children and adults the infection rate is lower, but an infant under age one has on the order of a 70-80% chance of becoming infected after exposure, and there is a very high incidence of complications in children under one. High fever is usually the culprit in fatal cases in infants. I call an 80% chance a huge risk. The more unvaccinated individuals there are in the population the greater the risk to small children becomes becuase ther are more potental carriers out ther to trasmit the disease to them. It is an exponential growth pattern.
Wether or not you choose to vaccinate your child is up to you. That does not change the fact that unvaccinated children can and do carry diseases to infants that can prove fatal. I chose not to expose my infant to that risk, and to have her vaccinated as soon as possible to protect her from those potentally deadly diseases. I realize that some poeple have a different opinion on things. As a sicentist I feel that the evidence does not back thier viewpoint, and as a mother I am doing everything I can to protect my child.
BTW: My cousin and his wife are not opposed ot vaccinations, they just couldn't be bothered to take the kids in on time for their shots and boosters. That's why I used that termonology.

I don't want to get all caught up in your vaccine debate, but did you breastfeed to provide immunity? I know most people do not breastfeed very long or at all, but I was very comfortable delaying vaccinations in my fully breastfed children. I did that according to the recommendations (only bf for 6 months and continuing for at least a year..or 2 or 3 ). Most people pick and choose among the recommendations for their children's health. It's their right as parents. I did choose to vaccinate fully, but on a delayed schedule. I never once worried about my infant contracting a deadly disease from and unvaxed person, I knew they received antibodies and immune boosters from me. It's natures vaccine.