[kthejoker2]

... yes? You can't argue you're being objective about your expectations of people who didn't voluntarily choose to live in your house or follow your rules but don't have means to do otherwise.

I mean, your example is literally spot on. You as a parent can't be objective - you have to oppress your children to get them to adhere to your ideals of the household.

[damq]

And the children are objective? I don't understand your point here. Objectivity has nothing to do with this.

[rootusrootus]

If you have to oppress your children in order to parent effectively, you are doing it very wrong.

[kthejoker2]

Sorry, wasn't commenting on the merits of parenting, authoritative styles, etc. Just trying to match OP's children's definition of "oppression" ..

* having expectations involuntarily set on your performing of activities that you would not voluntarily perform otherwise;

* punishment for failing to meet those expectations, rather than a reward for meeting those expectations

With the contradictory idea of the person setting the expectations and punishments being "objective" in a discussion.

Certainly if the request from the children is "we don't want to clean our rooms", the only truly objective response is to either:

a) incentivize them to clean their rooms with negotiated rewards and benefits, in a true market sense b) convince them through logic and rhetoric to voluntarily choose to clean their rooms; c) agree that they don't have to clean their rooms.