# TCS Discussion Threads - Archived



## larsy

leaflady was wondering in a recent thread about how some of us are using the word 'coercion' . Speaking for myself, I am using coercion to mean "the psychological state of enacting one idea or impulse while a conflicting impulse is still active in one's mind. " quoted from the TCS short glossary at http://www.tcs.ac/FAQ/FAQShortGlossary.html .

There are lots of implications of this definition, which are explained on that link above.

I like this way of thinking of coercion, because it applies much more accurately to the state of mind of a person- that is where coercion occurs and does its harm, by hindering reasonable thought and learning and problem solving.

limited time now, glad to discuss this further, if anyone cares to.


----------



## Paulab52

Hey Larsay,

did you used to post under the name Suzan?


----------



## larsy

Yes'm- that information is buried in my reintroduction post on about page 7 of that thread on 'pleased to meet you' part of this board.


----------



## leafylady

Thanks Larsy. I'm pondering that definition. I'm glad that you started a new thread for it.
So if I choose to bite my tongue rather than say something nasty to a relative (2 conflicting impulses in my mind)- is that self coercion?
Or when I struggle between procrastination and studio work- finally choosing one or the other while still feeling the other tug- is that self coercion?
Is there such a thing as self coercion?


----------



## larsy

Self-coercion- oh, yeah, is there ever such a thing! I think this is a lot of what we learn as children when forced to pick up the blocks or clean up our rooms or whatever. Eventually, kids internalize that voice, having learned to force thier selves to do things they don't want to do. Voila, self-coercion. And if feels horrible and gets in the way of us living the life we want.

And I think people lose track of the ability to know what they want, through this same process of coercion. This is a form of coercion damage, imo. The ability to identify what a person wants in any given situation is essential, to be able to find common preferences, to find good solutions, or even to make good decisions. Have you ever dithered over what to order off of a menu? What to do today, when today nothing is scheduled for you?(hah! if only...most parents don't have the luxury of a day to themselves!







But I highly recommend taking one, whenever you can arrange it!) Felt guilty about doing something that you just want to do for yourself? I think we all know how this feels.

I recall a big breakthrough for me, in my thinking, when I realized that it is ok to want what you want, and it is ok to get what you want. That I could figure out ways to get what I want without hurting anyone else in the process, and even to help them get what they want, too. Yahoo!

In the nasty relative scenario- what would the hypothetical person really want in such a situation? First, defense of their child (if there is a child involved). A parent's first responsibility is to their child/ren and their own self. I don't think a person can go wrong, when acting in their own best interests (which would include others' best interests as well, it seems to me, it's all tied up together) and this is the best motivation for children to act from as well! A person could speak directly to their child and reassure them that they have done no wrong, that parent does not agree with the nasty relative, and how about we go get some ice cream (or whatever). If the child is not directly involved, a person might weigh their responsibility to this nasty relative versus their responsibility to their own self- would it be best to extricate one's self from an altercation in a pleasant way, perhaps helping the other person save face and beat a hasty retreat, if this person is not open to new theories? A swift 'I see we do not agree about this. Please excuse me' might be all that is needed. Or, if one is articulate in times of such stress, one could reel off a well thought out defense of their position/theories, and perhaps the nasty relative and the person can have a discussion and both learn something.

I think that the ability to identify what one really wants is essential in taking one's self seriously as well as taking others seriously- I want to finish typing this message, but if a child needs my attention, even though I might heave a mental sigh at having to leave in the middle of a thought, off I would go because my priority, what I really want, is to be available to that child when child needs my help and attention. I know I can come back to this later, whereas a child fobbed off with promises of 'later' 'just a minute' gets a clear message about mom's priorities. Let me hasten to add that if a parent is engaged in something that is not easily interruptable (though these sorts of things can be done at times when there are others available to help children) or that they are really absorbed in or would like to reach a spot that is more easily interruptable, a child is often willing to help a parent out and wait for them to do so- especially if they know that if it was something really important (by the child's lights) that parent would become available immediately.

I think that self-coercion has some things in common with self-sacrifice, which is another aspect of coercion, though they are not exactly the same thing. We do well to learn to recognize when these things are happening, though, because then we can start to find good solutions to these problems.









Thanks for the discussion!


----------



## Ms. Mom

*I was wondering if you were susan? Good to see you back!*


----------



## simonee

Sometimes I wonder whether our 27-month old daughter is too... eek, it's hard to use the word... spoiled. I know dr. Sears insists that "spoiled" is what happens when something is ignored, but I use the word the old-fashioned way by lack of a synonym.

DH and I both work at home, juggling our hours around trips to the park and the store, and squeezing in precious time during nap and sleep. We don't mind the relative lack of money, because we have enough to live by, and don't want to miss anything in these special years. In other words, dd has always had -- almost







-- all our undivided attention.

The problem is that she's recently started to throw tantrums. They're not full-blast, but pretty exhausting for all of us. She's always been willful, and that's what we both consider one of her best sides, especially because neither of us really is. We're suckers. Usually, in the course of one of these tantrums we realize that whatever the subject is, it's not really worth it, so we give in (e.g. she doesn't want me to wear the black shoes but the white ones, and I could care less). We've tried to not give in a few times, but then it turns into a battle of wills and I don't want to play those kinds of manipulation games. So I put on the white shoes.

I may need to add that she's very good about serious stuff. She won't touch coffee cups or knives, has never tried to put non-food items in her mouth, and runs for a "safe and protected" hug when a car drives by. So we feel that she has some judgment, and we want to respect her emerging view of the world at-that-moment. After all, we often choose what she wears, too.

Still, being raised rather traditionally myself (and having to deal with my family's slightly derogatory comments about "having to be all different again"), I sometimes fear that she'll become a little monster who'll get her way by screaming. Even though the little voice in the back of my head says she won't.

I guess I just need a little support









We bf more-often-than-I-care-to-count (and besides, I've never seen the point in counting), cosleep messily but happily, get around in the sling (though not very much now that she approaches 30 lbs.), and she's very attached to both of us (even though daddy often has to deal with rejection).

Thanx for reading through this rambling!


----------



## larsy

Congratulations on 'having to be all different again'







, simonee! Have you taken a look at the non-coercive education and parenting philosophy of Taking Children Seriously? In taking our children seriously, we also have to learn how to take ourselves seriously, and it sounds like you and your dh are going down that road, in finding solutions to problems that you all like- like, working at home which must give you such flexibility to be able to meet your own needs as well as the needs of your child. Sounds wonderful









I (and many others) have found that by having the philosophical underpinnings in mind, about what is bad about causing coercion in my own mind or that of my child (or any other intimate loved one), and learning and thinking about the non-coercive conflict resolution skill of finding common preferences, has opened up a whole new world view with vast quantities of solutions everywhere







It is much easier to defend one's beliefs- all the while holding in mind that one is as fallible as the next person, and always looking for better theories than the ones we already hold- when you have some sort of articulation about why you think it is better to do things this way instead of that.

We are all conditioned to accept coercion as a way of life, and breaking out of that is hard! However, reasonable arguments can be made for the dignity of each person, no matter what their age or level of experience. We parents have the privilege and the awesome responsibility to help our children get what they want in life, while also helping our own selves get what we want in life. It takes some mental work to get past the societal memes we have absorbed, about 'can't always get what you want' and 'suffering is good' <ack!> and 'sometimes children just have to learn that they can't have (fill in the blank)' or conversely that 'they have to (do something that they don't want to do)'.

We can jettison the bad memes (self-replicating patterns of information) and disseminate good ones, like 'it is possible to raise children without making them do things they don't want to do, or have things done to them that they don't want' and 'it is ok to want what you want, and it's ok to get what you want'.

I think that children do want to do what is right. Lots of times, I think we adults have a hard time knowing what is right, being mired in our own coercion damaged thinking entrenchments.

Oh, I could ramble on for a long time! (ask anyone here







) The TCS website is www.TCS.ac. You'll find lots of support and assurance that your child will not turn into a little monster if you help hir get what she wants. On the contrary. Why would a person who is respected and helped not learn to respect and help others? Kids need information and experience and access to the world. We parents have lots of that, and are here for our chidlren.

Very best wishes!


----------



## Ms. Mom

Simonee - you dd is lucky to have such a caring and attentive mother. I totally understand your concerns. I have 2 and my secound was very attached and insecure when she was young. We held and reasured her a lot and gave her the power to sometime tell us what she was going to do - within reason of course. Now, at age 4 she's pretty wonderfull! She has learned through our compassion for her how to give that to others. She's still quite a tantrum thrower at times - it's all part of her passionate personallity! She's very creative and sometimes has her own idea of how things should be.

I don't beleive that you can 'spoil' a child with attention and meeting their needs. Love and Gentleness are learned behaviors, your setting the example that they will follow.

It's hard to deal with critisism from family, however, I think they'll come around as dd grows and they see how wonderfull she is.


----------



## Paulab52

Larsy or anyone, can you help me out....

I feel like I'm always telling my kids what to do. Yes, I know I'm the parent and I know what's best, but I swear, they don't listen to me anyway.

Example:

Take of your PJ's and get dressed so we can go out. They aren't doing anything, so having to stop isn't a problem. They just sit there and ingore me, or go the opposite direction from the bedroom. I have to ask them several times to come and get dressed. Then we have the whole clothing issues...

Get buckled into the car. Get buckled into the car, GET BUCKLED INTO THE CAR. Forget it, I'll just do it for you.

No you can't bring in the toy. No, no, no you can't bring in the toy, because it might get lost. LEAVE THE TOY IN THE CAR!!!

Do you want to ride in the buggy or walk? Ride or walk...ride or walk..ok you're riding, well then, walk..make a decision.

No you can't have a candy. Because we're getting ready to eat lunch. If you eat all your lunch, you can have a candy. No you can't have a candy now...BECAUSE I SAY SO. (the worst).

No we're not playing in the front yard when we get home. Because you don't listen to me and you play to close to the road. No, you can't play in the front, you can play in the back. Oh, the back's not good enough, then how about not playing outside at all?? Do you want to stay in the house?? Ok, so back yard it is.

This is just a sample of my mornings. Everything is a super power struggle. I really would like some alternatives to having to say no all the time, and I also don't want to feel like they are pushing me over and getting their way, even if it's something I don't want them to do.

How do all you TCS moms handle it? Please, don't slam me, I'm truely interested in your opinion. I've read the website, but I'm confused.

TIA


----------



## Dragonfly

Paula,

I'll be very interested in hearing responses to this, as well. While I generally am very flexible with ds and follow his lead, one area I'm struggling with is diapering. Silly, I know, but it's a *big* one here. He HATES to have a diaper on (he's one and is very adamant about his likes and dislikes - just one of the many things I love about him!) Most times around the house, I don't push the issue. If he doesn't want one on, then he doesn't. I let him crawl around naked and sometimes will catch him before he pees, in which case we'll go to the sink or toilet... sometimes not, and then he pees on the ground. No biggie







. But sometimes, we have to go somewhere and I really need him to wear a diaper. Then it becomes a power struggle, and I'm not sure how to avoid this one. Of course he doesn't understand the concept "I need you to put on the diaper or we can't go where we need to go" - and I imagine his answer would be "Well, then, let's just not go!" anyway. So, how can this be avoided?

Anyway, sorry for the ramble... I'll be happy to see the answers to your post









Dragonfly


----------



## ediesmom

LOL!!!!

That is Edie to a T!

I have learned over the past 5 years to make time for this type of behavior. We start getting dressed WAY early so it gets done. We do the extra time thing with food, baths,etc. It kinda works.

Another thing we do is if she wants something her way, she needs to tell me in ADVANCE. NO last minute requests! She loves to choose how we are going to drive home. There are 3 or 4 favorites, and she needs to let me know in advance which way she would like to go. There used to be temper tantrums involved with the drive, but giving her the reigned in choice has worked well.

A timer is a good way to get them going. I set the timer(sometimes) for five minutes (or however long) and she has that amount of time to get dressed, brush her teeth, whatever. Sometimes the timer is a bad thing with her, but most of the time its fun... kinda beat the clock.

Good luck.

randee


----------



## talapas

ooh, you're back Suzan, yay!

You always make me think, even thought I tend to lurk instead of post. So here is a question regarding the coercion issue. I can readily see how coercion can lead to the inability to know what one wants. That was really well explained, thank you! I needed to hear/recognize that today!

You also state that...

Quote:

"I think this is a lot of what we learn as children when forced to pick up the blocks or clean up our rooms or whatever. Eventually, kids internalize that voice, having learned to force thier selves to do things they don't want to do.
I wonder how we learn to do things that we do not want to do, but that are necessary for survival? For instance, dd does not like to brush her teeth. She would not if she were not made to. However, it is very clear that not brushing her teeth will lead in the long term to ill health.

I was never really "made" to do things like chores too much. As an adult I found that this resulted in a severe handicap, because I didn't learn to do basic things like cooking, and cleaning. I had to spend valuable time learning to do things for myself by trial and error as an adult. I also struggle today with the self discipline to do them. I think these things could have been much easier to learn in childhood. I have had this conversation with other friends I have known since childhood, and they have basically said the same things. The ones who were doing chores and hating it as kids are grateful for it today.

I think sometimes kids don't want to do something because they don't think they can do it as well as mom or dad, or because it isn't convenient, or they are absorbed in something else.

The first one is the easy one, teach them how to do it properly, and make sure you don't judge the results, cause it might be awhile before they can do it as well as you. Self sufficiency is a very valuable tool for self esteem, and I just think it's too important to leave to chance or whim. (i don't feel like cleaning today mom, I may never feel like cleaning....that was me as a kid. Now I recognize the value of having a clean house- it helps my sanity. But it is still hard to muster up the self discipline to do it when I don't want to!)

You say that you can remove yourself from the absorbtion with another task, and respond to the child, which is great! How will they learn to do that as adults, if they are never asked to do that as children? I agree that it is disorienting to kids to be interrupted during deep absorbtion, so perhaps learning how to interrupt it gently is what we need to do. My first challenge is to recognize that state of absorption and facilitate it! Then interruption when necessary, by gentle means.

I kind of took off topic a bit, but I hope you get my drift

Leafy, are you me? LOL I have the same problem...to procrastinate ( thus my presence here) or go to the studio!
Tala


----------



## talapas

can someone please post the tcs? site that was referred to? I'd like to read up.
Thanks
Tala


----------



## larsy

www.tcs.ac

I totally don't have time right now- someone else wants the computer, but will come back to this when I can


----------



## simonee

Thank you both, Larsy and Ms. Mom. I read some stuff on the TCS site, and then browsed through these boards for more Larsy posts.

Non-coercion is pretty close to what we like to view as "anarchist childrearing" -- not really making rules, but mostly just going with the flow and adapting to the situation. We indeed take Audrey VERY seriously, because it's been clear from day one (and even before that, because she was one heck of a lively fetus) that there was a full load of wonderful and loving character in that little body.

I think it's just hard to let many deeply bred things go, such as the idea that parents know better just because they've been at it for a longer time. I've always believed that our instincts are probably our most accurate and reliable guides in life, and it would make sense that a child's instincts are not nearly as polluted by socialization and conforming as mine are. I generally feel good when we pretty much let her guide her life, and she is indeed well able to understand why certain things (such as diaper changes) cannot be avoided -- while at the same time protesting things that we somehow deem necessary, but that on second thought really aren't (such as choosing between the stroller and the sling, while we can simply bring both).

It's nice to put a somewhat accepted name to our parenting style, especially because the word "anarchist" always seems to evoke associations with socially unacceptable behavior







:

Again, thanks.
BTW today she said "tacky eaters" for "parking meters." It just cracked me up, especially since we used to live in buffet paradise Las Vegas!


----------



## Alexander

Aww nuts larsy,

why do you always find these post b4 me?









Simonee, you have almost exactly described _our_ circumstances, uncanily so. Except that we now have 2 DDs.

But I am stunned that you don't "draw the line" right up to health and safty, rather than at your whim. White shoes, black shoes. Why not let her choose. We let ours from as soon as she was able to indicate a preferance for anything (b4 that actually) and if that meant she went to school in pyjamas, then fine.

And that has not "spoiled" either of our childrem, in spite of the continuous warnings we had from that know no better.

In fact, our children willingly share their last strawberry, help, co-operate with just about everything . . .

There are boundaries, but we should seek to empower our children. Then they know what to do with it when they grow up.

Hope this helps.

a


----------



## leafylady

ditto to what Talapas just wrote. You just wrote everything that I wanted to say, but expressed it much more effectively.


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

talapas
*I wonder how we learn to do things that we do not want to do, but that are necessary for survival? For instance, dd does not like to brush her teeth. She would not if she were not made to. However, it is very clear that not brushing her teeth will lead in the long term to ill health.*

This is a very good question, which intersects with education and the way we do/ought to educate our children.

So, I think I can help answer.

Children are designed through our evolution to survive. This is done by nature endowing certain tools to the human baby. Curiosity is among those at the forefront of our everyday observation. But another equally important one is mimicking, or perhaps that is not quite right, it is the _enjoyment_ of mimicking older people.

Children in the past who failed to properly mimic were not provided with the tools for survival in the environments in which they were living, and thus were more likely to succumb to the dangers of life in the wild. You can see that those children not born with the feature that allows them to enjoy mimicking, die off, leaving those that do to reproduce and strengthen that gene.

This tool of survival, mimicking, is the key to how we can effortlessly provide our children with the tools required to survive in _our_ environment. All we have to do is create a situation in which our children wish to copy us.

Whether it be potty training, brushing teeth, or tidying up, manners, loving and showing affection to one another or reading, children will always strive to emulate their elders.

Hope this helps.

a


----------



## erika

There have been some very interesting discussions on these boards regarding AP (attachment parenting) and TCS (taking children seriously). I wonder, however, whether use of these methods is a middle class luxury, only possible when parents have a certain minimum amount of free time and low life stress? Is this particularly the case when there is more than one child?

My question stems from personal experience. At the time my first dd was born I had never heard of AP, but I instinctually used many of the AP methods because it just seemed to work the best: cosleeping, babywearing, nursing on demand, focusing on teaching correct behavior rather than punishing "wrong" behavior, etc. Even though dh and I were both graduate students (therefore very poor and under a great deal of stress), I still managed to be deeply connected with dd. We developed a beautiful relationship, and I only rarely raised my voice in frustration - most of the time I could deal with any tantrums or outbursts in a very calm and nurturing way. I could not even imagine using physical violence against a child. In turn, people commented on how sweet and nurturing dd was with her dolls or with other children.

When dd was 4, I became pregnant again, and everything changed. I was vomiting 6-8 times/day and felt weak, miserable and depressed all the time. In desperation I went on medication, which reduced the vomiting to 3 times/day, but I still felt pretty awful. My parenting approach became very authoritarian, and I started barking orders and yelling a lot. After the baby was born, I actually swatted dd about once/day when she did something aggressive toward the baby (which is to be expected, given how she had been treated for nearly a year). During the pregnancy and shortly thereafter, I actually had some incidents like the other Moms Who Say/Do Terrible Things To Their Children In Public who have been excoriated on these boards.

I was very saddened to see what had become of my parenting and of my relationship with dd. I have since been working very hard to restore a more nurturing and respectful approach toward dd. I do find it more challenging to do this now that I have a little baby to attend to, disrupted sleep, etc, but I think for the most part we are healing past mistakes. I think my parenting approach still has that authoritarian edge to it, but we are making progress.

From this experience I wonder whether authoritarian/punitive parenting is really a function of time and stress rather than attitude toward children. Certainly there is a component of learned behavior - we tend to parent the way we were parented unless we make an effort to change. But is it possible to AP/TCS if you are a single parent working two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet - or two parents in the same situation - or a homeless mom trying to figure out how to get shelter and food for her family? Don't AP and TCS take a certain amount of creativity and time?

Any thoughts anyone?


----------



## peacemama

What an interesting post, erika, you really bring up a lot of good points.

I wouldn't exactly say that AP or gentle discipline is a luxury, but I do agree that it might be more challenging for parents who are stressed due to lack of time, money, or good health.

On the other hand, many aspects of AP might lead, eventually, to less stress or financial burden - breastfeeding costs nothing and requires less work than formula feeding, cosleeping can be done in tiny apartments, expensive cribs aren't needed and mom and baby sleep better, babywearing promotes bonding and results in happier babies, and so on.


----------



## geomom

It is difficult in a culture that centers on the nuclear family and independence to create a nurturing web of people not only for our children but for ourselves. I think that it is more difficult to ap if the rest of your relationships are mainstream. If you (the general you, not erika specifically) don't have family nearby to help when things get rough, you end up doing whatever works for just that moment to relieve the tension.

That is why dh and I have moved closer to relatives we trust. And we've made sure that dd has formed a close bond with them. Dh and I work part-time jobs so that dd doesn't have to be in daycare, and we all get time together as a family. So I guess that AP isn't a luxury to us, it is part of a greater philosophy of how we live our lives. But dh and I are without a doubt weird.







As a child, I thought being called a 'non-conformist and malcontent' was a compliment.


----------



## sagewinna

I have AP'd during many life changes: Working out of the home, then as a single mother (the kids were 4 years old and 9 months old), now as a SAHM who is happily married.

All along, I just followed my instinct. The situation we were in didn't change what I felt was the right way to parent.

I am, however, much more TCS than I used to be. I think this stems more from getting older and wiser than a change in my life status.


----------



## MeMeMama

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "Taking Children Seriously"?

Is this a style of parenting?








:


----------



## simonee

Thank you too, Alexander!

I think there's been a slight misunderstanding, though. The only place where we draw the line is safety and health, even though we hardly have to because Audrey pretty much knows. When I wrote that a diaper change cannot be avoided, I meant that it can't be avoided in the long run. What we do is we talk about it being necessary and she says "don't like that," then we say she can let us know when she's ready and where she wants it done, and then 5 minutes later she'll usually come up and say "diapy floor" or something.

The main learning process is to switch off that autopilot that has allowed me for 20 or 25 years to choose which shoes I get to wear, and when I get to go to the store. My main problem is to get out of the mindset that "letting her have it her way" is something negative. Intuitively I know that anybody deserves to have it her/his way, but I sometimes just need to hear it from someone else because there sure as hell isn't very widespread support for this kind of thing!!

PS I love your description of your girls sharing their last strawberry, Alexander. That alone will boost my confidence for weeks. Audrey likes to tell everybody that .... is hers (like we go to the zoo as we do a lot, and she'll anounce "pink birds (flamingos) MINE!!") Just so there's no confusion there.

And one thing I know: "traditional" (i.e. last 100 years) parenting styles have definitely not resulted in grownups who know how to share!! After all, sharing is death for free-market economies!!


----------



## Mommy22B

I know just how you feel. I am desprately trying to get over myown hangups on this. Most days I end up disapointed in myself because I get rude and force her around. But this is a new concept for me and I have only been at it a week or so, and I totally notice the bad things I do. I am working at it! I am just so disapointed in myself sometimes. My latest "problem" Is that yesterday I bought this little outfit for her. I didn't think to ask her if she liked it. I am not used to her having such preference yet. Well, she hates it. We were very bad parents and forced her into it yesterday, but today it was rejected.







I am proud that she is so grown up as to have preference. I will just have to start letting her picko ut what I buy for her.
It is really hard to get over the social ideas that they can't have their way are they will be brats. Why???? How often do I get my way? Pretty much all day long. One question I have is can they learn to compromise? and how early? Like if I wanted to wear my black shoes and she wants me to wear my white shoes...if I really really have a preference for the black ones is there a way to get a 1 1/2 year old to compromise?
Beth


----------



## simonee

MeMeMama, yes it is a style of parenting, as I found out myself only a few days ago.
Check this website:
or http://www.tcs.ac/
or any of the posts by Larsy (and Alexander) I think.

As far as the rest of this thread goes, I wonder the same things Erika does. I believe that neither AP nor TCS takes up more time or effort in the long run than traditional parenting, but it depends on how you view your child. If you consider yourself a unit during the hours you spend together, it only makes sense to co-everything. No getting out of bed at night with a baby, no need to heat bottles of formula or fret about balancing all those nutrients into tiny portions, fewer endless tantrums because you listen to the child before it gets to that point, and babywearing so you don't have to fold and unfold a stroller all the time, can only save time and effort. If you consider your child a little "counterforce", someone who's out to manipulate you and make your life harder, all these things are only going to seem like "extra work." In that case, AP or TCS is definitely not for you; in that case, you may even wonder if you need assistance so your parenthood doesn't weigh so heavy upon you.

Traditional parenting may seem simpler because there's less time-consuming negotiation and other interaction involved, and children that fear a parent will quickly learn "better" than to interfere. There must after all be a reason why this style is so preponderant in our instant gratification society! Still, a parent like Erika who resorted to this style probably would have been fine if she had found another way to cope with her stress. And, Erika, no matter what your parenting style had been, it would have been much harder with the new baby.

I think the decision to go with any non-mainstream philosophy, whether it's childrearing or something else, requires time. THinking about it, doing research or communicating with other adherents, gaining the ability to articulate a defense when you're forced to do so (and it happens a lot







), takes a lot of time. Time that not every double-jobbing single parent (or 60-hour workweek executive) may have. If you choose to live your life in a way that makes many AP or TCS things recognizable, you'll find caretakers, preschools, etc. who think alike. You don't have to spend 24 hours a day with your child to take her or him seriously. On the contrary -- no better way for a time-starved parent to be close to a child than to wear her, sleep with her, and try to listen and negotiate during the hours you do get to spend together!!!

AP


----------



## sugarmama

i'll just try and tackle one or two of these issues and tell you how i *think* a TCS parent might handle them. (by the way, i am FAR from the perfect TCS parent--if such a thing exists







), i have just been reading lots about it and trying to practice it for the last several months.

as far as leaving the toy in the car: TCS would ask: why is it so important to leave that toy in the car? could you explore the idea of allowing your child to take the toy with them? whose toy is it, anyway? you could explain to the child that taking the toy would mean that they'd need to hang on to it, etc. ultimately if the toy belongs to them, they should be able to make the decision about it.

getting in the carseat: TCS parents would try to come up with a way to get their child to agree to getting in rather than giving the child "chances" to get in and then simply doing it for them. you could give them some stickers or something special in the car, talk to them about where you will be going, etc.

no matter what, TCS parents wouldn't force their child to leave the toy just because that was their (parents) preference. arriving at a common preference would mean that maybe the child could take a less expensive toy into the store with them or agree that putting the toy into mom's bag when they were finished would be a good plan.....

can someone who is more TCS savvy (larsy? you know me as ally's jill) verify if what i've said here makes some sense?
thanks and hope that helps some!


----------



## bunny's mama

anyone heard of abraham maslow? he was one of the humanistic psychological theorists way back in the day. he also taught at brandeis university.

anyway, i bring him up because he had a theory of human behavior that had to do wiht what he called "the hierarchy of needs." (imagine a pyramid with different levels) basically, food, shelter, etc. were on the bottom, and what he called self-actualization was at the top, with other stuff in the middle (get the idea?) anyway, he said that it was impossible to self-actualize or even move to the middle levels without first having met our lower level needs for food and shelter, etc.

anyway, perhaps maslow would agree, erika, that a homeless mother or someone having to work 3 jobs just to put food onthe table, would have no time to parent AP or TCS, not because she wouldn't have the time, necessarily, but because her mind would be on surviving the day to day, not on helping raise her children in an optimal environment.

but on the other hand....i think lots of AP is just how a lot of folks parent naturally and instinctively. so maybe even if a parent was stressed about "lower level needs" she might still choose to sleep with her child, discipline gently, etc.

a very good question. i think how we parent under stress has a lot to do with how we were parented. that's just my theory.


----------



## Paulab52

Thanks for the reply Sugarmama! I don't know why it irks me so much about the toy. I just know he's gonna lose it and then I'll have to deal with all that









Keep the ideas coming. I'm really trying so hard here. I get so frustrated with myself, so I know how frustrated the kids must be.


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mommy22B_

*One question I have is can they learn to compromise? and how early? Like if I wanted to wear my black shoes and she wants me to wear my white shoes...if I really really have a preference for the black ones is there a way to get a 1 1/2 year old to compromise?

Beth*

A good question. First I would like to point out that for people that are just starting to try this out, _you must not expect quick results_. Just b/c you start using a new parenting technique will not change the child's view of you over night.

From their point of view, and their *entire* life experience is of something entirely different, so it may take time for some children to learn the new relationship that you are trying to create. That said, there are perhaps 2 guide lines that are essential to follow:

1) have the patience of Jobe (my middle name







)

2) be consistant

On compromise.

Children love to compromise! Yes it is true. They love to share power too!

"Not my kid!" Well you would be surprised! Children need to feel empowered b4 they can risk sharing or compromise.

Black shoes for Mama, but they want you to wear white? So wear white! A small gift for your child (satisfaction). Of course if it is raining, and you want to wear boots instead of ballet shoes, then there is a case to be made to the child. This kind of logic is something children lap up. It makes sense to them.

We, for such a _short_ time in our lives must "out up with" the demands (sometimes very odd) of our children. In a flash it will be gone.

Complying with our children's peculiar demands helps them to form a model of how the world works. We can not transfere our model to them. They _must_ build their own, and we have a responibility as their primary care givers to ensure that this is done as optimally and "humanely" as posible.

Last night DD#2 saw me pass the black chopsticks to dw, and I started to use the red ones.

"NOT THE RED ONE!!! Your BLACK ones. MUMMY is red!!!"

It was a nuisence to change, but change I did. In her world, she had noticed that Daddy uses the black (longer), and has not lived long enough to know that dw and I frequently interchange.

As children become more aware that they hold power over their lives, the more they DEMAND to interact with others around them, and that can only be done by continuously compromising.

Hope this helps

a


----------



## Linda in Arizona

Where I draw the line is the kids telling ME what to do. I will wear whatever shoes I want and it isn't any of their business. Likewise, they can wear whatever shoes they want. End of story (I freely admit to putting their sandals at the top of the closet during the winter).

My kids are 3 and 5 and are good at working out comprimises with each other. For example, yesterday they both wanted to watch TV, but one wanted to watch PBS and the other wanted to watch an elephant video she got at the library. They came whining to me and I explained that they had to find a way for both of them to be happy. They started explaining their points of view to me and I stopped them and said they needed to talk to each other. They left and a few minutes later annouced they had agreed to watch the video first, and then PBS. They were both happy with this and it kept me from dictating what they would do.


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

_Originally posted by Linda in Arizona_
*Where I draw the line is the kids telling ME what to do. I will wear whatever shoes I want and it isn't any of their business.*
Awww, come on Linda! Kids need to tell us what to do! And it's fun!

Ever read John Holt "How children learn" and "how children fail"? There are some examples of how children learn about their environment that are similar to this in those books.

Quote:

*

My kids are 3 and 5 and are good at working out comprimises with each other.

snip

They left and a few minutes later annouced they had agreed to watch the video first, and then PBS. They were both happy with this and it kept me from dictating what they would do.*
Now, I am impressed!









a


----------



## marymom

I think, in my self evaluation...that TIME and money play largely in the ability to parent ones children with love, and ofcourse having more children immediately affect those things, also, in my opinion, you will find things like, genetic nature, some people get upset easier than others, some people get more stressed-just because thats the way they are, then you could evaluate(if you wanted to<yawn>)diet and then ofcourse greatly factoring in would be the parents own upbringing and experiences with her/his own parents...
and it seems ALOT easier for some people to choose to parent AP or TCS...(I hate using categories but ...)than others
Me, I have 5 great great wonderful children (of my own) in my house...no dad living with us, and I am freakin STRESSED out- and Ive heard all the information on having less children and if I had it all to do over again I might have less(I even have an older child who lives on her own making the total 6) might have started older, might have this might have that
but I am older now, (41- and someone mentioned being older makes it easier, I agree)and as hard (can you sense some frustration here? its been a rough month)as it is to choose to parent lovingly because of all the factors and as IMperfect as I am...I know I am the perfect mom for my kids...I inately know this.
and so are you
and I can choose to decide to try and be a certain way, and reading about some of these perfect moms with non violent loving nurturing kids(okok, I didnt mean perfect) and reading some ofthese perfectly awesome living arrangements helps me,actually supports me and renews my resolve to have more patience,to try not to hit my kids(spank whatever),to try not to yell too loudly,
I can choose to try
and we can all choose -the extent of the challenges some face vary greatly- but
I am so thankful for a place like this-
oh man, that reeeeeealy turned into a vent, Im sorry but it was JUST what I wanted to post about
I camt to this thread because this week I did not discipline gently,
and Erika, you sound lkike a great mom, hang in there sweetie, its all about choice and mistakes and doing your best and yeah, maybe alot of it is time
a child spells love, T I m E so do I and for me its about conscious choice and effort


----------



## larsy

Compromise is not optimal, when it comes to having no one being coerced. If any one of the parties involved can look back at the solution and say 'I would have rather had X than what I got', then a better solution could have been found. Compromise is a win-lose or a lose-lose proposition. EVeryone has to give something up, that they want. Finding common preferences is the only way I know at present to find/create win-win solutions that everyone is happy with. And it doesn't have to mean throwing the children back on their own resources to figure it out (unless that is what they want). A parent can be a big help in figuring out common preferences- in fact, the more trusted advisors and sources of information and ideas invovled, the better. The larger the pool of potential solutions.

A parent makes a statement of hir theory that the parent does not tell the children what to wear just as the parent does not want to be told what to wear. This is a fine statement of supporting each other's autonomy- each person has the absolute right to say what goes on with their own body. However, hiding some of someone's clothes that one knows they might prefer, even though they are not the best clothes for the season or whatever, puts the lie to the statement of autonomy that goes before. The parent has all the power, and decides how it will be meted out. Just a couple of days ago, I was with a child who had thrown on a pair of sandals before getting in the car, and then on top of the mountain, wanted to get out and play in the snow. A lovely snowball fight ensued, child got cold cold cold, and was happy to get back into the car and go on, wrapped up in mom's snuggly shirt and a towel around hir feet. Yahoo! and not one ill effect.









Little kids are dressed by someone else from the beginning, and when they show their preference as best they can, they are often misinterpreted, and somight end up being over or under dressed, or have something uncomfortable sticking them in the where ever, for many months before they can effectively make that fact known. What a person is dressed in is not set in stone in this society any longer- thank the powers the be!!!

Why not ask children what they'd like to wear, out of the entire set of clothing available to them? Why not ask them if they think parent's clothing is appropriate? "Does this look alright? Do these shoes look ok with this? They're the most comfortable, and we will be doing lots of walking, so even though they are purple, I think I will wear them so that my feet feel good and carry me through the day" This kind of interaction gives kids lots of information about why people wear clothes without it having anything at all to do with them and so no implied pressure risking coercion.

Kids learn from their clothing choices. They learn if someone tells them 'that looks really stupid' and they might not care if it looks stupid to that person because it is their very favorite pajama shirt and cape and they like to wear it. The kid wearing sandals in the snow might not want to do it again, or might, in the face of the propect of playing in the snow or not just because of the sandals, choose to play in the snow in sandals again because s/he knows that s/he can warm up effectively after having fun and getting cold. Or this kid might prefer to change into shoes and socks before stepping out into the snow.

Kids know what they want. Some don't care about being cold, if the experience holds great promise of fun. Some don't want to be cold, so will avoid the cold experience or be sure to be bundled up so they can enjoy the fun. We parents can bring along the extra clothes so they are avaiable for those who want them. hypothermia is certainly something to be guarded against and prevented- that is something we parents can prevent.

But I am getting away from the 'child telling parent what to do' scenario. Most kids don't try it very often. They learn early on where the power lies, and it ain't in their court. Except for the stuff they can get away from behind a parents back. or manipulate or tantrum over. That is their only power, in those cases. imo. Kids will own their autonomy, any way they can. Why not help them own it straightforwardly?

'Mom, wear the red shoes!" "Why?" "Because I say so" Is this how children experience the world? Being told what to wear, with no explanation that makes sense to them? If a kid will talk to a parent, parent might find that child has a perfectly reasonable explanation for whay they want parent to wear a particular shoe or sit in a particular chair or eat with particular chopsticks. A discussion can ensue, where both parties can learn about each other and the things they are discussing. Coercion cuts off these opportunities to learn.

off for a walk...


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

_Originally posted by larsy_
*off for a walk...*
Red or white sandles?









The " 'cos I say so" that children may use is likely learned from what is, IMO, coersive parenting.

I have never (I hope) coersed, and, as a result, our children have never used (or even understood) that phrase.

Thet have always sort to explain their reasons and ideas.

Great isn't it!










a


----------



## Linda in Arizona

Quote:

*

Awww, come on Linda! Kids need to tell us what to do! And it's fun!
*
*
*
*
May be it is fun for you. It is not fun for me. I'm not interested in raising little pint size dictators who think that want they want is MORE important than what other people want. I am working to raise my kids to know that what they want is AS important as what other people want.

I don't know how many kids you have or if you have pets, but teaching my kids that their autonomy ends with themselves is necessary. In the real world, the only families I know who are totally non-coercise only have 1 child, and the child has trouble playing with peers.

Quote:

Ever read John Holt "How children learn" and "how children fail"? There are some examples of how children learn about their environment that are similar to this in those books.

yes, I've read those books.

I am not a NCP, though I am far, far less coersive than most parents. I've read about NCP, attended a conference, and even tried it for a while. I ultimately decided it was not the right path for our family. I believe that young children should be given a great deal of freedom and allowed to come to their own conclusions, but within the bounds of respecting other people (even respecting their parents!) and not hurting animals, not hurting themselves so badly they need to visit the ER, ect.

So if I say that I handle things a certain way and you shout that I'm not giving my kids autonomy, I don't care. We are doing what works well for us and allows our family harmony. My 3 year old is much happier being able to go in her room and dress herself and know that what ever she picks is fine, than needing to be concerned that half the choices are inappropriate. For me, finding ways for us to live happily together is the goal, not living up to someone else's definition of a parenting style.*


----------



## kama'aina mama

I am really resistant to the idea that AP is a luxury. I look at AP as a stich in time. Look at your more mainstream friends with their kids. Do they actually seem to spend less time 'dealing with' their kids than you do? it doesn't seem to me that they do, and that much of the time they do spend is in crisis management mode.

My belief is that every child, indeed every person, requires a particular ammount of time spent with them to feel validated, cared for, etc. We then get to choose, do you want it to be time nurturing, teaching and loving or time correcting, punishing and haranguing? Most everyone manages to get the time they want, the question is whether it is the kind of time they want or not.

I am not sure I am being clear, so I may come back later and take another crack at it.


----------



## Linda in Arizona

I think it is an interesting point. Although we AP don't necessarly spend MORE time dealing with our kids, we spend the time with them before things become a crises. If someone's life is in crises and they can only deal with the crises of the moment, doing those things that will prevent crises later just can't happen.

For example, I think that many kids mishave to get their parents' attention. Because I have the luxury to be home with my kids, and my DH has the luxury to come home to a house with nice hot meal, clean clothes, etc, we have both have a lot more time to spend with our kids. If there were only one of us or if we both had to work, it would be impossible for our kids to get the quality of time with each of us that they get now. Giving our kids attention never gets to the crises level, but if our situation were different it most likely would, even though our intentions and therories would be the same.

The price for us for this luxury has been moving frequently for my DH's job and not living near extended family, which put different stresses on us and different requirements on our kids.


----------



## m&m

well,

I find humor, or making fave toys do something works a LOT of the time - it is not mommy or daddy doing it - but the toy?

I'm tired, it is 12:30am so bear with me if this is not making sense









for ex: I would say: orange cat (whatever toy is called) wants to stay warm and cosy in the car. do you think that would be ok?

wait for response - usually aggrees, if not...

then, if you really insist the toy stay in the car you can add: "she really does not want to get dropped and dirty, you can either hold her really tight, or let her wait in your carseat for you. which do you choose?"

I also pretend to be Supermom - and fly her around places

another of her faves is her papa pretending to be a giant when she needs her diaper changed (she is not ready to completely potty train yet) - he says in a loud deep voice "fee fi fo fumm... I smell a stinky bumm!"

humor does not always work, but when it does we all laugh and feel great.


----------



## larsy

Paulab52, you wrote:

"I feel like I'm always telling my kids what to do."

It is a pretty new world to them, and they are probably glad to get lots of advice from someone they trust- mom and dad are the best candidates for 'trusted advisor' status. Tentatively offering information, and being willing to listen and to adjust one's theories in the light of new information, makes more sense than to order people around without regard for their feelings and wishes in the matter, in the context of close personal relationships.

"Yes, I know I'm the parent and I know what's best, "

Well, there is the biological fact of being the parent, and then there is the trusted advisor capacity. Human beings are fallible- yep, every single last one of them, even the pope







If a person approaches any situation, sure that they know what is best, they are apt to miss the opportunity to improve their theories and to find what is more best.







And, in the parent-child relationship, they run the risk of causing resentment and anger and desire for revenge and closing off lines of communication and such like.

"but I swear, they don't listen to me anyway. "

And I think this is why kids don't listen to parents. Parents have told them how many times? about this is going to happen or that is going to hurt you, and the kid does whatever it is and finds out that *parent was wrong*. Yet, parent seems to think that 'parent knows best'.

Words matter. How a parent talks to their child about what parent wants to do next in the day or about bringing a cherished toy into a store with them or about brushing their teeth or anything at all, makes a big difference as to what sort of solution will be found to any problem. Solutions that come about through non-coercion do not harm people.

Is it right to coerce/cause coercion in the mind of one's child, or in one's own mind, for that matter? What is the harm that it does? What about telling the truth? A parent might want to think about how to tell the absolute, scrupulous truth. Sprinkling a lot of 'I could be wrong's and 'it seems to me' and 'as far as I know' and 'this is how I think it is' and 'my understanding is' let's everyone know that there is room for more information and that we might never know the truth of any matter, but this is our best theory according to what we know now. And the way is open for anyone involved to throw out their ideas, and ne knowledge can be created.

In some instances, child does know better than parent, especially when it comes to what is going on in hir own mind and body.

Quoting Paulab52 again:

"Take of your PJ's and get dressed so we can go out."

How about asking if anyone wants to go out? Including everyone in making the plan, get ideas about where to go. A parent can outline the things that they want to do, and see what others want to do , and they can work out a plan to get it all done, keeping in mind along the way that preferences change, and the plan could change at any time, as well. Flexibility is a virtue!









If a parent has a great theory about why the family should all get dressed and go out to do many interesting things, the kids might very well be willing to get dressed and get on with doing the many interesting things. If they are being forced to get dressed when they don't want to, to do things they don't want to do, I can understand the avoidance tactics. Maybe some kids want to go in their jammies. Maybe some would rather stay home with a babysitter or relative or go to the neighbor's while the rest of the family goes out. Maybe they would rather go out in the afternoon than in the morning. Maybe they'd like to stay home all day and have friends visit. EAch person has their own idea about what they want to do, and to ignore that and push one's own agenda upon unwilling people is wrong, whether it is parent and child or boss and employee or government and citizen--- ok, I'm getting off track







TCS is about the relationship between parent and child (though there are other lists that talk about the further implications of TCS theory).

" They aren't doing anything, so having to stop isn't a problem."

This is totally an assumption, and quite likely to be wrong and is anyway disrespectful. Check out the college PhD professor in hir office, feet up on the desk, gazing out the window. Doing nothing? Probably not! I would prefer to err on the side of assuming that any person is doing something (in their mind), whether or not I can tell what that is from observing them. And that whatever they are doing is very important to them, and I will tentatively ask to be excused, and is this a good time to talk about something? Or will you let me know when it is a good time?

"They just sit there and ingore me, or go the opposite direction from the bedroom."

Sometimes when people think they are being ignored, they actually have not been heard because the person is busy concentrating on something else. This happens to me, when I am busy thinking about something, and I have observed it happening in others. Again, assumptions can get in the way of treating people respectfully.

If a parent does a lot of controling of things that are not their business- things that any autonomous person should have control of their own self, like when to get dressed and what to put on, when and what to eat, when to sleep, and so on, then I can see where the victims of the intended control might try to avoid that controller.

" I have to ask them several times to come and get dressed. Then we have the whole clothing issues... "

How to change this situation? I think a parent has to become convinced in their own mind that coercion is not right. It is not about results, about finding a method of dealing with children that 'works' so as to produce an obedient child or any other sort of child product. TCS is a philosophy about how to live together in a family non-coercively. It is about the right way to treat people. About non-coercive ways to resolve conflict. About how people learn.

A parent who wants to change the way they interact with their children so that they are dealing with each other non-coercively, would want to apologize to their children for all the coercion they have so far visited upon them. They could explain that they are trying to change their ways, and this is a process, this learning how to live together and solve problems that arise in a non-coercive way, and enlist the children's help in identifying coercion as it happens and then in finding common preferences when conflict does arise. And they would continue to apologize for using coercion, when they fail to find non-coercive solutions, and talk about the failures and figure out better ways for the next situation.

Respect. "Can you buckle your seat belt, or would you like help?' 'If you get tired of carrying your toy, I'll put it in my pocket so you don't lose it' 'If you take your toy into this store, they might think you didn't pay for it when you leave, because they sell that toy here, and we don't want to have to pay for it again! So maybe it should stay safely in the car? What do you think?' 'How about if we tie a string around the toy and the other end onto your beltloop, so you can't just put it down and forget about it and leave it?'

Food is a huge issue that we all have problems with, I daresay. How can we not pass on our poor food theories? That is an issue for another thread, methinks.

If a parent doesn't trust their young child around streets and traffic, the child might need lots more information. Examining road kill when one runs across it







(I'm not saying literally run across it) can be very instructional though only if the child wants to look at it. Taking a plastic bottle and putting water in it (maybe even color it with food coloring) and parent and child can watch as someone drives a car over it and see what happens to it and talking about these things can help a small child understand about the danger. Ask child how they would like parent to help them stay safe, in case they forget when running around or chasing a ball. A fence between yard and street might be a good idea. Child might be happy to play in back when understanding about these dangers. The solutions will be different for every parent-child relationship depending upon their dynamics and experiences, and the solutions will change frequently too, I'll bet. Flexibility and creativity.

HOpe something here helps, for starters.


----------



## larsy

Also, anyone wanting to think about how they talk to their kids and wanting to change it- there was an excellent thread on the TCS list maybe sometime last summer, I think, by the subject name 'changing our language habits' that gave great examples and analysis of the power of language and how we talk to kids. I recommend joining the TCS list and getting the archives, if you are interested in learning more about this.


----------



## mama joy

Linda in Arizona,
I'm with you. I'm picking my own shoes out, my own meals, my own whatever, because it has to do with me. I don't mind allowing my son to do the same for himself. It seems to me that allowing my son to coerce me teaches him that what he wants is more important than what others want. By not being coercive, I'm teaching him that each individual should have control over their own life. If I do whatever he says, then I am teaching him that he has control over my life. I assume he will transfer that to others also. Little dictator is a good description of that person I imagine him becoming.
Has anyone read Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training? I love that book because it talks about working together to meet everyone's needs. Using consensus rather than coercion. That's what I am trying to achieve.


----------



## larsy

Linda in Arizona wrote:

"I'm not interested in raising little pint size dictators who think that want they want is MORE important than what other people want. I am working to raise my kids to know that what they want is AS important as what other people want. "

Er, right, the dictators who think that what they want is more important than what other people want are, uh, parents!









So, does a child have the same responsibility to meet a stranger's need as to meet their own?

echoing that sentiment is mama joy:

"I'm picking my own shoes out, my own meals, my own whatever, because it has to do with me. I don't mind allowing my son to do the same for himself. "

And if a parent did mind 'allowing' their child to choose their own clothes, food, etc, then...tough, eh? Kids don't have any inherent rights? And if the child chooses food or clothing or ways of spending their time that the parent does not agree with? What then?

The language of 'allowing' exposes where the power lies in the parent-child relationship- with the parent, of course. That is the conventional, society-sanctioned way.

Parents have a unique responsibility in the relationship with their child/ren. They are responsible for their children's existence, in the deepest sense. So it is also their responsibility to help their child/ren to grow and learn about their world. The parents have the access to the world, the ability to access the resources of the world, along with having the experience and knowledge of how to operate in the world, so if the parents are not willing to lay their knowledge and access and experience at the feet of their child in order to help the child get what they want in life, the child is stuck with being dependent upon the good graces of what their parent will 'allow' them.

Kids are not able to go out and get their own red or white or black shoes. If they want the red ones, and the parent will only allow the white ones, the child's autonomy suffers and coercion wins the day.

If it is not right for child to tell parent what color shoes to wear, it is not right for parent to tell child what color shoes to wear.

I agree that children's preferences are every bit as important as the parent's preferences. Finding common preferences is a great conflict resolution skill that helps each person involved get their needs respected and met. But there are some things that the decision is really up to the child and a parent should stay out of, beyond offering advice if it is wanted. What goes on or in a person's body, and what is done to one's body, is all morally within that person's right to say. No matter what their age.


----------



## mama joy

Larsy
Maybe you misunderstood me, but I don't interfere with my son's choices for himself. He just doesn't make decisions for me.


----------



## simonee

Thanks everybody, for turning this into such an interesting discussion. When I started the thread, my concerns were pretty much what Mama Joy and Linda in AZ have been writing. However, as Larsy's and Alexander's responses kept coming in, I have really started to reconsider these concerns.

I think that my child knows I'm different from other people (I'd sure hope so







). When she "dictates" what shoes she wants me to wear, that doesn't mean she'll do that with other people, too. Also, she has only made "comments" about my shoes a few times. It's not an everyday thing. I know she's influenced my shoe choice MUCH less often than the other way around! If she chooses her own shoes five times a week, because that's the only times she cares, the other two days she just lives with my choice. I get to choose my own shoes about 29 times a month, and I don't feel that I'm raising a dictator if I acknowledge her wishes that one other time.

Even then, she's not "making my decisions." She tells me what she wants, and I honor and respect that. If it freezes, I'm not going to "let her decide" that I should go barefoot. I'd try to explain to her why that's not an option, and I'm pretty sure we'd arrive at an agreement. And yes, if necessary I'd give her a choice between my red and black shoes, ignoring the strappy sandals for that day.

Hey, if I wear the very-unmatching shoes, at least people will have something else to look at while we're bf in public!


----------



## m&m

just want to add my comments to the mix









After taking child development classes for several years, I learned that children go through stages - some regardless of parenting styles.

For example tantrums due to frustrations at 18months to 5 yrs
tantrums due to control issues from 2-4 years
calling everything mine or ownership issues from 3-7 years
privacy issues from 5-19 years
etc.

Knowing this, I know that my style of parenting will not determine IF tantrums happen, but how they get resolved.







That is what is important after all.

And if you have a bad day and get upset and raise your voice, then apologize and that in itself is also a learning example for your child.

I believe in teaching my children respect, but they due must be respected.







respect does not mean spoil -


----------



## Heavenly

Well I practice AP but not TCS (a little too lax for my liking!) and I do not think it's a luxury. I am a SAHM, yes, but we do not have a high income at all. My husband makes 31000 a year and we have a mortgage and two vehicles. You do the math!







AP is the easier way to parent in the long run I think, at least if you TRULY want whats best for your children. How can anyone truly think spanking and yelling is best for their children? Sure it's a knee-jerk reaction (emphasis on the the jerk) but it isn't best. How does it take more time to hug your child and say "I realize you really wanted that toy but someome else is playing with it right now. Why don't we find you something just as nice to play with?" That is easier IMO than smacking the kid for grabbing a toy. In the long run detachment parenting costs you more time as your kids end up with discipline problems and many other problems. So you end up having to take time off work to go to teacher's conferences and you can't get the house clean because the kids are little hellions who won't listen to you. Nope AP isn't a luxury, I think the other is a luxury - the luxury of sounding off and acting like a child yourself whenever you feel like it. It's time to grow up people!


----------



## Linda in Arizona

Heavenly, I love your post! I, too, think that in the long run it is much easier this way. I think it is sort of funny (and sort of sad) when people tell me I can "get away" with postive discipline because my kids are so "easy." It is much easier to parent kids who know they are unconditionally loved and who feel good about themselves.


----------



## sugarmama

larsy,
is it possible to get the archives without being on the TCS list? or can i access them from the babies toddlers list that i am on? i didn't like sorting through the many messages of the TCS list and am reluctant to sign up again.
thanks,
sugar


----------



## Linda in Arizona

If you are happy having your child tell you what to wear and that is what feels right to you, then you should do so.

I have 2 kids, so if I let them decide what other people got to wear, they could argue about what I wear and agrue about what they other one wears. This would just be a silly waste of time, add a great deal of stress to our days, and we would most likely never be able to leave the house again.







So we all pick out our own clothes.

On things that affect all of us (to go to park or stay home, which board game to play, what book to read next), we talk about it and come to an agreement. Considering that when my kids have a conflict between themselves, they can usually talk it out and figure out something that works for both of them, you'll have to excuse me if I think that I'm doing is working just fine.


----------



## sugarmama

Heavenly,
it's funny, i agree with all you said except for paranthetically when you said TCS was "too lax". i just wanted to defend TCS parents. they are generally respectful and always there with their children to advise and help their children to get what they want......i have been reading about this recently.....it seems that TCS often gets confused with "laissez-faire" parenting, and that is really not the case. do you feel that children need to be coerced in order for their parents to be truly present?
curious,
sugarmama


----------



## simonee

Thanks Linda,

I truly believe you're doing a great job. Your kids reaching an agreement on video vs. PBS sounded excellent.

I think agreements are what we all strive for in our homes - agreements on my shoe color, dd's diaper change, and where we go at what time.

I just really love input. I love it from dd when I'm putting on shoes, and from all those other mamas and daddies when I read or write on these boards!

Simone


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

_Originally posted by Paulab52_
*Larsy or anyone, can you help me out....
snip
please don't slam me. I'm truely interested in your opinion. I've read the website, but I'm confused.
TIA*
No-one is going to slam you. This is all about "non-coersion"!!!









But anyway. How old are your kids? How many of them. Who is the worst, and what really pisses you off?
Good examples though. I can get back to you when I have more details.

Can you give more examples? That would give more meat to give a flavor in the answers









a


----------



## Alexander

Ok. I have an admission to make!

Until I met larcy (as suzan), I had never heard of TCS either! In fact, I have not even checked past the first page on their site!

The reason for this is that is that larsy's view on these boards so intersects with mine (though the orogine is different) that I take it as read that I'll intersect with most of www.tcs.ac/

The ax I grind is for a simple humanity and the defence of a child's voice and world view that is little understood, because we as adults take our own W/V so much for granted.

Having admitted all that,







I will always try to back up my "fly by the seat of my pants" style parenting with logic and _fairness_.

Fairness.

That concept turns out to be a peculiarity of English culture that is still found and practiced in counties that have found their own democratic roots in English common law.

It's a rare and precious thing, easily lost it seems to me, and in a way, we have a duty both as parents and as fellow humans to those yet unborne, to encourage a cradle able to hold all that is best about humanity such that they can move beyond us, and the mayhem we find in the world.

Sorry.







I find myself explaining what drives me instead of answering the post. Now I'm out of time and have to put the babe to bed and get back to work!!!

I'll catch this thread later though.

a


----------



## paula_bear

I think that parents in "lower" socio-economic strata may be less likely to come across AP and TCS information. For example, I saw my first issue of Mothering in the health food store. With my first child, I read more mainstream magazines and those formula-sponsored rags in the OB/GYN waiting room. So unless one is fortunate enough to have had a gentle upbringing, one may not even consider the principles of AP and TCS. However, OTOH, in many developing countries, breastfeeding, feeding-on-cue and cosleeping are the norm and children are treated gently and valued very highly. I think a mother's love is universal, but that is not to say that societal norms don't "mess with it."

As far as putting these principles into action goes, I sometimes agree that stress is a big factor. Despite unbelievable financial pressures since the birth of my daughter, I have tried my best to put AP into practice. At times I envision myself parenting much better, if only all the other problems would just vanish! I guess it all comes down to 1) AWARENESS and 2) the decision to make an honest effort to put that awareness into action.

Hopefully I haven't strayed TOO far off the topic here.


----------



## larsy

I don't think of TCS as a luxury, but as a necessity. Certainly, survival is a priority, but even as we are hauling water and picking berries and grinding the corn, we are interacting with our children and how we interact is the issue. We are not living on a tribal level, where survival has been linked to strict tradition. We are living in a society where problems are solved by creativity. Being able to think clearly and learn are essential. Coercion gets in the way of thinking clearly and learning, so non-coercive relationships are optimal at this point in our evolution, imo.

Check out the movie 'It's a Beautiful Life' - I'm pretty sure that is the name of it, an Italian film about a guy and his son in a WWII concentration camp, and how this guy keeps his kid safe, using great creativity. It's a great flick, thought provoking. Talk about optimism in the face of difficult life situations!

Erika wrote:

"From this experience I wonder whether authoritarian/punitive parenting is really a function of time and stress rather than attitude toward children."

Oh, no, I think it is first and foremost an *attitude* or a paradigm, one's vision of the world and how best to get what one wants in the world. When a person approaches life from a TCS point of view (I'll talk about TCS, as I don't think that AP is a coherent philosophy that excludes authoritarian beliefs), the problems of time and stress are assumed to have a solution- not that figuring out the solution is easy, but it is out there and can be found. I think the TCS paradigm opens a person to a larger pool of solutions.

"Certainly there is a component of learned behavior - we tend to parent the way we were parented unless we make an effort to change. But is it possible to AP/TCS if you are a single parent working two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet - or two parents in the same situation - or a homeless mom trying to figure out how to get shelter and food for her family? Don't AP and TCS take a certain amount of creativity and time? "

Yes. In the midst of the time restraints and the frustrations and worries, a parent can become aware of the elements fo the situations that are causing problems- maybe, just little ones- and finding solutions for those problems opens the way to finding solutions to larger ones.

If a single parent is working two jobs, they can still be on their child's side in life. They can work together to figure out how they can get what they want, and help each other. If child doesn't like their childcare arrangements, others can be researched and a better situation found. The more people they can talk to and get ideas from on how to solve problems, the better. The single parent can take hirself seriously, and hir child/ren. They can define their wants and needs, and lay out their resources of time and money and earning power and people available to help, and keep looking for common preferences. If they don't like the way their life is right now, they can identify the things they want to change, and keep working on finding ways to change those things. I've heard it said that by changing just one little thing, great things can happen.


----------



## larsy

Eek, ack, er... I'd just like to say a word about privacy. Part of TCS is taking people's privacy seriously. When people post personal details about their children to a public list that thousands of people (at least) have access to, it is a gross violation of the children's privacy. It is one thing for a parent to post anything they want about their own self- they have the right to do so. But to post such details that a child would be able to recognize their self if they read it (and it is a distinct possibility that archived posts would be available to anyone including the children in the future) and feel embarrassed and violated and no small amount of coercion- I see that as a violation of privacy as well as contributing to the objectification of children in parent's minds.

I realize this is not a mainstream view, that parents are used to talking about children like possessions, without regards to the child's right to privacy, but this is the wrong thing to do. Isn't there something in the posting guidelines or mission statement or whatever they call it for this website, about not posting information that violates people's privacy? I see that guideline being violated constantly on this board.

So, Alexander, when you ask for more details, I must protest. It is not necessary to discuss any particular child's life on a public board. I urge posters here to think about writing hypothetically, and not embarrassing their children. Even if a kid says, yeah, sure, you can write about that, they might change their mind about that in a minute or a day or a year, and there it will be.

Part of taking children seriously is not violating their privacy on a public board. (did I mention that already?)


----------



## larsy

sugarmama,

You could subscribe to the TCS and set yourself to nomail so that you don't get the daily posts- or you could just get a digest. I think you could still access the archives even if you are set nomail (I could be wrong about that, but you could try it and see!)


----------



## erika

Thank you all for your responses!

It has been very helpful to me to read the different opinions on this issue. Besides bringing this up as a discussion/debate topic, I also had a specific agenda here - trying to figure out what happened to ME and why I melted down under pressure.

I think several points that have been made were particularly relevant to my situation - 1) I realize now that I don't deal with stress well, and 2) it is an attitude problem.

It was hard for me to figure this out because AP was so easy when dd was young even though we were under incredible stress - living on $10,000/year. So why now that we are homeowners living a comfortable existence did I melt down? At first I attributed it to the stress of feeling very ill, etc, but now I think that's where attitude came in.. AP was easy for me while dd was under 3, because I never believed it possible for children that age to "misbehave" - I didn't consider tantrum-type behavior or other baby/toddler stuff "misbehavior" and thus I never felt the need to resort to punishment. But I think my view of her changed once she could legitimately challenge my agenda.

But there is still one detail that links this stuff to middle class existence in my mind: we had never owned a car before, but after the new baby arrived, I was really breaking under the strain of getting the older child to walk to doctor's appointments, grocery stores, or even home from friend's houses, at a pace that exceeded .5 mile/hour. Quite honestly, all of the ugly moments I had were about getting her to walk somewhere we needed to go (such as an appointment, or home for supper, or to buy food so there would actually be some when we got home) when she didn't feel like going (yes, coercion). I thought if we had been hunter/gatherers she could have straggled behind and then run to catch up when she was ready, but with modern roads etc it just wasn't a safe option. So we got a car and my life became magically easier in many regards. I would argue that it's a lot easier to run errands or get to appointments without coercion using a car than it is to do it all on foot....

or do you think I'm setting up a straw person here?


----------



## pie

We have been cooped up for days as every time I tell DS it's time for our walk or time to go to the beach, park etc. he says 'no' and runs off. Later he'll come up and say 'to beets' which means let's go to the beach I'll say 'Great! Let's get you all dressed and ready to go.' Well, then he tells me no again. I really like to get out and so does he but he hates to get dressed. Once we are out the door he's fine but the fits he has when I am trying to help him get ready are not worth it almost. I don't want to force him to go but on the other hand he needs some encouragement to get going... I know this is a small problem and will pass wtime but I don't really know how to handle getting ready to go somewhere w out totally overpowering him. Any advice? I let him choose to stay in when I can but we do have to leave the house from time to time!


----------



## larsy

Erika, you have put your finger on what I think is a weak point of AP. Once the baby grows up and demonstrates that they have their own agenda, what happens to meeting children's needs? Coercion usually rules the day. TCS seemed like a natural extension, the theory to help with that problem of AP, when I first ran across it. It fills in the blanks.

Gosh, I'd like to say more, but havoc is breaking around me.


----------



## marymom

larcy, what do you mean we arent living on a tribal level? Who is WE, us here? well ok maybe wee arent but...
It is my opinion that tribal survival is exactly how in fact many americans live, maybe not the majority, certainly not us as we sit typing on our computers, but many are- and for them....AP or TCS would be a luxury, not neccessareily bourne of economics but if socioeconomics indicate general stresss and education levels which we know they do- the rest figures in...so ladies, I must say I adamently believe that there are many practically impovershed families who practice AP and TCS(altho none with 2 vehicles and a mortgage as someone above mentioned would qualify in my humble opinion as being econimically challenged) but MOST of them are FAr far far from the majority and for the most part it is a luxury ,a blessing to be able to parent like this, and I am greatful for the luxury- and I will look upon my parenting values AS luxuries that I may be able to share with others not so lucky by lovingly offering examples and most of all by doing what I do around those who may not do the same that they may see it and see its benifets because as you have all pointed out it is much more economical in the long run anyways monitarily,time wise etc etc


----------



## Mommy22B

We are going through the exact thing with our dd. How old is yours? Just thepast few days she will have a fit when we try to dress her. She loves going out but hates the getting ready.
She has been sick so we have mostly been letting her stay home. If we absolutely have to go out we will try to make the dressing quick fun and painless. i am hoping this passes soon!
Beth


----------



## pie

Exactly. Jackson is 2.5 and was sick last week and is also cutting those last few molars. It is awful! I mean, he has much happier days when we go outside a lot. We have both been pretty much not ourselves. I am taking the oppurtunity to wrestle and play with dough and paints and such but the thing is that we need fresh air and I do not want to MAKE him get dressed. I want to help him. It's different now that he's older: he is not easily distracted. Any of you more experienced moms have suggestions?


----------



## pie

Treelove, you are a love. I never thought to surprise him! I bet that would really help. Here I am trying to be all respectful when it is his developmental nature at this point to oppose me and make decisions. Not that I still can't be respectful, I guess I just need to be more playful and think on his level. Ooh, we have LLL party at ten...I can't wait to try it. Though I've tried the sneaky approach to baths and that doesn't help...any advice there?


----------



## Linda in Arizona

the car thing...

There have been times that I have been very coersive re: car seats and holding hands in parking lots.


----------



## peacemama

I have to admit that while those really important safety issues tend to lead to what some here call "coersion" (though I don't agree with the term), I have tried the alternative. For example, dd doesn't want to hold my hand in a parking lot (this happens often). If I take her over to a safe spot, get down on her level, and say something like this:

Me: Sweetie, do you see all these cars driving around?

DD: Yes.

Me: What do you think might happen if you ran ahead of me with all these cars moving around?

DD: Maybe I could get hurt.

Me: What do you think we should do to stay safe?

DD: (proudly) Hold Mommy's hand!

Me: What a good idea! Let's hold hands so we stay safe.

I know, I know, it sounds like I made this up, but it really does work that well. Of course, having a verbal child makes a big difference - I don't know what I'd do with an 18 month old other than just carry her!

Of course, I don't always think to do this, and if I'm rushed, I'm even less likely to use this approach. The knee-jerk reaction is to just give the rule and grab the hand, even if she complains. But I've been doing it more and more, and it's becoming more of a natural response, because it's self-reinforcing. Not only does it work, but we both feel better because we've had a positive interaction rather than a negative one, she's proud of herself for coming up with a solution and feels good that I treated her so respectfully.

In my neverending quest for peace in my life (hence the name







), I really try to get to the end of each day feeling like dd and I had mostly positive interactions. Doing things this way really helps keep the peace. It takes a little extra time, but you know what? Time isn't nearly as important as we all think!


----------



## peacemama

Ever try using humor to get him dressed? When dd doesn't want to put on her coat, I'll sometimes say, okay, I'm going to put on my coat, and then very seriously try to put on HER coat and act all confused about why it doesn't fit. (Can you picture this? Do I look like the world's biggest idiot? Then you're picturing it correctly!







) She'll usually say, "No, Mommy, that's MY coat!!!" and then all I have to do is laugh, act sheepish, put on my own and then she puts on hers. Hey, she may grow up thinking mom's got a low I.Q. but at least we get out of the house


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

_Originally posted by larsy_
*

Eek, ack, er... I'd just like to say a word about privacy.
such details that a child would be able to recognize their self if they read it (and it is a distinct possibility that archived posts would be available to anyone including the children in the future) and feel embarrassed and violated and no small amount of coercion-

So, Alexander, when you ask for more details, I must protest.*
larcy, the more you post, the more I love it.







So I will start to think about a mechanism to prevent this type of problem.

And your notification about this subject comes not a moment too soon. Other members on this board have PMed me about related subjects, and I have requested permision to some to allow me to use the resulting interactions asseeds for threads.

So for these, and all future posts, I will be editing in a manor that will present the private discussions in an anonomous "Doe" format.

If I err, please let me know so that I may make the appropriate edits.

Thanks again.

a


----------



## Paulab52

Thanks everyone for your replies. Larsey, you've given me a lot to think about. I've been trying to be concious of the things I say to the kids. A lot of what you say makes sense, but in a way I think it's crazy because my kids are under 5. How much of "reasoning" do they understand?

I'm just so frustrated at myself right now. Yesterday was a COMPLETE failure. If anyone was to get Worse Mother of the Year award, it would go to me for my behavior yesterday.

I look forward to many more of your TCS posts. I'll keep posting about situtations and how different things can be avoided.

Thanks again everyone.


----------



## larsy

How about wearing comfortable clothes 'round the clock, that can go out or stay in? i'm thinking of cotton knits, sweat clothes, stuff like that.

It seems likely to me that there is something about 'telling' a child that it is time to do this or that, that is offensive/disrespectful to the child. Is this how a parent would present the idea of going out to a fun place to an adult friend? A person of any age might agree to going somewhere, and change their mind about it as the time to go gets closer and they realize that they are more interested in continuing what they are doing, or they just don't want to go, or whatever.

A parent can ask the child/ren for ideas of what they would like to do now/today, and engage in everyone throwing out ideas, considering them until they hit upon one that everyone is happy with, and then do it. If a parent offers an idea tentatively- ' I feel like going to the beach today, what do you feel like doing?'- there is room for child/ren to offer their ideas. Some days, ime, common preferences are easy to come by; other days, it can take awhile or creativity can be lacking and it seems impossible. At those times, it is better for parent to back off and help child get what they want, and to keep thinking and exploring to find the common preference. It is parent's responsibility to back off at these times, because the parent is responsible for the situation in the first place. parent brought child into existence, and so is bound to help child to learn and grow and get what they want in life.

Likewise, giving a child space in which to decide when they want to change clothes and what clothes to change into, supports their autonomy and bolsters the parent's position as trusted advisor, ready and willing to help child. IME, little kids don't need daily bathing (except maybe for some parts of them, which they might consent to when given the space and information- some of which they might need to experience in order to understand about, just like a lot of adults) or even clothes changing (when clothes get trashed, children are often willing to change- some insist upon it!- but parent might need to be willing to re-examine their theories that a food spill or a dirty face is grounds for coercion).

Every person has the right of consent about what goes in and on their body and what is done to their body. This is what makes it right for children to tell anyone a resounding 'no' if they don't want to be touched in any way, be it a parent, sibling, doctor, pedophile. Empower children to understand and claim their rightful autonomy. That probably means figuring out different ways of relating to a child, then the conventional parenting-expert route.

HOpe something here helps







Best wishes!


----------



## larsy

Don't mistake lack of experience and information and knowledge for lack of the ability to reason! Coercion will confuse a person so that they become irrational- look at any adult! we all have our areas of irrational confusion, and I trace it back to coercion around these areas- but I think that human beings start out rational, though needing help to negotiate the world and learn about it.

Also, take yourself seriously! Take care of and be kind and respectful to yourself, too. You have a lot of company in feeling like a failure and having bad days. I joined you there a couple of days ago! Apologize and go on, asking the kids for help in identifying coercion and in finding solutions. We all fail at finding common preferences, at avoiding coercion, at opening our minds and having ideas. *This does not mean that we are failures!* We each have a lot of strong points, and we are changing our thinking and learning new skills. Of course we are going to make mistakes along the way! That is how we learn.

It took me months to even be able to broach the subject of coercion with my family. I really had to absorb and learn about it on my own. I had to deal with my own anger at how I had been treated as a child- and I did not have a horrible childhood, but a 'normally' coercive one. It took years before I felt like I understood much about TCS at all, and longer to be able to articulate the theory. It is an exciting, frustrating, painful, exhilirating, worthwhile, life-long process.


----------



## pie

Hi Larsy, I've read a lot of your posts with great interest.I agree with you that making a giant issue out of a bath or getting dressed id not effective parenting. My only question is how do I include my ds, who not only has limited verbal skilss **** at 28 mos. but also completely and totally ignores me when I try to talk to him half the time, in real decision making? I would love to, and try the would you like pancakes or toast, a bath or a wiping, markers or sandplay, what would you like to do approach but usually he doesn't say anything at all! How does your method of parenting apply to toddlers who are still such little babies yet also big boys and girls? It's like he's fighting to stay a baby and fighting to grow up. I'll let him be a baby or grow up, or both, I love everything about him, I just don't understand how to deal with him. He is not very rational by my standards at this point in time. Additionally, I can really feel him growing a little more detatched in the past month or so and I'm wondering ig this is a normal part of growing away from your mom to gain independence. One more thing, he gets so mad whenever I try to read, make up stories for or especially sing to him and always has. He lets me tell him the names of things in his books and what they are doing, but not read. It makes me so sad because I always looked so forward to that part of mothering. I mean, I know it's his deal and it doesn't matter, it just bothers me. Anyone else have a baby who doesn't want to be sung and read too? thanks.


----------



## Lucy

Larsy, I am curious about this too. Do you mean to say that a child should not even be told he needs to brush his teeth, or wash his hands after going potty? This seems extreme to me. I am all for giving dd choices, within a certain framework though. For instance, yes she dresses herself, picks completely inappropriate things, but who cares, right? I mean the other day she wore underwear as a hat lol! Anyway, she just came out from the bathroom, where I knew she didn't wash her hands, and she told me she didn't want to. Now we learned abt germs, did some fun handwashing experiment s in the past, where we learned how hard it is to get germs off, ect, so she knows intellectually the importance of washing hands. However she would not do it untill I told her, "Yes yoiu need to do that now"

Brushing teeth at night is the same thing. She doesn't like it at all. Her choice would be not to do it. Isn't it my responsibility to see that these basic standards of care are being met?

Just curious Larsy. Trying to understand...

Mamapie, st I think its ok to just go without getting "ready" Just take the clothes in the car, and get dressed when you get where you are going, or just go as he is. It seems like he wants to go, he just doesn't want to do the dressing ect.


----------



## pie

Lucy, funny you say that. We brought the clothes to the park the other day (well, shirt and shoes) but ds, let me expain, is strong as a bull, weighs in at 36 ibs at 2.5 yrs and didn't want his shoes and shirt on...he wanted to play right now!!! I almost dropped him on his head that day. I don't want to "beat" him into submission but want to teach him how rewarding a little cooporation can be.







:


----------



## Lucy

Mamapie, that is so funny that you had just tried that. I know exactly what you mean. St it feels like dd makes absolutely no concessions, its either her way or the highway!


----------



## Jish

Lucy,
When you say that the child intellectually knows the importance of hand washing I think that you are giving them too much credit. I too find myself assuming that my three and a half year old ds is on a higher level than he is, and expecting more from him than he is developmentally ready to handle. Things like germs are concept, not a tactile reality that they can touch, and most toddlers and preschoolers are not ready for the abstract. The whole idea that we should give our children a choice in things like personal hygene really bothers me. It is our job to raise our children to be responsible caring adults, and how responsible and caring is it to spread fecal contamination and who knows what other germs and illness to others, including the elderly and those with health issues.

Although they may be the center of our universe, our children are not the center of the universe to anyone else. Giving them too many choices or giving choices where choices are not due creates children who are selfish and self-centered. These children have a very hard time adjusting to life in the real world with others. After all, the school districts and the business world are not going to cater to our children's wants and whims. Years of working with children in a variety of settings has taught me this, and I work hard to ensure that my sons thrive as individuals, but who respect the needs and rights of those around them.

Lucy, this really isn't directed to you, so please, don't take it personally, but I saw the word "intellectually" and connected it with my preschooler and had to laugh.

Beth


----------



## Jish

Linda,

Thank goodness you posted. I was beginning to think I was the only one here who didn't let my children run my family.

Beth


----------



## larsy

Lucy wrote:

"St it feels like dd makes absolutely no concessions, its either her way or the highway!"

I suspect that this is the way it is for kids- parent's way or no way at all. And the kids don't have a choice, dependent as they are on parents for shelter and food and love and life.

Why can't a kid play at a park without shoes and shirt? I see this all the time. If child feels cold or wants protection for feet if walking on stones or whatever hurts, parent has the clothes for hir to put on.

As lovely as working together towards mutual ends can be, cooperation cannot be forced (sorry if I'm stating the obvious







). Figuring out what each person wants, and finding a way for both/all to get that, helps everyone feel respected and valued and imo will make each problem-solving situation more likely to be a cooperative experience. People will want to participate, when they know that their wants/needs are going to be considered on an equal footing as everyone else's, regardless of age or power.

Learning to act in one's own best interest is a powerful motivating factor in life, and the best interests in which to act, imo. A person must see the sense of washing hands and brushing teeth. It is not necessarily true that if a person does not wash their hands after using the toilet or brush their teeth every time they eat, they will suffer dire consequences. Parents likely follow these routines, and talk about why they do so with their children as they grow. Children like to imitate, and so practice doing these things in their own way, in their own time. By forcing the issue, I think a parent does more harm than good. It is possible to convince a child that washing hands at appropriate times and brushing teeth are in their own best self interest, and to do so non-coercively.

If a child doesn't want to wash their hands, and the parent is totally grossed out by this, this is the parent's problem, not the child's. A parent can recognize this, and work on improving their theories- but in the meantime, they might be able to find some fun involvement with water and soap in the kitchen or the back yard that would satisfy the parent and child.

The teeth thing- believe me, I've had huge issues with this. In researching, I've come upon a lot of information about stuff like decay in baby teeth not needing to be treated necessarily, but watched in combination with as much cleaning as possible and offering such foods as actually help clean teeth and adjust the PH balance of the mouth to discourage cavity formation (like cheddar cheese) and chew sugarless gum and swish out a mouth with water. It seems that it is the luck of the draw, to a large extent; some people can eat lots of sugar and hardly clean their teeth and still not get cavities, whereas others can clean their teeth scrupulously and avoid sugar and still get cavities.

Lucy again:" However she would not do it untill I told her, "Yes yoiu need to do that now" "

So the message is, even though you don't want to, you have to anyhow... because why? Because children have to learn that there are things they have to do whether they want to or not? I think we are agreed that it is a good idea to wash at certain times, but how to convince a child and respect their autonomy? What if a parent responds to a child who doesn't want to do something, "I think you are making a mistake. There are good reasons for doing X. Do you want to know what they are?" "It is your body and it is up to you how you take care of it. Do you want to take the chance of transferring bathroom germs to your mouth and maybe getting sick? Or to someone else?" and launch into a story about Typhoid Mary







Child might listen to this from parent, if they are accustomed to getting good information from parent, and be persuaded. Or they might just want to go do what they want to do and be left alone. Shouldn't that be respected? If a child is forced, and builds up resentment and faulty theories, arent' they likely to not wash/brush at times when they can get away with that? When they do avoid doing what parent wants them to do, they are not getting the benefit of the washing/brushing, just as they don't get the benefit if they decide on their own not to do it, on occasion, and that is respected. If not coerced, they can continue to learn and think about it, and are likely to reach a place where they are glad to do the washing/brushing because it make sense to them. They will not be 40 yr old adults, forcing their selves to wash/brush with a bad feeling in their minds; they will feel good about taking good care of their selves.

Does this make sense?


----------



## pie

First, jbcmom, I love what you said about children being the center of the universe. My sil's son beats and bites the holy hell out of my son, who is a year younger than her son's 3.5. Anyway, she really doesn't tell him not to hurt other kids. She just goes, oh baby, that's not nice. I am a lot stronger in my objections to my son being violent with other kids, although he hits me when he wants me to stop singing or talking and I'm a big softie about that. As a result, ds really is quite gentle, especially to samller children. Anyway, one day I was tellimg my sil that some people think that their children are more vital to the world than anyone else's and that only your world revolves around your child and you can't expect your neighbor's to. She said,"Oh, I disagree. My baby is the most important thing in the world and the whole world does revolve around him." I was like,"Oh, to you?" And she, in all seriousness, said,"No. I firmly believe he is more importamt than everyone. I don't need to worry about anyone else." I thought that was a really selfish and dangerous attitude.

Larsy, I am beginning to get the concept of non-coersion, however I find the extreme to which you believe in it a little impractical. That is not a dig at you, I am just letting you know how far my understanding of your views goes. I will reiterate that I want to find a way not to force Jackson to do things, but sometimes we have somewhere to go and he has a poopy diaper and no other clothes on and I have to get him dressed. Period. He is not quite up to understanding the reason, and I wish I could just let him run totally wild, and I do AMAP. However, sometimes he, for example, picked up a big dog turd and then turns around and wants another cracker. Guess what? I HAVE to wash his hands. I have no idea how you practically handle situations where it is impossible to cater more to your child's autonomy than to the reality of the situation. How do I change his clothes or wash his hands without stepping on his toes? Because as an adult, there will eventually be situations requiring compromise and I don't want him to remember me overpowering him and thus be afraid of or resentful toward things that life simply requires. I deeply appreciate anyone and everyone's input because I think the situation is bigger than it looks. I mean, a friend said she thinks he is oppositional! To me that is a handy pop psychology catch all term, but he does not like to do anything I need him to do. He is only 2.5, and that comes w the territory but I want to smooth out the situation as it is serious to us both.


----------



## Lucy

jbcjmom, I wasn't advocating what you were talking abt at all. I also agree with you that things like handwashing aren't issues up for discussion. When I said dd knew intellectually, what I meant was that we spent a while learning abt germs while studying Madeline. We coated our hands in vaseline, and sprinkled pepper on them, and then tried to wash it all off. It was hard to get off, which led to a discussion abt how we must wash hands properly ect. , germs like to stick to us.

Anyway, Larcy when I said its her way or the highway st, I was commisserating with mamapie. And no, its not my way or the highway in this household. Some issues are health and safety related. I should have added, we were fixing food at the time, hands needed to be washed. Shoes at a playground are necessary. Atleast where I live, there may be glass or st . There are things we do to keep our kids safe. Abt the teeth, I think it would be more traumatic for her to undergo a dental procedure than to simply brush her teeth once or twice a day with pretty pink toothpaste and a musical toothbrush!

I am going to bow out here, bc I want this thread to be helpful for mampie, I don't want to sidetrack it. I just wanted to respond.


----------



## pie

Hey, Lucy, come back! You aren't sidetracking a thing. I learn best when I hear lots of different viewpoints and I liked what you said.


----------



## Lucy

Thanks mamapie, you're so sweet! I was afraid I was distracting from your original ?.


----------



## grisletine

hello im new to this forum and find that tcs and all its implications fall directly in line with my present beliefs. where can i get this book? amazon doesnt even have it!


----------



## Jish

Lucy, I new you were going to take that too personally. None of my post other than the use of the word "intellectually" was directed at you. I really liked your idea of vaseline and pepper. If I ever run into hand washing issues with my second son, I'm going to try that.

Here is my problem with this whole TCS theory of child rearing. I am all for a gentle approach to discipline (meaning: to teach, not to punish) and practice this with my sons. I offer choices and try to give explanations for my decisions and actions as best I can considering their age. From what I can see, TCS fails to take into consideration that children are not simply small adults. Their bodies are smaller, their brains are different, they lack the experience and skills that we as adults have gained (yes, by experience, I realize that), but when we became parents our job became to protect, nurture, love, teach , guide and discipline our children. I can not imagine what my life had been like if I'd had basically no rules growing up, if I had been the one to make all my decisions as a toddler. Our children look to us for guidance and wisdom. My son hates to wear his coat, but where we live it becomes a necessity. I would be negligent if I let him run around outside in shorts, a tee shirt and no shoes as our neighbors let their boys (ages 6 and 8) do. These boys have been raised with somewhat of the TCS attitude and they have turned into total brats. Everyone in the neighbor groans when they come outside. The parents are now trying to regain control of their household and are paying a heavy price for their earlier actions.

Anyone who has taken a Psych 101 class knows that children are different than adults. They don't think the same, they don't have the same ability to reason, and they are unable to see things from another's perspective. I worry about these kids who have been the center of the universe when the join the real world whether it be in school, or in the working world. The rest of the world has rules that must be abided by, there is often no room for compromise. I may be running late, but I still have to stop for that red light because if I run it my actions impact others. The same goes for the child who doesn't want to wash his hands after he goes to the bathroom, I use this again for an example. Children carry germs and hand washing not only protects them, but those around them, not just from feces or urine, but from the saliva, snot, etc that they are carrying. After they touch that door handle they leave their germs for every person who follows. This means the frail 85 year old woman, and the two year old with a heart condition. I use this example because it is personal. My God daughter has a heart condition and a couple of other small problems and germs and common illnesses are an issue for them. How are you going to teach a child to love and respect others when, to them, they are the only person in the world who matters?

Am I the only one with a time out chair in my house? When my oldest son hits my younger son, there is no discussion. That is wrong and there are consequences to his action. It is up to me to teach him that it is wrong to hit, not for him to eventually figure out on his own. If your child bites another child on the playground, what are the consequences? Do you discuss it? No three year old on the planet is going to say "yeah, Mom, you were right. I shouldn't have bitten that child, even though he took the shovel I was playing with. It was wrong. I'll apologize and never do it again." Children act on impulse, not logic. All the child is thinking is "That was mine and he took it!" Children react like that because they aren't developed enough, and don't have the faculties to deal with the world as adults do.

Is anyone else with me in thinking that it is our responsibility to raise our children with love, respect and RULES???

Beth


----------



## Tigerchild

On the one hand, I firmly believe in giving a child as much autonomy as is appropriate, since it would drive me absolutely crazy if I had to make ALL the decisions for anyone all the time! Yuck!

But on the other, I also believe it's valuable for children to learn very early on that we all have to make concessions sometimes. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't live in a society where my kids will be able to do whatever they want whenever they want in a safe manner. And there are certain pet peeves of mine (which I fully recognize as being 'my problem') that I do not tolerate, in order to protect and preserve *my* integrity.

This being the case, IMO there are just going to be certain times that allowing the child to lead the way is not going to be possible. I think that for most people, this tends to revolve around health and safety issues--but that many of us have certain things that WE need as well, that are less negotiable than others.

For example, maybe Mamapie, for her own mental health and sanity, really NEEDS to get out of the house from time to time. I think it would be a good idea to plan this outing around something her son enjoys, plan for a couple hours preparation time, and offer him as many choices as possible. (Would you like to wear the red shirt, or the blue shirt? Would you like to wear your sneakers or your boots? Should we put cheese or peanut butter crackers in our snack pack? Should we use our sling, or the stroller?) But occasionally allowing him a tantrum and assisting him with getting dressed is not, IMO, tantamount to child abuse. And if mom needs to get out, sometimes she should be allowed to, try to make things as painless as possible, and if the child has a history of protesting during the process but being fine afterwards, then I don't think she should feel bad about meeting her needs occasionally as well. Maybe I'm more callous than some of you, but to be honest, *temper* tantrums don't bug me very much, especially if they're just 'blowing off steam' tantrums. Even I need to 'vent' sometimes before I have to do something I don't like.

This may seem like a topsy-turvy suggestion, but maybe you could try giving your son a bath *before* you go out, Mamapie? You could start from scratch then...at least he'd already be undressed. Does he dress himself? Sometimes that can help a lot. It might be helpful to get him some clothing that's a bit too large, since this can make it a LOT easier for him to self-dress (especially with shirts and socks). Do you think he'd be into making a ritual for going out? (ex. Bathe, Dress, Pack Snackpack, help mom pack car, go!) Is not going out if he's not cooperative a big deal for you personally, or is this just something you feel he 'should' do? I know, for practicality's sake, I tend to only press issues that I truly think are important. Going out isn't a big deal for me personally, since we have a fenced yard, and I'm perfectly content sitting in my garden. But table manners are extremely important to me, and any child that throws food at my table will soon find their plate cheerfully cleared as we continue our lunchtime conversation. Just a personality fluke, I guess.

I like the idea of TCS, and I think that by and large I follow it in most situations, but I think years of childcare have given me a more pragmatic streak than it allows. I have no regrets and will freely admit that I have bodily carried in children from the playground when our time was up because A) they were about to get run over by the horde of older kids that were going to start pouring through the playground doors at any minute, and B) I was required by law to maintain proper child to adult ratio in the class, which meant that I didn't have the luxury of continuing the conversation for as long as I would have liked. Believe it or not, after one or two times of this happening, almost all the kids started respecting that when it was time to come in, it was time to come in...and we teachers learned to respect the kids by giving them ample warning time, and involving them in a going in routine (put away ride on toys, play ring around the rosy or london bridge, and then do log rolls or somersaults down the ramp to the door. Even the kids who didn't regularly participate knew the sequence, so they weren't rudely yanked away from their games with no warning).

I take children's feelings and individuality VERY seriously, but from my perspective part of that means teaching them (again, in an age-appropriate and non-violent manner) how to take me seriously as well. Different people are going to have different tolerance levels--and this includes kids AND adults. As adults, it's our responsibility to own our levels, and to do the self-exploration necessary to know what they are and question ourselves enough to learn how to be as flexible as possible...but *also* to know when we've reached our limit, to not lie to kids that we have, and to honor that limit.

It's a lot easier to do this as a provider, I think, and I am well aware that none of those kids had their primary bond to me. But I *can* tell you that after getting to know them and loving them, the children in my toddler classes loved me too, and trusted me, and did not fear me--and knew that I was there to protect and love them in return. I don't feel that having simple, communicated expectations and enforcing them affected them negatively--in fact, my kids were often the calmest (calmer than the preschool and pre-K kids!) during fire drills and during the earthquake that we experienced, because they knew I would not ask them to do something unless I meant to enforce it, and because I intended to keep them, our equipment, their friends, or the teachers safe. We also enjoyed a relatively stress free and extremely calm classroom (which is hard to do with tods) because teachers and kids were encouraged and helped to communicate their limits and boundaries, and those limits and boundaries were expected to be honored.

Not sure if this was helpful or not, but my point is that sometimes I think that kids do need some help to get things done, and I don't think parents should be made to feel guilty or inadequate for having to sometimes enforce rules or expectations, or if negotiation comes to a stalemate. It happens in the workplace, it happens with our system of laws, it happens within relationships, and sometimes a toddler isn't going to get his/her way. To not get them used to occasionally doing something that's not completely fun or is a tiresome step in order to be able to DO something fun is crueler in the long run, at least in my opinion.

But if there are some people who can make 100% negotiation and 0% enforcement work for them, more power to you!







I don't deny that there probably are people who can/will/should handle things differently than me!

Sorry for the rambling, I'm a windbag by nature, and getting ready to pop (due date next week, yay!) isn't helping. As always, your mileage may vary. ;>


----------



## larsy

Have you tried Amazon.co.uk ? There is a link on the TCS website www.TCS.ac, go to 'books', then to 'TCS related books', it's the first book on the list, just click the icon next to the title.


----------



## Alexander

www.tcs.ac/

Please avoid punctuation directly after web addresses.










a


----------



## Alexander

When it comes to trusting someone, deciding what to do in times where there is no posibility that you could have prepared yourself for a situation (war?), then insticts are maybe a good idea.

But I put it to you that there are no such things as "instincts" when it comes to "dicsipline", or "bringing children up". What we see as or feel are instincts are in fact the ideas and feelings we were programmed with as children ourselves.

Much of that, (love, kindness, concern for others) are good. However. In many cases, the way we were brought up was often dreadfully erronious.

We have to learn to cut through our "insticts", "it doesn't ring true" feelings etc, and address the issues with cold hard logic.

This is often an uncomfortable experience, not for everyone, but it is also a gift of imessurable value we can give to our children.

a


----------



## Linda in Arizona

I disagree and here is my story of how I found my instincts:

I had a nightmarish childhood of abuse and spent much my 20's in therapy. I had my head on pretty straight when I had kids, but even though I had gotten in touch with my feelings, healed my soul, and learned to be empathetic, I had no sense of instincts when I had my first child in my early 30's. So I tried to do what was natural, even though it didn't feel natural. I breastfeed my baby, I kept her with me where ever I went, I found peaceful ways to help her to sleep. As she got bigger I made her baby food. I read about these things in books and surrounded myself with other moms following the same path. It was like walking along a dark path with a flashlight. I always had just enough like for the next step.

As my DD got older, I had more questions but my wise women friends told me to follow my instincts. I didn't have any. One wise friend told me that eventually I had to learn to hear my heart, that I needed to start listening to it. I tried. Sometimes I can hear a little. As I kept quietly listening, I could hear more.

I kept reading and researching, but reading with my heart. The book that rang the truest to my heart was the Continuum Concept. It is about how stone age indian in south america raise their kids. This book help wake up my instincts, and my heart told me it was true.

When I say I am doing something because it feels right to me, the feeling of rightness has nothing to do with my upbringing. Nothing at all.


----------



## Alexander

I'm sorry to hear about your childhood.







Actually, I think we agree more than disagree. One of the things that you said in your post was that you read, and listened to what others had to say.

This is education, and what I argue can enlighten us as to what we can _see_ works.

When something makes sense to someone, is it emotionally or logically?

Both very often, and possibly both are legitamate.

The emotional side can not be argued with though, and that is the weakness.

Logic allows us to admit it when we are wrong.

a


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamapie_
*
I have somewhere to go and he has a poopy diaper and no other clothes on and I have to get him dressed. Period. He is not quite up to understanding the reason, and I wish I could just let him run totally wild, and I do AMAP. However, sometimes he, for example, picked up a big dog turd and then turns around and wants another cracker. Guess what? I HAVE to wash his hands.
*
LOL

You know, I feel that many people get confused when they encounter Non-coersion ot TCS. I can't speak for TCS (I'll wait for lacy







) but for practical non-coersion. . . .

It's more about the way we interact with our children, and how we set examples than letting kids do whatever they want.

_I do not let my kids do anything they want._

I draw the line at health and safety, (as every caring parent should), and picking up a poo on the street is not something that young children can grasp the implications of.

(edited to add: this is not the only line either.)

As for brushing teeth, and washing hands after the bathroom, these are activities that have to be brought tho children at their own level. Making it something that they "must" do 'cos that's health and safety, is no fun at all, and our expectations of children to magically comprehend that they "must" 'cos you look"real serious" about this . . . . is a set up for failure.

Health and safety then is a good basic guide.

hope this helps.

a


----------



## grisletine

thank you although i had already noticed it there i was merely hoping to save some on postage and get it in the us!
have you read it then... is it a valid representation of tcs theory?


----------



## clover

Ok this may seem strange. I have a very small house, so what I do is sit in the middle of the living room floor with everything laid out(diaper, clothes, shoes.) Every time he passes I say"Ok, if you want togo outside we need to put on your diaper and clothes". And so I just sit there and Try to let him make the decision to come and sit with me to get dressed. It seems to work well.I he really likes the fact that he can decide. The time in which it takes him to cooperate varies. If he really really wants to go out I only have to ask once! If he doesn't come after 6 or so pass by and we are late for somewhere we have to be, I will bring him over to get dressed. He usually fusses a bit at first but then lets me dress him. Compared to the HUGE battle it usd to be to dress him this is great for us. Also sometimes I will lay his clothes on the bed, and ask him to get an article one at a time, he likes this game.


----------



## Tigerchild

But it may be for mostly semantic reasons.

Logic, IMO, is just as emotionally and culturally based as anything else. And to tell you the truth, being a compassionate being is what allows people to apologize, admit they were wrong, and to be *tolerant*--mostly because we are able to get out of our own head and recognize that other people might feel a different way about a given situation. (I've seen people hide behind logic to prevent themselves from doing this.)

I also believe it is a myth that almost everyone grew up with 'erroneous' parenting--because I don't believe there IS such a thing as 'perfect' parenting. In fact, I think it is this unattainable ideal that often puts parents in a guilt/frustration/despair quandry when it comes to relating with their kids. *Anytime* I see any particular parenting or discipline method being touted as the 'Perfect and Nonerroneous Way', I become just as suspicious as I do when I hear about a drug that's supposed to cure everything with no side effects disclosed.

My parents sure as hell were not perfect. But looking down my nose at them and dismissing them and blaming them is not going to help me be a better parent. Neither is doing everything exactly the opposite. Now that I'm an adult, and have had more experience working around children, I can *see* and *understand* why many people have the reactions they do. I can empathize with them, but retain my self-control enough to think about what I might do differently. And from my personal observations, most people DO have great instincts (if a baby cries, they want to soothe. If they're sitting down to lunch with a young child, they want to make sure the food is cut down to size. Ect.)--it's the 'logic' and 'mores' placed on them by the society around them that drowns this out. (If you never FORCE your child to take responsibility, then they'll never have a chance to learn. If you always comfort your baby, they'll never learn how to do it on their own.) Both sets of assumptions have their own ways of making sense--the trick is to be open to trying new things, observing what works and doesn't for others, and to not be afraid to try something new for your family, despite the objections of those around you.

I'd submit that this takes a very important balance of instinct, emotion, maturity, and logic. And most people don't have the luxury of being long-term observers before they parent.

Mistakes will be made, and I hightly doubt that TCS or ANY other philosophy of discipline is foolproof. We're human beings and parents DO have emotions and baggage, stuff will happen. Not only that, it's in human nature to be adaptable. The culture is constantly changing, and kids and adults will need to negotiate that.

I don't think telling anyone they need to leave an essential component of themselves at the door to 'do' a particular system is useful or helpful. It might be a better way to allow people to acknowledge this, recognize it when it crops up, and later follow up as to why and if this can be eased in the future. People aren't going to follow things they have to grit their teeth through, or feel like horrible human beings if they 'slip' or think naughty thoughts.

And to be honest, I also feel that parenting promotes JUST as much growth for the parent as it does for the child. Both halves of the equation must be cared for and nutured for the best situation. Not always going to happen, but I think it's something to strive for.

I fail to see where in the TCS philosophy it says that instincts are wrong. This is probably because things like 'instinct', 'emotion', and 'logic' are not defined and they mean very different things to different people. To me, being respectful and considerate of children is very instinctive, because I know that all of us have an inner need to feel respected and cared for. There are different kinds of logic, and erroneous logic as well. And if someone were able to completely turn off their emotion, I would not want them within 10 miles of my child or any of the children I care for--that would make them extremely dangerous IMO.

Would you care to explain what you mean by 'instinct', 'emotion', and 'logic'? I'm actually quite curious...because I have a 'feeling' that our philosophies aren't that far apart, but our word choice and definitions are. It's hard to have a discussion that everyone can understand, when somewhat variable and nebulous terms are not defined. (And I'm not talking dictionary here...I'm talking about what they mean, to you.)


----------



## larsy

I will finally take (I think it was) Ms. Mom's advice and start a TCS thread.









Taking Children Seriously is a non-coercive education and parenting philosophy that was founded approximately a decade ago by Sarah Lawrence, with significant contributions to the discussion by David Deutsch and Kolya Wolf. The paper journal 'Taking Children Seriously', the internet 'TCS list', and the website www.TCS.ac are the main places where the discussion continues. The quest (as I understand it) is to come as close to the truth as possible, about these theories of non-coercive education and parenting.

A brief quote from the website:

"We believe that it is possible and desirable to bring up children entirely without coercion (i.e. without doing things to them against their will, or making them do things against their will), and that children are entitled to the same rights, respect and control over their lives as adults.

We are critical rationalists, fallibilists and libertarians. "

When first encountered, TCS is often confused with laissez faire parenting, or neglect; it is neither of those. It is not simply about not coercing. It is about creating a happy life for one's self and one's loved ones, actively living in ways that avoid coercion.

We can recognize the theories and memes that we are programmed with, that keep us believing that coercion is necessary in this case or that case, and deconstruct them in an effort to get closer to the truth about any particular subject that is giving us trouble. Discussions like those here can help tremendously, in understanding one's theories and the practicalities of living a TCS lifestyle. Lets have at it







Respectfully, of course, discussing the theories and not particular children, if you please.


----------



## larsy

Yes, and yes.


----------



## laelsweet

larsy, are you proposing this thread as a space in which to hash out issues about tcs theory, or as a space in which to propose hypothetical situations to be examined from a tcs view?


----------



## larsy

either/or, I guess. I see these threads as a conversation, that can go down any/many avenues as it meanders. If it gets too long, we can always start another thread that can meander another way. Whatever people want to talk about is ok by me.


----------



## laelsweet

i think that taking children seriously is being confused with laissez-faire parenting, and certainly i can understand that one might therefore see tcs as neglect. actually in my experience (short but sweet) tcs has led me to be m o r e involved than my version of 'gentle discipline'. i pay more attention to what is being communicated, and think more about why i think something is not possible and how else it could be, we come up with more creative solutions which everyone is happiest with, and my child assists with finding these commonalities, despite not having many words yet. i am consistently astounded at how much a very young child is able to understand, and so now instead of assuming that something can't be understood, i attempt to find some way to communicate, or some other way to approach this. for example, i believed that i had to clothe children to protect from cold, and that not only would they not know if they were cold and needed clothing, but i would not know if they knew. on this i am happy to say i was quite wrong, and now regularly come to agreements to put on clothing based on asking questions like, how do your legs feel? would you like to slip your foot in here i can pull your trousers on? no? ...then why don't we take them with us and we can put them on upstairs if you feel cold. then i might ask again later, or my child might signal that legs are cold now and ready for trousers. i must say that sign language is critical at this stage! but what is happening here in my opinion is that i am engaged to watch and see what my child communicates, a n d my child is alerted that i am trusting in a small person's ability to recognize discomfort from cold. this is working for us, it makes my child feel proud to handle this and not have to struggle with a chasing, force-dressing parent, it brings us closer! i also believe that my child struggled with me about getting dressed when ready to take more initiative about dressing, if you see what i mean?
i think that my child welcomes opportunities to ask me why? and having read a little about tcs i am less willing to answer " because" (because i say so and have the power to, because i think you can't understand, because i am not willing to find another way to show you why, because that is the way it is and there is no other way). in a way i think that my child's ability to think and act critically and creatively about the world is something i hope to preserve and encourage, rather than strictly the ability to behave appropriately, which i believe is something that children strive to learn anyway. (i think alexander talked about this with 'modeling')
why do people get dressed before going out? maybe more discussion and investigation into this could be done. i suspect larsy has already talked about this...


----------



## k'smami

I can already forsee many pages to print out to put in my TCS notebook.









I'll start something...

A mother, new to implenting the TCS philosphy is working very hard to recognize the coercion that she inflicts on Ds. Dh is not only critical of these attempts at non-coercion, he tries to interfere. For example, the family is at dinner and they are eating hot patties. Dh opens one up for Ds to eat. Ds refuses because he wants the mother's neatly intact pattie instead. The mother sees no problem with switching (she is happy so long as he eats the food) so when she hands Ds the pattie, Dh snatches it out of his hands and tries to give him the one that he broke up for him. Ds refuses and protests, Dw says to leave Ds alone, that it is her patty and she doesn't care if Ds takes it. This starts the long discussion about not letting Ds have what he wants for fear that Ds will think that "he can always get whatever he wants".

The mother has tried to appeal to Dh rationally but he does not seem willing to let go of this entrenched theory, let alone discuss that it is just a theory. The mother fears that Ds will encounter a great deal of coercion damage due to Dh's theories. The mother herself has already used coercion to keep Dh from hitting Ds (mother threatened divorce if physical punishment is used) and will find it very difficult to coerce Dh into following it and also acknowledges that coercion would not be the best/most moral way to ensure Ds' safety from this coercion.

What ideas do you have regarding this?


----------



## Shakti

Well, there are now two threads about TCS! Here are some of my random thoughts, after closely following the recent conversations but not posting much myself.

First, the whole topic of TCS both intriques me and infuriates me, and this is often my first clue that there is something there for me and I need to pursue it. I suspect that my parenting style is not too far from TCS theory, but some of the *language* of TCS is bothersome to me. Just the name, for example. As in, excuse me, but I *do* take my daughter seriously. She is not a joke to me. We did not choose to have a baby solely for our enjoyment, although she does bring us great joy. So some of the language of TCS rubs me the wrong way, but that does not mean that there are not some nuggets of great wisdom there for me, and I really am trying to understand TCS.

I also do not subscribe to any *one* parenting philosophy. I do not really call myself an APer even though I do most things that would be considered AP. It just so happens that what I do tends to be APish. I believe I do much of my parenting by instinct, even though according to another thread I should follow my logic instead of my instinct. I have read The Continuum Concept and that has influenced my parenting tremendously. Even with TCC, I believe that it is a goal to strive for, but in this society nearly impossible to achieve. I can give my daughter the run of the house so that she can explore and learn at her own pace, but I do not have family in the area, I do not live in a tribal society, and some aspects of TCC are simply impossible for me to implement. It seems it will be the same with TCS - I will probably take from it what I can use and not worry about the rest.

It seems as though much of the TCS solutions are more like, um, searching for a word here... redirection, or convincing, or distracting the child. For example, I was putting shoes on my 10 month old this morning. She doesn't mind having her shoes put on, but this time she simply didn't want to sit still. So I gave her a book to look at while I put on the last shoe and she was instantly cooperative. Is this TCS? In the end I still forced my will on her - she has both of her shoes on. But I didn't coerce her into sitting still, I simply changed the situation so that she would *want* to sit still. Is this non-coercion or manipulation?

Oh, it seems my mind has gone blank and I have lost my train of thought. I will post this and try to post more later. I do look forward to discussing this further.

Patti


----------



## pie

With all respect, I am not here to debate the finer points of TCS as I know very little about it. I don't think people who practice it are neglectful. Anyone who puts such effort into discipline is most likely not neglectful. Additionally, my questions are serious ones to me. I want to learn more about TCS but am more interested in plain old respectful discipline. To me, and maybe I am missing the TCS disciples points, there are indeed times when I need Jackson to do something. I hope none of you see that as abusive or coercive, but that is how it stands. If it is 50 degrees and windy and raining and we have to go buy food or visit family or simply walk in the rain, then getting dressed is, to me, necessary. If he's been in a wet diaper so long that it's leaky, I feel that not to change it until he thinks it is his idea is not a good idea.
If he's been playing in our freshly composted garden, his hands need to be washed ASAP. He is struggling with me for his autonomy and I respect his struggle, but I am looking for ways to make his struggle less traumatic. I guess that there are no easy answers here: I hate the term, but that's where the idea of the terrible twos comes from, I guess. Do not get me wrong...I see nothing terrible about it. I suppose that the best thing for me to do would be to maintain my sense of humor and encourage his, as well. I really do like the idea of TCS but maybe it is hard for me to apply it to a toddler. I want him to make his own choices but I have real responsabilities and I have to meet them. Like I said, there are *wild* days where he is in charge but I just needed help figuring out how to apply gentle Discipline and or aspects of TCS to major issues like dressing. He simply does not respond to my offering choices. Like I said, he pretty much ignores everything I say, although I very much liked the idea of putting his clothes out and asking him to bring me the shirt, socks, etc. All this is making me wonder if maybe he is oppositional because it sounds like your kids are willing to work with you more than mine is with me. I might be missing the whole point but please, no one take offense to me because I truly mean none and I want to learn from you all. It is just a little frustrating to have tried most every suggestion here and not have it work. I will say, though, that he will let me dress him or wash his hands about 50% of the time so I am probably just being a big whiner, anyway.


----------



## pie

Sorry, I accidently made my reply into a new thread...please read OOPS I meant to post this under COOPED UP


----------



## simonee

Beth, that sounded a bit nasty. My main point throughout this post was to step away from a view that someone "runs" a family. I tried to open my eyes to group interaction from a non-hierarchic perspective, without viewing someone as a boss. Sorry you have to feel so snippy about that.
Simone


----------



## peggy

As I was the one who said TCS didn't "ring true" for me, I feel I should respond. In that same post I said I respected that method and the fact that it worked very well for many families. I didn't say " Throw non-coercion to the Wind and Follow your Instincts!" I would expect the same respect from you.
To me, parenting is about heart and soul and not "cold hard logic"
Actually, I feel like I'm being "coerced" into your parenting style










This forum is about Gentle Discpline, which to me means that there is room for TCS and AP

respectfully,
peggy


----------



## Jish

Your two year old is not being oppositional, he is simply being two. Testing limits is his job. This is how our children learn how the world works and how much they can get away with. I don't want to sound like I give my child no choices and expect him to smile and do what I say, but my older son is 3 2/1 and I would kill for the terrible twos again. This age sucks! I love him dearly and we have good days most of the time, but with two active boys (my younger one is 14 months) if I tried to bargain to find solutions to simple, everyday activites such as getting dressed I would go insane. It is simply not possible to please everyone in my household. If my son wants to wear his sandals on a day that is 40 degrees out I will, of course, try to talk him out of it. If it is feasible with what we have planned and if he really insists I tell him to bring socks. If he says no, tough! I'm not bringing them. The consequence is that his feet will be cold and he will be miserable. I feel it is important to learn consequences to our actions if possible, but every issue that pops up during the day doesn't need to be taken to the bargaining table. My problem with the TCS theory is that if the adult and child cannot reach a mutual agreement then the adult should give in to the child. That is just not how the real world works and that child is in for a big shock when mommy isn't around. Besides, I have rights to, like the right to grocery shop when necessary, the right to wipe the snot off my childs nose so I don't catch his miserable cold, and the right to expect my child to respect me as much as I respect him.


----------



## fire

Alexander I understand that we do need to combatt some of our instinct certainly in order to attachment parent. I see it as though when my Toddler takes a chunk of skin from my back, while trying to climb up moms tower, my instinct or reflex is to throw him off me with great force. If I want him to learn to be completely compassionate and calm or atleast not retaliate instinctively(?) I need to stop consider my strength, his state his understanding. It is a very sensitive balance.
It is true too that instinct is what allows you to feel remorse for hurting someone.


----------



## fire

I am very happy to have the ideals of Taking Children Seriously and non-cohersive. I am very grateful of this thread because I've been struggling in my mind trying to sort out balance of respect and compromise..ect I love the the idea of CONSENSUS and believe that it will bring great wonders of peace & joy. I am very willing to strive for it and soooo content to have a philosophy and vision to go by.

The obstacles may get bigger, the tools help and the rewards are bliss.

I do believe that some choices conscerning power struggles are stemmming from fear and as a soppy idealist I know a choice of love, faith and respect is always best.


----------



## pie

AP is not a luxury but having the time to sit around and debate its finer points is. sorry for short reply, much nursing today.


----------



## fire

I think that if your child is given the chance to "bargain" all the time he will not be a hindrance he will always consider barganing, sharing having every party happy...She will not try to control others she will always consider that everyone has valuable needs and everyone has right to equal imput regardless of sex, role, age, gender. Though I have only herd of TCS tonight, I beleive that is what strives for.
Surely we may be able to find reason for critisim and that is where we listen and allow concepts to evolve into ever better systems.


----------



## Linda in Arizona

Quote:

_Originally posted by peggy_
*Actually, I feel like I'm being "coerced" into your parenting style









*
*
*
*
I'm feeling the same way. NCP/TCS folks say that they believe that their children are the ultimate best judge of their own best interest, but they don't seem to believe that of other parents.

NCP/TCS says that parents offer their experience, but don't assume they are right. (without boundaries pg. 96) Yet the people who say they feel this way toward their children can possible admit here to other parents that their "theory" of non-coersion might be wrong. And they seldom offer their experience, just the theory that children should be allowed to do whatever they want to.

The very nature of the NCP/TCS system is that you must be willing to admit that you might be wrong and someone else i.e. your child might know what is better for them, so how I can you say that is what you think and then be so evangelical and preachy? After all, you might be wrong. We might know what is best for our kids. It is a possiblity.*


----------



## larsy

Many thoughts, crowding around.

Instinct is about survival, isn't it? Perhaps one's instincts are honed upon what it is one has to survive. Parenting by instinct will then not be consistent across the population, but it will support survival on some level. It might not be optimum conditions for living a happy life, but one would be likely to survive. Human life is, however, richer than just survival level, at least I think we are fortunate in western civ countries
to be able to say this.

TCS is a philosophy about the parent-child relationship and the unique responsibilities that lie therin. Parents are responsible for the existence of their children, and so have responsibilities toward them that they do not have towards strangers or even other adult friends and relatives.

When a person is feeling coercion in their minds, it behooves them to figure out what that conflict is about, and find solutions. TCS is a challenging philosophy. IME, if evokes lots of strong feeling in most, if not all, people, myself included. When I first ran across, I thought the definition of coercion was so broad as to be meaningless. I left it alone for months, but it still popped up and niggled at me periodically, so I kept thinking about it. It took years for me to make sense of much of it, and there is
still much that I don't grasp, as yet. It's a process. Many people, no doubt, will never go down the TCS road- more's the pity, imo.

Fallibleism- sure, TCS theory could be wrong and parts of it probably are. There are a lot of people picking it apart and criticizing it thoughtfully, for many years now, on the TCS list, looking for those places where TCS theory does not stand up to the light of critical rationalism. Aren't we all interested in getting closer to the truth? I don't think that truth is relative. If it is true that coercion is harmful in the parent-child relationship, we are
capable of knowing this by examining the theory and criticizing and refuting it. I've seen many convincing arguments about coercion being harmful, and none that have convinced me that coercion is the best way of relating between parent and child- not to say that it might not be appropriate in other
relationships.

I question as to whether a parent would truly believe that it would be beneficial to adopt the theory that a person should not react instincitively to protect their self, if they are being hurt, as in Fire's example. Yes, a parent might want to over-ride their instinct (though it can be very hard! when being hurt, to not react spontaneously) so that they do not hurt a child who has unintentionally hurt them in the process of playing, or even
intentionally (in exploring people's reactions to things). But a child's siblings will probably not be so understanding, and are much more likely to protect their selves when being hurt. Protecting one's self from being hurt is a good survival instinct, very useful in life, as is the knowledge that if you hurt someone, they are likely to retaliate and hurt you back.
That is learning about a very real boundary.

Gotta run!


----------



## Ms. Mom

I think what I'm seeing here is passionate, loving parents all fighting for what they believe in. Though this is a wonderful response when our children are concerned, I wonder how conductive it is?

What I'd like to see happen in this forum is for everyone's opinions, views and theories to matter.

Isn't it wonderful that we have these boards to come and discuss gentle, loving ways to raise our children? Everyone here should be encouraging to others weather or not they share views. Making suggestions to those in need of new solutions is a wonderful gift we all have to give to each other.

I'm not saying we should go against our beliefs - we should absolutely go with our own feelings and beliefs. But, I would like to remind everyone to be tolerant and gentle with others here who come for advice and information.

Parenting is an honorable position in life - aren't we lucky to share this gift!


----------



## peggy

Dear Ms. Mom,
I appreciate the fact that you are here to keep the peace. But I am really surprised you felt you had to step in here. I thought we could have disagreements and be able to discuss them. There was no name calling or insults being thorwn around here.
Everyone currently subscribed to this thread always offers gentle advice to new Moms when asked. The topic of this thread was not about asking for advice, the very title of it implies a discussion about the difference between instinctive parenting and TCS was wanted.
I have read over the rules again and have found nothing in them against this kind of discussion, but this is your forum so I will withdraw from this thread.
I have to say though that I do feel like I just got my hand slapped and it's a very uncomfortable feeling.

peggy


----------



## MamaLeah

Patti - What you said is something I've always wondered about too! If I know my daughter wants to play with the electric chords and I don't want her to, so I move the couch in front of them when she's not looking, I have used my physical and mental "superiority" to get MY way. If I know we may have a conflict in a store because there is too much there that she wants to play with, so I don't take her, once again, I am forcing her to not get her way. Is it OK to force your will as long as your child doesn't realize it?

Oops, I've been trying so hard not to get involved, but


----------



## Shakti

Ms. Mom,
I, like Peggy, am surprised that you felt the need for peace-keeping on this thread. I have not posted on this thread but I have been a silent observer of the discussion. I have not felt the tone of the thread is a "fight," but perhaps the people who have been doing the posting have.(?) I find these discussions about different parenting philosophies to be extremely helpful to me, and they are the primary reason that I visit the boards. We learn from each other by having different opinions and *gently* expressing those opinions. From my point of view, the discussions here lately have been, for the most part, respectful.

Peace,

Patti


----------



## zealsmom

Quote:

_Originally posted by Shakti_
*I have not posted on this thread but I have been a silent observer of the discussion. ...From my point of view, the discussions here lately have been, for the most part, respectful.
*
me too. I hope we can continue to "discuss" without be judged (as long as there are no hurt feelings)


----------



## k'smami

re: scissors and gum.

Perhaps a parent can help a young toddler learn about scissors under close supervision. Getting those safety scissors and sitting him down with them and showing him how to cut paper. Of course I would not recommend that a parent leave him to his own devices until the parent is sure that the child understands how to use scissors safely.

As for gum, perhaps a parent could offer something chewy like gum that the child could swollow- such as dehydrated apricot or papaya slices and find that the child prefers this.

re: only child housholds

TCS people would say that TCS is for all children, no matter what the size of the household. Of course those starting out with TCS will probably have more opportunities to be creative if they have 3 children instead of 1. However, I think that once children see that parents will do their best so that EVERYONE will have a common preference, they will be willing to come up with ideas and be patient enough to wait for a common preference to be found. IMO the key issue is trust. Once a child trusts that the parent will not make hir do something they find disagreeable or withold something that hir wants to learn about, they will be willing to wait and give input to find a common preferece.

I think that you should join the TCS toddlers list the larsy mentioned somewhere around here. Some of these people probably have more than one child and could give you ideas as to how to do TCS with more than one child in the house.


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by MamaLeah_
*Patti - What you said is something I've always wondered about too! If I know my daughter wants to play with the electric chords and I don't want her to, so I move the couch in front of them when she's not looking.*
I think most TCS parents would find this coercive depending on the child's age. There may be something that the child wants to learn from playing with the cords and putting the couch in front of them stifles her learning. As with the scissor situation, perhaps the parent can help the child learn about the cords with very close supervision. Showing her what the cords connect to and what happens when you pull them out. Also stressing that the child is only to do this when the parent is available to help until the parent is confident that the child will be able to use the cords safely. The parent should share hir theories about why it may not be a good idea to play with the cords and why it may not be a good idea to put anything that isn't a plug into the socket.

This is an interesting question because I myself have been thinking about how coercive childproofing may be. Such as child safety gates to keep kids out of the kitchen or bathroom. I'm still exploring my theories here.

Quote:

*If I know we may have a conflict in a store because there is too much there that she wants to play with, so I don't take her, once again, I am forcing her to not get her way.
*
I would say that the parent is forcing the child not to get her way if indeed the child wants to go to that place. If the child doesn't care about the place and the parent avoids it because it would cause too much coercion then, I don't think this is forcing the child not to get her way. I do want to say that I think TCS is about the parents and children finding common preferences, not about children getting their own way despite what the parents want.


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by Shakti_
*It just so It seems as though much of the TCS solutions are more like, um, searching for a word here... redirection, or convincing, or distracting the child.*
I think most TCS people would argue that all of those things are coercive.

Quote:

*
For example, I was putting shoes on my 10 month old this morning. She doesn't mind having her shoes put on, but this time she simply didn't want to sit still. So I gave her a book to look at while I put on the last shoe and she was instantly cooperative. Is this TCS? In the end I still forced my will on her - she has both of her shoes on. But I didn't coerce her into sitting still, I simply changed the situation so that she would *want* to sit still. Is this non-coercion or manipulation?*

I would say that the child preferred to read the book while having her shoes put on. IMO not coercive.


----------



## Jish

I'm sorry, but letting your children play with power cords, especially when plugged in, and outlets is just plain neglegent. My husband who is an engineer for a power company would flip out if he knew that some one was advocating letting children play with electricity, with or without a parent present. Your mere presence is not going to stop your child from being electricuted. Perhaps it is ideas such as these that make some of us think that TCS is a less than responsible way to parent. Your child relies on you for saftey cues, and letting them play with electricity is a bad example.

I have two active young boys and I try to raise my boys without stepping on their budding independence too much. I offer choices in many day to day situations, but there are times when each of my son's needs, and wants differ. When my younger son (14 months) needs to go to the pediatrician he has to go. There is no discussion. My 3 1/2 year old would rarely choose to go, but he doesn't get a choice in the matter. Some things, like going to the doctor, are just a fact of life if you want to stay healthy and strong. What he does get a choice in is what toys he wants to bring, and what snacks he would like to enjoy while we are there. Of course, as a mother I reserve my right to redirect (gasp)my son's choices away from things that I know are bad for him. I refuse to let my son live on a diet of chocolate chip cookies, juice, candy, doughnuts, etc. Am I coercing him into eating healthy foods? Maybe. Of course, he can always assert his will and refuse to eat what is offered.

What would you die hard TCSers do if both of your children want the same toy at the same time, and remember that it is not always feasible or practical to have two of everything? My household would be total anarchy if I tried to adhear to the strict TCS philosophy. Life would come to a stand still and nothing would ever get done.


----------



## Shakti

Quote:

_Originally posted by k'smami_
*

I think most TCS people would argue that all of those things are coercive.

*

I would say that the child preferred to read the book while having her shoes put on. IMO not coercive.
[/B]
k'smami, with all due respect, this seems contradictory. Giving her a book while I put her shoes on is a distraction, and you say that distractions would be considered coercive. But then you say that if I put her shoes on while she is reading a book it is not coercive. Which is it???







:

Patti


----------



## RainCityMama

I'm really enjoying what everyone has to say here and looking forward to learning more and hashing out my own feelings about this method.

I've been really looking for alternative methods of parenting and
I was recently made aware of TCS - I must say that in theory it makes sense to me, but I fear my own failings may thwart my efforts to practice these methods.

I don't believe I'm a selfish parent, I don't over schedule my son's life - I feel like the majority of time I let my son lead the day and I follow. I have however been struggling with:

Diaper changing - He hates them, but how can I leave him to wander about in a poopy diaper all day?

Touching outlets - He is obsessed with anything electrical, I totally appreciate that he's learning but I'm afraid that if I sat with him and worked the outlet this would only be encouraging him that this was okay.

Touching the fireplace/stove - Once again, he's learning - But if either happened to be hot this could cause serious injury that I'm not willing to do.

and my own selfish need for some order within my home - Is wanting a semi-clean home wrong? I don't care if we have toys everywhere but when my little person wants to drag out all the canned goods, beauty products and rip apart rolls of toilet paper do you just allow it?

I am asking these questions from the heart, I have no desire to pick apart any parenting views but I am truly trying to wrap my brain around this method and understand how it needs to be approached.

Be well,

V


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*I'm sorry, but letting your children play with power cords, especially when plugged in, and outlets is just plain neglegent. My husband who is an engineer for a power company would flip out if he knew that some one was advocating letting children play with electricity, with or without a parent present.*
I am not advocating that a parent allow their child to play with electricity. I'm sorry that my post was not clear enough. I am advocating that a parent help a child learn about electrical cords. I am offering ideas as to how to handle a situation. If the parent finds a better idea, then I would hope that they do that instead and of course share it with others. What I am advocating is teaching a child do deal with electrical cords safely. IMO, not only would this demystify the cords but it will also make it less likely that a child would explore these things when the parent is not looking. It would also, IMO, set a precedent in the child's mind that the parent is open to the child's wanting to learn about different things and will also help whenever necessary.

In trying to think of a more satisfying solution I thought of maybe giving a child a surge protecter that is not plugged in and teaching the child how to plug things into socket safely this way. When the parent is satisfied that the child has enough information to use electrical cords safely then perhaps they could move on to the socket in question. But maybe this is a better preference for the child and the parent will not have to deal with a live socket at all.

Quote:

*Your mere presence is not going to stop your child from being electricuted.*
Pardon my ignorance, since I am not an electrician, but I would like to know what prevents adults from being electrocuted when they unplug power cords, that would not prevent a child from being electrocuted when doing the same thing with a parent present? Clearly I'm not advocationg that the parent let the child near a socket with live wires exposed or that was prone to sparks. In fact I would hope that even non-TCS parents who would prevent their children from learning about power cords in this way would most certainly not have these conditions in their home either.

Quote:

*Some things, like going to the doctor, are just a fact of life if you want to stay healthy and strong.*
Interesting theory but I know many adults, including myself, who disagree with this statement. Some of us may even think the exact opposite







. I think children should have the right to choose or not to choose who touches them and who examines them. I would certainly hate it if I was taken to the doctor against my will.

Quote:

*What would you die hard TCSers do if both of your children want the same toy at the same time, and remember that it is not always feasible or practical to have two of everything?*
There is no blanket answer to this or any of the other examples. Every child and parent is different. What would be a common preference in one family would not be a common preference in another. There is no rule book that says, "When your child does X thing do Y." I have attempted to give TCS ideas in the hopes that this would bring on even more ideas. People could refute my ideas and offer different non-coercive ideas that may be better. Sometimes I think that these discussions about examples are rather unfruitful if people believe that TCS is a less responsible way to parent.

But... I will try to offer an idea anyway in hopes that someone will offer an even better one. Maybe one child would prefer to play with something else but hasn't thought of it because it was put away and not in view when he saw the one he is fighting over? Maybe both children would prefer to go to the park? Maybe they would prefer that Mom read them a story instead? Maybe the reason that they are fighting is not really the toy but some underlying tension that the toy triggered so the parent may want to talk to both of them about their feelings and something may be uncovered that could help the situation. Maybe after the parent's initial idea sharing they will decide on their own what they think is best and end the conflict themselves. If children are not taught that somone always has to lose before they win or that if someone wins then by default they must lose, they may be open to finding a common preference instead of fighting because they may believe that in a family everyone can get want they want most of the time.

What would you do?

P.S. I reserve the right to be mistaken and to continue to learn







.


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by Shakti_
*

k'smami, with all due respect, this seems contradictory. Giving her a book while I put her shoes on is a distraction, and you say that distractions would be considered coercive. But then you say that if I put her shoes on while she is reading a book it is not coercive. Which is it???







:

Patti*
In your orginal post you said that your daughter did not want to sit still to put on her shoes and that she usually has no problem with having them put on. I saw this as trying to find a common preference about sitting still. You gave her the book, she preferred to look at it instead of run away, and let you put on her shoes which she doesn't usually mind. In my opinoin that is not coercive. Maybe another TCS parent would think so. That TCS parent would then try to find a common preference with the child or perhaps re-examine hir theories about whether a 10 month old has to wear shoes.

To me, using an obvious example, a distraction is something like a parent eating a chocolate chip cookie and when the child comes up and asks for a taste the parent says, "Wow! Look, a puppy!" and then when the child turns hir head the parent hides the cookies.


----------



## laelsweet

simonee it sounds like you are already doing a great job and that tcs may help through the conflicts that are coming up. i know that this theory is helping us a lot. i have been lurking on this and other threads and i wanted to say how excited i am to find that more people here find tcs relevant to their lives with children. fire i love the idea of consensus too : ) . i'm so pleased to see so many tcs threads happening, and it's great to hear the challenges that come up from different perspectives, it helps me to think about and use the theory more thoroughly.


----------



## Mommy22B

This is all so interesting! I am intrigued by this whole "theory" of TCS. I am somewhat TCS. My husband tends to be more than me because I am so impatient at times.
One thing I don't understand about it is how to do it with toddlers. Say, for example, there is a family dinner, or party or something like that. dd, who is 17 months, fresh from her bath, refuses to get dressed. Time is ticking away,.. You try to give her a choice of different outfits...nothing works. What do you do?
I am thinking of an answer my self here I think...would you take her naked and dress her when she is at the party and more compliant? I realize it is winter, but bundled in a blanket she wouldn't freeze....
Or what if the child just refused to go at all. Must the parent give in to the child every time? Often when dd doesn't want to go out and I do I stay home with her, but often there is a party that starts at a specific time and I would really like to go. Would you TCSers ever force a child to go somewhere? Or do you give in every time?
I wonder also, do the parent always give in to the child? Like dd wants a cookie. MOm would prefer she have some fruit since she gave in on the cookie issue for breakfast. I guess i can think of an answer to this one too...just don't have the cookies around...
Well, I seem to be trying to answer my own questions...just trying to understand.
So are these TCS answers? Is the basic idea to sometimes change your own veiw of what is and is not appropriate?
Beth


----------



## Jish

Simonee,
Sorry you think I am snippy, that is a word that no one who knows me would use to describe me. I don't understand why everyone thinks it is so important that everyone in the family come to an agreement on everything. Obviously we don't agree here, but are either of us WRONG? I don't think I'm wrong, I's sure you don't think you are wrong, and I don't necessarily think you are wrong either. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with your method of child rearing and embrace it as my own. But according to the TCS theory we should try to come to some mutual understanding and agreement between our two theories that we can both live with to raise our children. I am not willing to give up my way in favor of yours and I'm sure you are not willing to give up yours for mine, though I suspect the way we deal with our children on a daily basis is not as different as you might expect. We are never going to come to a firm agreement in this area. Is it so horrible to think that there will be some things that as a parent and child we won't be able to agree on. I am an adult, I am mature, I have experience, and I am the parent. In our family that gives me the trump card in times that my children and I can't come to an agreement. I don't run my family as a dictatorship, but it is not quite a democracy either. God gave me my children and they are my most precious blessing and responsibility. Being raised Catholic it is my job to raise them as responsible, caring, loving, and Christian children. That means that sometimes they can't get their way. I am responsible for their souls and that is a job I take very seriously. I may sound like a religious fanatic, but that is not the case, I just try to be a good Christian and to raise my children that way.

I hope we can agree to disagree if that is alright with you


----------



## Ms. Mom

Re-reading my post I can see how my point was taken wrong. I was actually glad to see a post where people were agreeing to disagree.

I'm so sorry if I hurt anyone feelings. Usually, I wait in a thread until things get heated before I say something.

Your right, no rules have been broken in any way here, and, I was actually glad to see people discussing issues and agreeing to disagree. Sometimes when we write something it doesn't always come out how it was meant to.

Again, I apologize for sounding like 'big brother', that's not how I want to be perceived. I'm just a mother like you, I volunteer to moderate this forum because I love the ideas here and enjoy being a part of such a loving community.

Please, continue this discussion! We can all learn so much from each other


----------



## peggy

Thank you so much for clarifying that. I am sorry if I got too defensive. I just totally took your post in the wrong way.

peggy


----------



## Heavenly

Well I'm going to be the thorn here and say I am totally into gentle discipline but do not agree with TCS at all (and I am also offended by that term because I take my son very seriously.) I honestly do not get how people think that a little child knows what is best for them. We were going outside today. It's snowing. my 11 month old hates getting his snowsuit on no matter what I do to try and make it fun. He screamed. I put the snow suit on anyways. IMO that is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. Letting my 11 month old go out in just a track suit is negligent and I will never change my opinion on that. I am not trying to fight but since you said the thread could be for debate I thought I'd respond. I have read a lot of responses about this issue and went to a couple of boards on it to try and really get what it's about. And I still 100% do not agree! "gee you're standing on a table, go ahead." It is not socially acceptable to stand on tables and last time I checked my son will need to be a productive member of society. My son is a baby, a child. there is no possible way for him to know what is best because he has no experience. I do not spend my day thinking of ways to control him. I play with him and let him explore and try to make transitions happy and gentle. But if doesn't want to go to bed he's still going, being rocked to sleep in my arms, crying. Sleep is necessary - for our whole family. If he doesn't want to take a bath he's doing it. I am not going to breed germs because an 11 month old feels like boycotting bath time. And what happens when these kids are out in society. "well gee boss I don't feel like filing right now, I have different theories about the need for accounts payables to be filed." Buh bye! They get fired. We can not always get our own way and that's a fact. And IMO you are doing your child a disservice by making them believe otherwise. It is our responsibilty as parents to raise our children to make it in this world, not to think they ARE the world.


----------



## Heavenly

I haven't read the other responses yet but I have to say I completely disagree (and it might be a good idea if you said this is your opinion, not like it's fact). I had an abusive, neglected childhood. I never had any example of good parenting. I did not do any research on this subject during parenting. My son came out and I parented him by instinct. Then someone tells me it has a name (AP). Whatever. The point is my instincts told me to nurture, protect, love my child, never to hurt, hit, or berate. I listened to those instincts and we are both the better for it.


----------



## Ms. Mom

Larcy, Thank you for starting this post! It was me who suggested it.

Before the boards went down you had a great thread where people asked specific questions (like they're doing here) and you gave them examples of tcs.

Oh, how I wish there were some way to bring back the archives! It was a fantastic thread where everyone was throwing around ideas and learning from each other.

With a VERY feisty 4 yr. old I'm constantly reading to find more effective ways to deal with her passionate personality.


----------



## Heavenly

To me gentle discipline is discipline without yelling or hitting. Gentle discipline is discipline that seeks to teach not scold; to guide. Is this forum supposed to be for TCS? Because I am getting kind of annoyed that a lot of posts keep turning into "do it our way" posts. I'm not talking about the posts started specifically for TCS, I'm talking about ones where a person asks a question and they get the TCS response and when they respectfully disagree they are still hounded about it. Gentle discipline does not equal TCS, IMO. I do not agree with it and I realize that some people do and I am trying to be respectful of that. But I really don't feel the TCS people are making the same effort. All this talk about coercion - I don't like feeling like I am being coerced into a parenting style I don't agree with. Sorry if I've offended.


----------



## larsy

Sorry to keep repeating meyself, but...

TCS is a philosophy about non-coercive interaction between *parent* and *child*, not between non-related adults. Parents have a different responsibility to their selves and to their children, than they do to people in other relationships. While people frequently find that learning to live non-coercively in the most important relationships in their lives, has a big effect upon how they relate to the rest of the world, as well, please do not mistake the very special relationship responsibilities between parent and child as something that can or should be extended to the rest of the world.

The Autonomy Respecting Relationships list on Yahoogroups was set up to discuss the further implications of TCS theory, beyond the parent-child relationship.

Parents are the ones with the experience and knowlege and access to information and resources, and children are the ones who need help in aquiring those things for their selves.

We talk a lot about helping children get what they want. It seems to me that a lot of what they want, in those early years, is their parents' attention and help.


----------



## larsy

This is a good question. I respond to whatever I respond to from my point of view, which is unabashedly TCS, and is just one of the viewpoints offered on this forum. I figure that there are maybe hundreds of people lurking about who are learning and thinking about what they read on these boards. I try to depersonalize my discussion, because I believe it is wrong to violate the privacy of children by discussing them and their lives on a public forum.

So, when a person asks a question on these boards, do they realize that they are asking it for a lot of other people who, for whatever reason, do not actually type the words in themselves, but are asking the same questions in their minds and are learning from the answers, in their own way?


----------



## JessicaS

I think Heavenly is speaking for quite a few people. Myself included....

Some of the TCS posts I have found to be argumentative, aggressive and sometimes plain rude.....and some of them are so long I can't even read them
my eye therapy can only do so much...

I think children would rather we discuss their lives than make some bizarre error in judgement that could cause them some sort of problem later.....


----------



## lisamarie

I'm also in agreement with abimommy and heavenly on this. I have not posted on any of the TCS posts~the posts have been too, too long and detailed for me as well.

But, others here are entitled to their opinion~in a gentle, non-coercion way. I have avoided the TCS threads, because personally I have not liked the tone and feel that gentle discipline works for myself and our family.

Warmly~

Lisa


----------



## simonee

Thanks Beth. You said exactly what I was thinking, too. Never mind that I'd never really heard of TCS until I started reading these boards a month ago; I definitely don't see myself as a TCS "disciple" even though many of my instincts match the TCS theories.

To me, the theoretical perspectives on childrearing are very unimportant and rather unconsequential, and I'm definitely aware that I'm in a relatively easy position to give my dd the "run of the house" because she's an only child and both me and dh work flexible hours at home. LIke you, I feel that our children are probably raised in very similar ways, and I respect every (and I mean that) parenting style that doesn't resort to emotional or physical abuse and that doesn't teach children any kind of bigotry. Even though I don't know you or anyone else who posts here regularly, I am pretty sure that none of these conscious, loving parents raises their children like that. I therefore respect all styles discussed on these boards, and I feel that there's many that I can learn a lot from. Larsy's comments often ring a bell with me, but there's many more that do. As far as the other go, nothing sets the mind to work like disagreeing!









I don't even feel that I have something as circumscribed as a "parenting style" -- more like a broad variety of ad hoc ideas and actions. No dogmatic beliefs here! And though I'm not a Christian, I agree with many Christian values, and I also agree that ultimately the decisions that influence my child's safety and health are mine, so it's almost impossible to avoid some degree of dictatorship.

One of my teachers often told us to get subscriptions to newspapers whose editorial stance felt wrong, because disagreeing would challenge and train our minds. I still agree with that


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

_Originally posted by erika_
*There have been some very interesting discussions on these boards regarding AP (attachment parenting) and TCS (taking children seriously). I wonder, however, whether use of these methods is a middle class luxury, only possible when parents have a certain minimum amount of free time and low life stress? Is this particularly the case when there is more than one child?

Any thoughts anyone?*
To be an absolute purist, it may well be necessary. Although I knew next to nothing about TCS, I did quit my part time job when dd#2 was expected, don't run a car, and employed a part-time helper for the first 4.5 years of dd#1 life.

Now I'm skint!









But I see it more as an _investment_ than a cost, and I know that I am just "lucky" to be able to do what we did. I am almost certain that this would be very difficult for most people unless they had money, or work that allowed them to do it this way.

I feel that the effort has been paying dividends.

(much harder with 2 kids though! Phew)

a


----------



## Ms. Mom

To answer the question, what is this forum for, I'll go to the explanation - _Parenting without punishment is not just possible - it is the only effective way to discipline your child. Why spanking doesn't work. Alternatives to punishment. What is verbal abuse? Resources for being gentle with yourself and your children._

Another passage that I feel sums things up is from 'Natural Family Living' by Peggy O'Mara, Chapter 15 Discipline, pg. 187

_Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the belief that children are born innately good and that our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems._

This is a place to ask questions about discipline, to problems solve and come up with new ideas to raise our children in a loving and respectful way. Obviously, this means different things to different people. I think it's wonderful that we can discuss issues her as long as we don't judge or force our opinions.

I think that some of the tcs theories challenge our thinking and if it isn't feeling right for someone, it should not be put upon them. I'm really glad to see some tcs specific threads started here. This way everyone can have a voice without hurting feelings or making someone feel ashamed because their parenting style doesn't agree with another's.

These are of course my opinions. To remind everyone moderators are volunteers - we're just parents like everyone else here and we're learning as we go.

Let's all be gentle here! We can learn a great deal from each other.

Edited to say; when someone answers a tread with thier beleifs and heart we should appreciat what they are saying, weather it's TCS or AP. I don't mean to sound like a thread should only be AP or TCS. I just feel that everyone sould be respected for thier opinions and in tern be respectfull to others.

TCS and AP have a lot more in common then most of us think. Maybe when a post goes against what we feel, we can re-read it and take the information in the spirit in which it was given - with love and concern for children. I encourage everyone to continue learning from each other.


----------



## k'smami

This is a lot of work to be doing all by myself hint hint....







. LOL

I will try to answer all of your questions soon but right now I don't have the time. I usually have more time when I'm at work. I'll try coming back today during Ds' nap.

I do want to say to those who are trying to be TCS but haven't read the website to please do so. It is a great resource for ideas and you'll get a clear handle of what they mean by coercion. I've read every single page on it







.

I also recommend the book Without Boundaries by Jan Fortune Wood which I may be quoting to answer anti-TCS statements from time to time.


----------



## peggy

Edited because I've decided not to add my two cents afterall.
I made my point in another thread.


----------



## Shakti

Quote:

_Originally posted by k'smami_
*

To me, using an obvious example, a distraction is something like a parent eating a chocolate chip cookie and when the child comes up and asks for a taste the parent says, "Wow! Look, a puppy!" and then when the child turns hir head the parent hides the cookies.*
k'smami,
hmmm... yes I can how you could consider the shoes example as different from the cookie example. But it also seems like splitting hairs.







I will think about this for a while and probably ask more questions. Many thanks for replying... and where *did* Larsy go? LOL She started the thread but you are doing most of the replying!









Patti


----------



## discovermoma

When Larsy does return, she will have her hands full!!!

My thoughts on electrical plugs are that if they always remain a curiousity there will always be danger. I taught my daughter to pug in and unplug electrical cords when she first took notice of them. Now she knows what they are for and has never tried to stick anything else in them.

As far as TCS meaning, I think it means to take the whole child seriously. That means each child's needs, wants, likes, dislikes, etc... Children are little people that are learning from our guidance and support. Each situation is different because the wants and needs of each child is different.

Distracting a child away from something they want is not TCS. (ie hiding the cookies) Force does not always mean physical force. It can involve emotional manipulation. Giving a child a book to read while putting on shoes can be TCS if the reason the child didn't want to sit still was because the child was bored and just wanted something to do while they sat there. It is not TCS if the child didn't want the shoes on in the first place, but gave in with being offered a book when they realized there was no point in fighting it any longer.

These comments really scare me, "social acceptable" and "ready for the real world" and "how are they ever going to learn to lose". I'm not going to even attempt to address these. (Larsy, where the heck are you?)


----------



## discovermoma

I personally enjoy all the different points of view.

I hope this isn't turning into one of those "us" and "them" things.

I agree that Gentle Discipline does not equal TCS, but it is a part of it. Not one of us here AP's in the exact same way and that doesn't mean that people who don't use slings should not post other options or their reasons in the Parenting Issues because this would offend sling users. Not everyone co-sleeps, should they not be allowed to post opinions in the Night Waking discussions? That's silly!

If you don't like the TCS theory, ignore it. As far as the post being long, I didn't realize there was a maximum lengh rule.


----------



## discovermoma

Heavenly & abimommy: I could not find anywhere that you guys had posted a question, so how can you feel coerced into a parenting style with an answer that involved TCS when you didn't ask a question?

lisamarie: I did find one post from you where you gave a book about AP to a woman that didn't believe in AP, but was asking you questions about discipline. Why is that so different than getting a TCS response to a post about discipline? And no one mentioned TCS in answer to your post.

Where are all these people that are so offended to a TCS response to their post?


----------



## mamakarata

I wonder if some of this response is from before the boards went down? I remember getting into the middle of some pretty intense discussions, and can say that some posts were a bit strong from the tcs point of view at times. I had mentioned Waldorf education and got a response back like "I won't even get started on Waldorf" from a tcs'er. At least she refrained from a full attack!

But for the most part, I agree that we are here to share ideas, and have to admit that while I find loop holes in the tcs idea, I also learn a lot from it. I found myself finding ways it wouldn't work, and then decided instead to find ways it could work, and let the rest be as it is. I also agree that there are more similarities between ap and tcs than we think, and that everyone incorporates their own style into their parenting anyway. For me, I just use what works and discard the rest. As for the long posts, I just skim them if they don't suck me in. Like I am sure many might do with this post! ( :


----------



## larsy

Way to go, k'smami







, and all. You guys have been busy, discussing, while I've been out burning up the roads







Cool!

There is a Taking Children Seriously t-shirt, that has a graphic of two profiles, one the adult with the mouth closed and the ear visible, the other the child with the mouth open. The adult is located in the upper right-hand corner of a square, oriented down toward the child in the lower left-hand corner.

This is not to say that all/most/many parents and adults do not take children seriously, but TCS philosophy advocates for taking children seriously in ways that conventional society does not. Children are not heard, are expected to learn their place and obey without question. This does not foster independent thinking and creative problem solving, both qualities that I think are crucial for people to learn. While the coercion factor is an important part of TCS theory, what the theory has to say about the way people learn is just as important, as are many other aspects.

I think that each person knows what they want. Small children might lack the experience and knowledge to be able to determine what is the best course of action in any particular instance. That is why they deserve to have access to their parents' best theories. Take the instance of a small child protesting being encased in a snowsuit to go out into the snow. Maybe child does not want to go out. Maybe the snowsuit is unbearable uncomfortable or too hot, it could be itchy or something is poking hir. There could be other options of suitable protective clothing that would be more comfortable and that child would be happy to put on. If a parent resorts to coercion as a matter of course, they are relaying the message that what child wants doesn't matter. The person with the power gets their way. And that is the world they will introduce their child to.

If a parent helps child get what they want- to not go outside at the time if child does not want to, to find comfortable clothing that will suit the needs of the climate and activity, to have interesting (to hir) things to do and help to do them as child wishes, child learns that they are able to affect the world, that they do matter. They can have confidence in their ability to know what they want and to be able to work together with others to get it, to the advantage of everyone. Parent helps their self and child to find common preferences, so child learns that others have preferences that are just as important as their own. They learn that one person does not have to lose in order for another to win.

Not socially acceptable to stand on tables? People dance on tables, make speeches from tables, see over a crowd by standing on tables, escape from mice by standing on tables, reach something high or clean a high place by standing on tables, use a table as an impromptu stage or a boat or a bed or an operating table. Children are capable of knowing the difference between times when it is a good idea to stand on tables, and when it is not- and often they come by this knowledge without someone explicitly saying to them 'it's ok to stand on the picnic table outside or the project table in the basement, but if you stand on the kitchen table mom will have your hide' But do parents really want their kids to behave in certain ways, motivated by fear of punishment/consequences of being found out by parents? This does not help kids learn to act based upon rational thought, but rather upon entrenched theories that make it harder for them to think clearly about, say, tables in the future, and then they'll pass that entrenchment right along to their kids and so on.

A parent can be honest with their child. They can explain that they don't want child to stand on the kitchen table because that is where they eat, and they don't want the floor germs from feet on the surface where they eat. Child might respond with, well then, I'll wash the table with a chlorine solution to kill any germs. Parent could respond, yeah, that would take care of that problem, but you might mar the finish, and the finish is really important to me. Could you do the standing on a different table? They can share theories back and forth, look for more information if they need to, and create new knowledge about how tables can be used and germs can be fought and finishes can be protected and explore if there are even better places to stand to get what child wants out of the experience.

OK, so maybe child is not interested in having a discussion about germs and tables. A preverbal child might require more action and less talk, though I think parent can still offer hir theories and preferences and alternatives that parent likes, and keep looking for the common preferences. parent might also need to question hir theories about how important the social acceptance is, do they really want child to be motivated by being socially acceptable or are there better moral theories to operate by, and does parent really believe that child will become an inveterate table-stander in all places and situations, and how can parent and child communicate about the difference between standing on the table at home when there is nothing on the table to harm or to harm child, and, say, at grandma's or at a restaurant or the library. They could have lots of fun imitating what they think the reactions of grandma and the librarian and so on would be. Lots of good information and learning to be had, for both parent and child.

Likewise, there are lots of ways for families to figure out how to get enough sleep and to get baths, without hurting anyone. Getting more information about germs and exactly what the realistic risks are and how others manage to get enough sleep when their children are small and have various preferences that were not what parents had expected is very helpful in evaluating one's theories. The internet is an invaluable source of information, we are very fortunate to add it to our arsenal of information sources.

People who respect their own and other's autonomy are apt to find/create jobs that they want to do. If a person takes a job with a full understanding of what is required and are willing to do what it takes, they will be doing what they want. It is possible to want something, even though parts of it are difficult or unpleasant. A person can find a way to make even those parts of a task or experience acceptable to their self.

Out of time, for now.


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by RainCityMama_
*
I've been really looking for alternative methods of parenting and
I was recently made aware of TCS - I must say that in theory it makes sense to me, but I fear my own failings may thwart my efforts to practice these methods.*
I completely understand this. I was/am still scared of doing it wrong. And I'm sure in many cases I probably am because I am not perfect. I think the key is doing the best you can in not coercing and constantly looking for areas in which you are coercive and trying to fix those. Learn from your mistakes, don't beat yourself up for them.

Quote:

*
Diaper changing - He hates them, but how can I leave him to wander about in a poopy diaper all day?*
This seems to be a common situation with toddlers. I have seen parents deal with this in different ways. Some of them have found that the child doesn't mind having a diaper changed if hir can stand up for it. Some parents just take the child to the bathtub put in a few toys and the child gladly lets the diaper come off at the prospect of playing with water. Some parents decide to introduce a potty and let the child go diaperless most of the time. Some parents decide elimination timing will be the way to go with future children but I digress... LOL. Some parents find that the toddler is really struggling because the diaper changing is taking too long so they try a pull-up instead.

Quote:

*Touching outlets - He is obsessed with anything electrical, I totally appreciate that he's learning but I'm afraid that if I sat with him and worked the outlet this would only be encouraging him that this was okay.*
The points I have been trying to make are about showing the child to do this safely. So yes, in a way the parent is showing the child that doing this is in the way the parent taught hir is ok. However if the danger of doing it unsupervised and unsafely is removed, then I as the parent would not fear this any longer. Plus Discovermama's example shows that it is very likely the child will lose interest in the cords after the child has gained the knowledge he/she needs from the cords. I have seen this myself with a child who did this when hir parents weren't looking. Once this child saw what , in this case, the socket protector (you know the childproof covers that are supposed to prevent children from touching sockets







: ) was for, the child did not even look at the socket again.

Quote:

*Touching the fireplace/stove - Once again, he's learning - But if either happened to be hot this could cause serious injury that I'm not willing to do.*
Again, I suggest demystifing these things when it is safe to do so, ie. when they are off and cool. If the child understands the concept of hot then a warning from the parent is good when these things are on, that they are hot. Doing mimicry in this case is really good. Pretending to touch the hot stove and saying "Ouch, hot!" helps the child understand the pain involved. At the risk of being called negligent, I will suggest that perhaps a parent can hold the child's hand close to the item in question so that the child can feel the heat emanating from it.

Quote:

*and my own selfish need for some order within my home - Is wanting a semi-clean home wrong? I don't care if we have toys everywhere but when my little person wants to drag out all the canned goods, beauty products and rip apart rolls of toilet paper do you just allow it?*
IMO there are a lot of things that a child learns from making a mess. They can learn sorting and organization among other things. A parent could put away these items when the child is looking in the hopes that the child sees that this is what is done after it has all been pulled out. Making a game out of putting them back is a good idea too. I have seen this happen with a child who liked to throw all of the laundry on the floor. The parent made a game out of it by asking the child to bring hir the clothing items a few at a time so the parent could put them away. The parent allowed the child to try folding the clothes as well.


----------



## k'smami

Excellent post larsy!


----------



## paula_bear

Hello everyone! I must confess I did not read everything here, because I have my own question and limited time right now. Hope I am not repeating. Anyway, here goes. What exactly does one mean by coersion and non-coersion? Are we talking physical, psychological, or any form of coersion?

Let me give an example. On Monday morning 22 mo dd was wearing her Elmo slippers. Time for us to leave for LLL mtg. I asked her to put on coat, no resistance. Told her we were going to see the babies, she loves LLL and babies. Told her she needed to remove slippers to put on shoes. She didn't want to. I told her she could wear slippers, but then I would have to carry her to the car. She said, "WALK!" I gently explained that slippers may be worn inside only and she could continue wearing them, but she could not walk outside with them. Even though I saw an outburst coming, I let it happen. I sat down on the step and asked myself what dd needed. Then I asked dd if she would like to put Elmo slippers in diaper bag so that she could wear them later. She agreed to this.

Even though I hate to use labels and categories, I do find them useful. I feel that in this interaction w/ dd, I did everything possible to respect her autonomy and to help her to make her own decision that was acceptable to both of us. I believe that we as parents DO use our superior intellect and understanding of psychology, but we do not use it AGAINST our children! We are modeling the behavior we would like to see in them, we are helping to teach them about compromise and we are showing them that conflicts can be resolved without a power struggle or the use of what I would call violent tactics (call it coersion or whatever you like.) DD was very pleased with the outcome of this situation - walking to car independently was more important to her than wearing Elmo slippers - she subsequently forgot about them completely!

Anyway, sorry to post such a long-winded thread here, but I would like some clarification on the definition of coersion. I plan to print out this post as well as info from the TCS website - I always keep reading material handy for when DD falls asleep in car, etc.

Also, as far as following any child-rearing philosophy w/ more than one child, while it does get more difficult and requires more creativity, I think in the long run it makes life easier. Unfortunately I was not as well informed w/ 7.5 y/o DS, but am trying to gently incorporate knowledge as I aquire it. I find that he responds so much better to gentle discipline than to childish outbursts on my part.

I look forward to reading all of your posts and continuing to discuss TCS, etc.


----------



## k'smami

I had trouble seeing how one can feel "coerced" into TCS. I decided to look up the word to see if there was some definition that I was missing.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary

coerce:
1. To force to act or think in a certain way; compel
2. To dominate, restrain or control forcibly
3. To bring about by force.

I fail to see how someone posting something on the basis of TCS fits the above definition. Unless you intened to say that you felt coerced into thinking of your parenting style (which I can understand although not believe), I don't think anyone here has the power to actually coerce you into anything. Sure the TCS posts could annoy you, frustrate you, and -heck I'll just say it, teach you something since we have an opportunity to learn from every experiece BUT coerce? How?

I will say this, it's not like this board is being overrun by TCS. As far as I know there are only 4 people out of what is it now 1000? that post within a TCS frame of mind so to speak. So again, I'll restate that I fail to see how you are being "coerced" into following TCS. I would venture to say that it's impossible because that's what the ignore button is for. You don't even have to see those responses.

I do not intend to sound hostile. I am just hurt by this thread. Or to use a more approprite word, offended.

offend
1. To cause anger, resentment, or wounded feelings in.

Peace

Only Love Prevails


----------



## k'smami

From the TCS website www.tcs.ac

Coercion

Our definition of coercion makes precise the idea of being compelled to act against one's own will:

By "coercion" we mean:

1.the psychological state of enacting one idea or impulse while a conflicting impulse is still active in one's mind.

This leads to some subsidiary meanings:

2.the action of intentionally or recklessly placing someone in a state of enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in the person's mind;
3.behaviour that is intended, or likely, to do this.

Coerce:

*Intentionally or recklessly to place someone in a state of coercion (1); or
*to behave in a way that is intended, or likely, to do this.

Coercive:

*likely to place someone in a state of enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in his or her mind.

It all hinges on the first definition, labelled (1). If coercion in that sense occurs for any reason, it is harmful. The others are either harmful or risk harm, depending on whether coercion in sense (1) actually happens or is merely risked. (The question of why it is harmful is another matter. Here, I just want to familiarise you with the way we use the words.)

The problem is that if one engages in behaviour intended to or likely to cause (1), that is risking harming the person. One cannot tell in advance that any particular action will definitely cause coercion (1), and indeed, coercion (1) can exist without outward signs of distress, so one cannot reliably know that a person is not in a state of coercion (1). What one can do, therefore, is to think about what actions might be likely to cause coercion (1). Therefore, what we do on TCS is to try to point out actions and behaviours which seem risky in this respect.

Having said all that, behaviours which are intended or likely to cause children to enact one theory while a rival theory is still active in their mind, very often succeed. That is why we argue strongly against many of the methods commonly used in conventional parenting.

In any particular case, a child might have the creativity not to get into the psychological state of enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in his mind, and thereby avoid harm, but the point is, if we are engaging in coercion (3), the child may well not be able to avoid coercion (1) so it behoves us to try not to behave in ways likely to cause coercion (1).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consent/Non-coercion

By consent we mean full, free, genuine agreement, or unanimous consent. A consent-based (or "non-coercive") solution to a problem (which we call a "common preference") is one that all involved parties actively prefer, not one that they merely reluctantly agree to. This can be contrasted with compromise.

Unanimous consent is the criterion of decision-making in TCS relationships. Wherever there is a disagreement, the parties jointly create a common preference.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## paula_bear

P.S. I answered my own question. TCS website has glossary that defines, among other things, coersion. Well, will be happy to further debate this topic, sorry for being too lazy to check that out first!

Warmly,
Paula


----------



## Netty

[please forgive any problems in format...I'm still trying to figure out how this works now ]

Heavenly wrote:

***Well I'm going to be the thorn here and say I am totally into gentle discipline but do not agree with TCS at all (and I am also offended by that term because I take my son very seriously.) I honestly do not get how people think that a little child knows what is best for them.***

TCS advocates do not claim that children know what is best for them. Children need parents (or caregivers) to help them do what they want to do safely and in ways that are preferable to all parties.

*** We were going outside today. It's snowing. my 11 month old hates getting his snowsuit on no matter what I do to try and make it fun. He screamed. I put the snow suit on anyways. IMO that is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. Letting my 11 month old go out in just a track suit is negligent and I will never change my opinion on that. ***

TCS families decide activities together and no one preference over-rides another. If a child does not want to put on a snowsuit, s/he doesn't put it on. If the child wants to go outside without it, the parent brings it along and offers it frequently. With a very young child or infant, the parent might wrap hir in a blanket or reconsider the outing altogether. I think it is irresponsible to force something on a child that s/he obviously does not want.

*** And I still 100% do not agree! "gee you're standing on a table, go ahead." It is not socially acceptable to stand on tables and last time I checked my son will need to be a productive member of society. My son is a baby, a child. there is no possible way for him to know what is best because he has no experience.***

As you say, your child is young and there is plenty of time for him to learn what is and what is not socially acceptable. Is it socially acceptable to force someone into a snowsuit against their will? A child stands on the table because it is fun or s/he is curious or wants to be tall or get attention. Perhaps the parent can help the child satisfy those needs some other way. Or perhaps the parent can help the child stand on the table in a safe way. Young children want to explore. Help them.

***I do not spend my day thinking of ways to control him. I play with him and let him explore and try to make transitions happy and gentle. But if doesn't want to go to bed he's still going, being rocked to sleep in my arms, crying. Sleep is necessary - for our whole family.****

This makes no sense to me. Do you go to bed when someone tells you to whether you are tired or not? A TCS family finds ways to accomodate the sleep needs of all family members, not just the biggest and strongest ones.

*** If he doesn't want to take a bath he's doing it. I am not going to breed germs because an 11 month old feels like boycotting bath time.***

There are many alternatives to baths. A shower? A sponge bath? A swim? Wait until s/he wants a bath? I don't see how forcing someone into a bath will encourage them to like baths.

*** And what happens when these kids are out in society. "well gee boss I don't feel like filing right now, I have different theories about the need for accounts payables to be filed." Buh bye! They get fired. We can not always get our own way and that's a fact. And IMO you are doing your child a disservice by making them believe otherwise. It is our responsibilty as parents to raise our children to make it in this world, not to think they ARE the world.***

What is your idea of "making it"? I think that "making it in the world" means being as happy as possible without interfering with someone else's happiness. This is what TCS is all about!


----------



## EarthWind

Hey everyone!

I don't post very often and there are only a few forums that I frequent. Gentle Discipline is where I often find myself since I have a 16mo ds and am now thinking about how to be in relationship with him respectfully as he grows older (I hesitate to use the word 'discipline' since I personally have very negative associations with that word). I just want to say that I am very, very grateful for the TCS presence here on this board. I am a newbie at TCS and am always looking for new ways of perceiving situations that I may encounter in the future. I find the TCS input to be very helpful indeed. I am sure that there are other ways of 'disciplining' our children that don't involve TCS, but, it seems to me that TCS could be seen as integral to gentle discipline. However, that's just my opinion.

Mostly, I just want to relay my gratefulness to you moms who are practicing TCS. Please continue to provide your perspective on things in this forum. Many of us are learning so much from your feedback!

Peace,

Michelle


----------



## peggy

Dear k'smami,
I am sorry you are offended. In the other thread I did say I felt "coerced" into TCS with a smiley face after it, intending it to be a play on words so to speak. Not that I literally felt that way.
I also said I thought there was room for both AP and TCS in this forum. The only thing I took exception to was the fact that in some posts it is implied that we are not taking our children seriously, that we are coercing them at every turn. I guess some of us were getting offended because we felt that instead of offering a another way of doing things, we were being told we were doing it the wrong way. At least that is where my frustration was coming from anyway.
I felt in some instances after answering the original posters question with a TCS slant , the person posting about TCS would then pick apart the answers of some of the others who responded in the post. That I did find irritating.
I hope I am explaining myself in the way I intended. I don't want to see this animosity between the TCS ers and the AP ers. There is room enough for everybody here as long as we respect each others opinion. I really am sorry that I offended you, that was not my intention.

peggy


----------



## k'smami

This paragraph comes from Without Boundaries from Jan Fortune Wood. Although larcy and netty and discovermama touched upon some of these thoughts, I like how this paragraph puts it together.

Quote:

_
We live in a society where children are routinely deprived of the common rights of humanity, where they often cannot choose what to eat or wear, whom they associate with, when they can sleep, what they can learn or even what they can enjoy as leisure. Love is neither compensation nor justification for such total lack of autonomy. The suffering that arises is not character building or a preparation for living in the real world, but rather damages the ability to problem solve creatively and consider solutions rationally. It perpetuates an acceptance of suffering and an inhability to follow one's preferences into adulthood. Children whose autonomy is respected do not expect to never have to solve problems or that life will be handed to them on a plate or that they will never have to work hard at realising thier preferences. Autonomous children know that problem solving is a feature of real life and growth, that risk is inevitable and that change and criticism and new solutions are always going to be needed. What they do not do is conflate problems with suffering or effort with sacrifice. When we live in an ethos of consent, creativity and rationality, boundaries become simply irrelevant. (page 84)_
I also want to quote this sentence on page 85:

Quote:

_
The prisons are not full of TCS children. Whilst TCS is not primairly concerned with outcome-based parenting, I think we can confidently predict that, unless TCS children are living under unjust and illiberal laws, this situation is likely to continue._


----------



## Heavenly

I do not have the time to respond to all of this right now but I wanted to say Larsy you are REALLY starting to irritate me with your attitude. You are infering that because I do not practice TCS I am not gentle towards my son (mama will have your hide???). I do not want to start a fight so listen and listen carefully. I do not believe in spanking, yelling, raising my voice. I always try and direct my son in positive ways and do things to try and make him comfortable (not going out when he's tired, etc.). But I do not agree with TCS, okay? I don't think that a parent is being evil or wrong to tell their child when to go to bed, or to take a bath, or wear a jacket. I'm pretty my sure my son will grow up just fine with all my coercion.







:


----------



## k'smami

Dear Heavenly,

I think this is why larsy stressed when she began this thread that people speak hypthotically about children and parents. It is my opinion, and please larsy correct me if I'm wrong, that larsy was speaking about people in general and used an extreme example to illustrate. I also don't believe I've heard anyone here use the word evil.

It is your right to not agree with TCS. Please remember that you offered to debate it by posting on this thread and saying so.


----------



## Ms. Mom

Heavenly - Your feeling frustrated because the tcs theory dosn't feel right to you and your feeling judged. I can understand your feelings and am sorry that your feeling under attack.

It seems a lot of our members are curious about tcs and do want to discuss it in this forum. This is the logical place to so and I'm glad to see this thread so that everyone interested can come here and learn.

Sometimes the tcs theories do seem a bit much for many members, I can certainly understand that. Before the boards went down there were a few times things got heated. What worked was to have a thread where people could come and discuss the theory and others could skip by.

EVERYONE is welcome on the Mothering Boards and I appreciate the diverse views that are discussed here.

We all beleive in treating children with gentleness, love and respect. Let's do the same here to each other.

If anyone would like to discuss this further please feel free to pm me or email me [email protected] any time. I always welcome your views.

Edited to say; Welcome back Netty - I wondered where you had gone.


----------



## geomom

I am not formally into TCS. I think that they may have chosen an unfortunate name for the movement since it has a tendancy to put people off. The immediate reaction I usually see when someone brings it up is along the lines of 'of course, I take my children seriously. But that doesn't mean my toddler knows what is best.'

I have been slowly moving toward consensus as the means of interacting with my child. My attempts at coersion were short lived and just didn't seem like a productive endevour. I am not above some positive reinforcement now and then.







But when dd and I are not in agreement from the get go, I start working toward a consensus and not just on getting my way.

I too faced hysterical cries at the sight of the snow suit. We found this really perplexing since she has worn it frequently without protest in the past. We dressed her in many layers for a week while we figured out what it was about the snow suit that offended her sensibilities. It turned out that the collar was bothering her. We were able to alter the collar and explain what we did so that the snow suit is once again acceptable to her.


----------



## Linda in Arizona

Quote:

Some of the TCS posts I have found to be argumentative, aggressive and sometimes plain rude

and condescending and judgmental. As a mom here who posts about real things with my kids and how I handle them, I'm sick of having my actions judged by people who believe there is one right way.

There are lots of right ways!

Quote:

I think children would rather we discuss their lives than make some bizarre error in judgement that could cause them some sort of problem later..... [/B]
agreed. I think if I loudly anouced at a Christmas party that one of my children wears pullups at night, it would be an invasion of her privacy. To talk about something quite personally here with other moms who might have experience or tips, can only help. I perfer to raise my kids will all the information and insight I can get. That takes being open and honest. Since my kids are always with me, talking about real problems on-line is a way that I can find other options _without_ invading their privacy.


----------



## Linda in Arizona

Quote:

_Originally posted by larsy_
*Sorry to keep repeating meyself, but...

TCS is a philosophy about non-coercive interaction between *parent* and *child*, not between non-related adults.*

so it is OK if someone else coerces your child, you coerce someone else's child, you coerce your spouse, etc?????

To me, respecting other people's points of view and feelings are very important, be it my children, other adults, etc. I think we should always respect others' right to feel differently than we do, work toward finding creative solutions to differences, and respecting someone's right to come to a different conclusion when no agreement is reached.


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by Linda in Arizona_
*

so it is OK if someone else coerces your child, you coerce someone else's child, you coerce your spouse, etc?????

To me, respecting other people's points of view and feelings are very important, be it my children, other adults, etc. I think we should always respect others' right to feel differently than we do, work toward finding creative solutions to differences, and respecting someone's right to come to a different conclusion when no agreement is reached.*
I understood what larsy meant as, there is nothing damaging about not helping strangers get what they want. You can agree to disagree or you can stop associating with them. This is not the case with children. With children and their parents, agreeing to disagree happens very rarely unless you're talking about philosophical ideals. You can't stop associating with your children. You must deal with them daily and this initmate relationship can't be compared with any associations you have with strangers.


----------



## Ms. Mom

Thanks geomom. Your right about the name. I think it puts peoples defenses up.

I like the snowsuit story. Sometimes a little one needs some time to be able to properly communicate why they don't want to do something. You gave her the time to do so and she must feel so releived that you understand.


----------



## larsy

So, it's not possible to take one's children more seriously than before? To recognize ways in which one isn't taking them as seriously as one would like to? Sure, everyone's first thought is 'I take my children seriously'. What's the next thought? 'I'm so glad to find others who do too, maybe I can get some more information so that I can do better'? Getting defensive might be a clue, good information, that entrenched theories are flaring.

Human beings are fallible. No matter how seriously we take other people and ourselves, there are still places where we can learn and change and do better. Living takes effort, no matter how one lives. Spending that energy on relating to loved ones in tired patterns that do not support good relationships, that undermine trust and love and instead produce bad feelings and stunt learning... well, is that energy well-spent? If there are better ways to direct energy, to improve relationships and lives, wouldn't you want to know about it? Even if it involves some effort and pain and prodding one's tender spots, to hear and understand and implement it in one's own life?


----------



## Netty

Quote:

_Originally posted by geomom_
*I am not formally into TCS. I think that they may have chosen an unfortunate name for the movement since it has a tendancy to put people off. The immediate reaction I usually see when someone brings it up is along the lines of 'of course, I take my children seriously. But that doesn't mean my toddler knows what is best.'*
Yes, that is the reaction we usually get  But when you think about it, "Taking Children Seriously" is a very fitting name. Yes, most parents think they *do* take their children seriously, but when it comes down to it, they often don't. And that is what the movement is trying to point out. Children are so often treated as second--or even third--rate people. What the TCS movement is trying to change is this very attitude to children. A child who wants to drink bleach, for example, should be taken seriously. No, that doesn't mean that the parent should give the child bleach to drink, but should look at ways of satisfying the child's very *rational* desire. Because we assume that the child's desre is rational, we first realize that the desire is *not* to poison hirself. From there, we try to determine how to satisfy that desire. The child wants a bottle to explore? The child is thirsty? The child wants attention? And so on. We do not simply snatch the bleach away and say "No! Danger!" and leave it at that. Of course we help the child understand danger. But we take their desires seriously at the same time. Many anti-tcs parents will say something like, "I *do* take my children seriously" and then add a "but" immediately after. Isn't that rather telling? ;-) Taking someone seriously does not mean doing whatever they want. It means that we consider their desires on par with our own.

BTW, thanks for the welcome back, Mrs Mom!...I've been frantically busy lately, but I hope I can help out here more in the next while 

Netty


----------



## discovermoma

I'm not picking on you, your just the only one right now posting why you do not believe in TCS and what you think is wrong with TCS. I'm arguing my opinion is all.

You said you don't spank. How do you feel when you see someone spanking their child? Do you think to yourself that this parent is doing wrong to the child and that there are better ways to discipline than by hitting?

That's how I feel when I read in your post that you make your child do something that they don't want to do. I think there is a better way of doing it and I want to share this way with you.

For example making a child take a bath. TCS way does not mean that you should have a dirty child. It means (to me) that I should find out why the child doesn't want to take a bath. Is the water temperature too cold or hot, are they bored with the bath toys and I should rotate toys to keep her interested, does she have diaper rash and the water/soap is causing it to burn, am I splashing water in her face which she doesn't like, is the big tub too scary, was she doing something that interested her when I told her it was bath time...?

Same thing for wearing a coat. I don't think any child likes to be cold. Maybe there is something about the coat that is causing problems. Is the zipper pinching or scratching, does a snowsuit limit mobility...and so on.

I try to put myself in my dd's shoes to find out what it is about something that she is resisting. Power struggles with a child is a lose/lose situation, but finding a common preference is a win/win situation. It makes the days I spend with my dd so much better. It has greatly enhanced my marriage. It has allowed me to become more open minded. TCS doesn't make my life hard, it makes it more enjoyable.


----------



## bigcats

I have two questions regarding TCS. The first:

When I checked out the website, there was a list that said something like "If you believe any of these statements, you probably will not find the TCS list supportive" and then one of the statements was about children learning from natural consequences. What's coercive about natural consequences? When a child throws a treasured toy out a second story window, and the toy breaks on the sidewalk below (after being given information by the parent that this may happen)... is this something the child cannot, or should not, learn from? I'm wondering if maybe the website authors were referring to "logical consequences" - those that are parent-arranged, such as "If you throw your food at the dinner table, you are done with dinner and you need to leave the table".

Secondly, can TCS be used with children who seem *not* to want to avoid hurting themselves? I work with kids with emotional disorders stemming frmo abuse and neglect, and it seems to me that the assumption the kids do not want to cause harm to themselves is a false one. These kids will intentionally do things they know will be painful or harmful to themselves (putting sand in their eyes, glass in their mouths, walking over to a child who is tantrumming and assaultive, drinking Lysol, etc). It's not just that the child does not have information that these things are harmful... the child does them again and again, after having experienced the painful sensations.

Thanks for your help in clarifying these issues.


----------



## geomom

To all you TCS folks, I do understand that TCS wants children to given basic human respect and understanding. I just wanted to point out that even those who agree with the philosophical underpinnings of TCS can be put off by the language.

I do tend to disagree that humans are primarily rational. I see emotional responses as being primary and rational thought as secondary. That doesn't mean that I think rational thought is inferior. But I see emotional repsonses as being the basic means by which humanity deals with experiences. For me, rational thought is a means of interpretting and using emotional responses. I also do not see my toddler's thought processes as being rational. Much of what she communicates at this point is magical thinking and fantasy. But these are her means of dealing with the world and just as valid as her mother's love of rationl thought.


----------



## fire

I was raised with some "good" and bad" (used loosely) parenting skills and also instincts. I found it very easy to intuitively nurture my newborn. However it, for me has become increasingly more difficult, complicated. Because we are all different and each child individual I see that guidelines aren't always relevant but it is not necessary to totaly devalue them. Sometimes I get great help from theories and 'psycology' inspired parenting systems. I think that most of the social sciences are very altruistic; handy in the way that they look at a child growing with an objective point of view, detached from the deep emotions involved with raising your own family. I think this advise is very important and it is mostlikely coming from a place of love for all children. Also for the same reason, I can see how we could rightly distrust the full accuracy of some band box certainty from one who is not directly intimately connected with our loved ones.


----------



## MamaLeah

I have been mulling over many points of view for the last several months. As many others, the world of being a parent is new to me, and I don't always know what to do/what is best/what makes sense/what will ultimately be the best path. I have posted very few questions and no opinions about TCS because I hadn't had time to really openly explore the ideas. They were very new to me. I have felt defensive and angry at times, but tried to take the time to let my emotions teach me something. I feel like the TCSers take a lot of heat, but I have never seen any posts from a pro-TCS person that in my view was not respectful, thoughtful and honest.

I realized today that I am a better parent because of the ideas I have been exposed to here. It is not easy to open yourself up to a new way of thinking about the world, and I have struggled with it. But because of TCS ideas, I trust my daughter more, I hear her more accurately, I am more calm and patient when she has trouble expressing her needs or wants. These are huge things. Especially the trust. I mean trust is the deepest sense of the word. And I truly believe that she trusts me more, is more able to understand my needs and is more patient with me. I don't think I am ready to label myself a certain way. I'm still learning so much. But I wanted to let those of you who have spent so much time trying to explain these ideas, that I for one am grateful and I think you have improved the quality of my and my daughter's lives. Thank you.

Leah


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by bigcats_
*I work with kids with emotional disorders stemming frmo abuse and neglect, and it seems to me that the assumption the kids do not want to cause harm to themselves is a false one. These kids will intentionally do things they know will be painful or harmful to themselves (putting sand in their eyes, glass in their mouths, walking over to a child who is tantrumming and assaultive, drinking Lysol, etc). It's not just that the child does not have information that these things are harmful... the child does them again and again, after having experienced the painful sensations.
*
This illustrates how coercion damages thinking and inhibits learning. These children were abused and neglected i.e. expericenced very damaging instances of coercion. I don't think these children are a good example about how children think so cases like these should not be used against the majority of children to say that they aren't rational (not implying that you're saying this, I'm just throwing it out there). This is a very interesting case, I don't know how one would handle these behaviors using TCS. I'll think about it though.

There are a couple of articles on the TCS website that discuss Natural Consequences. According to TCS, natural consequences should be avoided because if parents were able to stop the consequence from happening and didn't then they are being coercive because they are trying to teach their child a "lesson" about whatever the action the child did that the parent disagreed with.

For instance imagine a 6 year old left a precious, delicate toy on the floor. The parent sees it there and thinks that if it stays there it might get broken by someone passing by who may trip on it. Instead of picking it up and giving the child a warning about what happens when you leave delicate things on the floor, the parent decides that this is a Natural Consequence of leaving the toy on the floor (lets say that this is not the first time the child leaves something delicate on the floor) and as such does not remove the toy and someone trips and breaks it. This is coercive because the parent is imposing their will on the child's property. "That toy deserves to get broken because it was left on the floor." Would the parent do that if a guest was the one who left something on the floor? Would the parent say, "That deserves to get broken because so and so left it where it's not supposed to be"? IME the parent would pick the item up to ensure its safety. Why would the parent do this with a guest but not their beloved child?


----------



## Irishmommy

I would just like to say that I'm with Heavenly on this one. I have a friend who parents like that (TCS, but I don't think she gives it a name), and her child is the biggest brat going. Everything is always what suits her child, no matter how it hurts/inconveniences/annoys other people. For example, at a restaurant, kid wants to run around, kid gets to run around - even with waitstaff carrying trays, coffee pots, etc., and who would be blamed if someone tripped over the kid and the kid was hurt? The parents sure wouldn't be thinking "oh, maybe my kid shouldn't do that"! Or, kid is really tired (obvious to everyone except mom, kid's not particulary verbal), mom keeps child up because child says no to bed. Which is better for kid - following what he says verbally, or what he says body language? This particular kid (3 years old) thinks that everyone on earth should bow to her, and treats everyone like they are only here to serve her (or take her seriously!). She is going to be one miserable kid when she hits school and all of a sudden isn't the centre of the universe, and I don't think her parents have done her any favours.


----------



## larsy

Irishmommie, what you describe is not TCS.


----------



## Linda in Arizona

Quote:

_Originally posted by discovermoma_
*You said you don't spank. How do you feel when you see someone spanking their child? Do you think to yourself that this parent is doing wrong to the child and that there are better ways to discipline than by hitting?

That's how I feel when I read in your post that you make your child do something that they don't want to do. I think there is a better way of doing it and I want to share this way with you.

*
My, how very condescending of you! This is a gentle discipline board, not a TCS/NCP soapbox. I feel that there needs to be respect for all parents praticing (or trying to practice) positive discipline, even if that takes a different turn that it does in my home.

I attended a conference section on TCS. I've read Without Boundaries. I practiced NCP for a while. Ultimately, I decided it was not the right path for my family. I still work very hard to find common preferences with my children, but if we can't it doesn't mean that they simply get their way.

This attititude that "there is a better way of doing it and I want to share this way with you" is getting old. Just because there is a better way for your family, doesn't mean that it is the one right way for all families.


----------



## Jish

After reading all the TCS posts I feel like I am at an impasse. I have made it clear that although I agree with some of the fundementals, I am not a whole hearted subscriber. I just read the post about the six year old and the toys left on the floor and here is my problem. I feel like it is a no win situation. If I leave the toy on the floor I have coersed my child with my will in my desire to have her learn natural consequences since if my guest had left something on the floor I would have picked it up. Yet if I pick up the toy for my child, with or without an explanation, I am again forcing my will on my child (or at least my child's toy








) since my child made the decision to leave it there in the first place. It often seems like a no win situation where the battle of the wills is concerned.

All in all, I think that we are all more alike than we are different and if we visited each others homes it would often be difficult to determine who "practices" TSC and who doesn't. We all have different personalities, different children and different priorities in our lives that shape what we want for our children and and how we choose to raise them. We have different thresholds for frustration as do our children and we must tailor our discipline and our lifestyle to our individual needs and to our children and families needs. I personally tend to read, for example, Heavenlys posts and see myself in them I can relate to her more than I can Larsy. But in the end, we all take our children seriously or we wouldn't be posting here. Anyone else with me?


----------



## bigcats

quoted from k'smama:

Quote:

I don't think these children are a good example about how children think so cases like these should not be used against the majority of children to say that they aren't rational (not implying that you're saying this, I'm just throwing it out there). This is a very interesting case, I don't know how one would handle these behaviors using TCS. I'll think about it though.
To clarify, no, I didn't mean to imply with my example that the majority of children aren't rational. I'm simply trying to decide if TCS would be a good fit with the children I work with.

Regarding natural consequences... in my example the child was given the information that the toy might be damaged by the fall from the window. So then it is still the parent's responsiblity to prevent the toy from being damaged? Using the honored guest analogy, if my guest were eating her sandwich on my couch, I might point out to her that if she chooses to eat there, my dog might snatch the sandwich from her. If she chooses to continue eating the sandwich on my couch, and my dog does snatch it from her, I don't think I'd feel obligated to replace the sandwich for her, even if she was upset about it.

I guess I should check out the discussions about natural consequences on the TCS site that you mention


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*After reading all the TCS posts I feel like I am at an impasse. I have made it clear that although I agree with some of the fundementals, I am not a whole hearted subscriber. I just read the post about the six year old and the toys left on the floor and here is my problem. I feel like it is a no win situation. If I leave the toy on the floor I have coersed my child with my will in my desire to have her learn natural consequences since if my guest had left something on the floor I would have picked it up. Yet if I pick up the toy for my child, with or without an explanation, I am again forcing my will on my child (or at least my child's toy







) since my child made the decision to leave it there in the first place. It often seems like a no win situation where the battle of the wills is concerned.*
If a parent could ask the child if hir intended to leave the toy on the floor or if the child forgot, that would be one way for the parent to make sure that the parent isn't imposing hir will on the child. Parent could share hir theories about why precious toys should not be left on the floor and what could happen if they were left there if the child says that the toy was left there on purpose.

I would like those who don't follow TCS to define what taking children seriously means to them since I see that a lot of what is being argued with is terminology.


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by bigcats_
*Regarding natural consequences... in my example the child was given the information that the toy might be damaged by the fall from the window. So then it is still the parent's responsiblity to prevent the toy from being damaged? Using the honored guest analogy, if my guest were eating her sandwich on my couch, I might point out to her that if she chooses to eat there, my dog might snatch the sandwich from her. If she chooses to continue eating the sandwich on my couch, and my dog does snatch it from her, I don't think I'd feel obligated to replace the sandwich for her, even if she was upset about it.

*

If the parent has told the child what would happen if the toy goes out the window and the child wants to do this anyway, then I would try to see what the child wants to learn from doing this. If the child is trying to learn about gravity or what happens to things when they fall from a high place then perhaps the parent could suggest that a different, less important toy could be used instead or even a piece of fruit. Maybe the child doesn't like the toy at all and wants to get rid of it in this manner, then no problem, no need to replace it once it goes out the window. Even here a parent could suggest to the child that if hir doesn't like it then it could be donated to someone who would like it and then that rotten apple can go flying out the window instead. Even if the child still insists on throwing the particular toy out the window I would probably replace it. Why? Maybe the child now regrets this decision and feels bad for having done it. (I know I've done things that I've regretted later) I think the child has learned what hir needed to learn from the experience and will probably not do this again in the future. So not replacing the toy would IMO be a form of punishment and as such coercive. And in the end it's just a toy.


----------



## Jish

To imply that I don't take my children seriously if I don't practice the TCS theory is extremely insulting. You are doing what you feel is best for your family and child. When you can provide unargueable proof that your way is the right way to raise a child I will gladly adopt your theory, but at this point that is all it is, a theory - a method. As an educator I have had too many child/developmental psychology classes to believe that giving in to my child's will is always the right thing to do, nor do I need to always negotiate on small issues, ex. wearing a coat. Many things that our children do are due to their age and developmental phase. I'm not going into specifics.

I take my children very seriously. I take their health seriously. I work with their pediatrician to ensure that they are as healthy as can be. I take their needs seriously and provide for their needs and much of the time for their wants too. I take their feelings seriously, and apologize when I have hurt them. I work with them to find solutions when our wants/needs don't mesh, but as the mother there are things that must be done, and they must come along for the ride (wearing a coat.) Contrary to what you believe, I think that it is healthy for my children to learn that sometimes we need to concede to the wants and needs of others. A child who learns to "give in" and put others first becomes a child who learns that other's needs are as important, and at times more important than his own. I think that it is important that my child knows that when I tell him to put on his coat it is because I love him and I don't want him to be cold. I want him to know that he can count on me to protect him. I think that small children who make every decision in their lives and are allowed to negotiate everything will fail to see their parents as someone they can count on for all the answers. I think when the questions get bigger (drugs, sex) these children are going to look for someone to tell them that drugs are wrong and they should wait to have sex, but are instead going to be told to be careful. I had friends who were allowed to negotiate everything with their parents, and they were often miserable. One friend once told me that she wished her parents would give her a curfew and rules, so that she would know that they loved her.

I strive to make my son's confident and independent people, but not at the expense of others. I take this very seriously. I want my sons to know that I love them every minute of the day, even when they are mad at me because I enforced the rules of the house. Rules that have been made in the best interest of the whole family. I listen to my children's wants and I weigh them against their needs. I think that this is were we differ. We should not get everything that we want, in my opinion it isn't healthy, but we should get everything that we need. My job as a parent is to ensure that my child gets everything that he needs, my love, my attention, my respect, etc, and to get some of what he wants. It is here where we often negotiate. I think it is equally important that my child see that I too, don't always get what I want. Thus the reason that my childs wants often come before my own. This is negotiation and cooperation between me and my children. We must each learn to balance our needs and wants together.

For every book you can find saying that your method is right, or the best, I can find ten saying elsewise (although I may not agree with them all.) For every expert you have saying that TCS is the right way or the best way, I can find dozens of experts saying differently. Parenting is trial and error, and we are all doing the best that we can. I am sure that we all disagree with each others opinions on many things in life but I take serious offense when you insinuate that you care more for your children that I do for mine, or that you take your children more seriously than I do mine. Pardon the snideness in my next comment, but after being told that I do not take my childen seriously I feel it is justified. Perhaps that selfish attitude is the result of the TCS theory. My apologies in advance.


----------



## laelsweet

looking for more ideas about how to handle cords, plugs, outlets, the electricity problem. dear child is very interested and although parents had a discussion with an 'expert' (parent and engineer) about potential dangers, parents are still in need of ways to talk about it with a toddler (few words)

secondly, a situation. let's say, it's almost christmas in a house where a couple of families live together, a young family and an old family. old family is used to their traditions, their objects; dc in young family is very young and really wants to touch these objects, really really really, and some traditions have already been altered to suit everyone (common preference found for various things). unfortunately young family is quite busy and cannot reproduce most items of interest (eg. gingerbread house, delicate ornaments). dc is young enough that verbal explanation and discussion is not always an ideal approach.

ideas please! and t h a n k y o u


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*To imply that I don't take my children seriously if I don't practice the TCS theory is extremely insulting.*
I'm assuming this statement is directed at me because I was the one who answered your post before this one. Please forgive me if I am assuming wrong.

I would like for you to tell me where I implied this. I merely asked what taking children seriously is to you. To me, it is described very clearly with TCS. I want to know where you are coming from, that is all.

In general what I have seen here is that people who have criticised that TCS is negligent or misguided and argue that they do take children seriously but do not say how. They proceed to provide examples of why TCS wouldn't work. And proceed to talk about how the name is insulting. I would like to get past the name. I am here to learn. I want to hear other peoples views. I thank you for having answered the question.

Quote:

*Many things that our children do are due to their age and developmental phase. I'm not going into specifics.*
This may be true but I don't understand what you are trying to say with this statement.

Quote:

*Contrary to what you believe, I think that it is healthy for my children to learn that sometimes we need to concede to the wants and needs of others.*
Ok. Tell me why you believe this. Maybe I am wrong to think differently. Maybe I won't realize it today but how can I realize it in the future with no rationale?

Quote:

*A child who learns to "give in" and put others first becomes a child who learns that other's needs are as important, and at times more important than his own.*
I would say that children learn that other people's needs are important because their needs and wants were seen as important and often not dismissed simply because they are children.

Quote:

*I think that it is important that my child knows that when I tell him to put on his coat it is because I love him and I don't want him to be cold. I want him to know that he can count on me to protect him.*
To illustrate how getting offended gets in the way of learning from eachother, I could get picky with this line and take offense with its implication that since I am parenting like TCS my child won't know that I love him and can't count on me to protect him. However, I choose not to be offended. Instead, I will tell you what I think. I think that a TCS child will know that he/she is loved because parents are trying to do everything in their power to not impose thier views (which could be wrong) on hir and find common preferences and share with hir their best thoeries as to how the world works. He/She will trust hir parents because he/she knows that the parents do not think it's right to make hir do things he/she doesn't want to do and will support him in whatever he/she does want to do.

Quote:

*I think that small children who make every decision in their lives and are allowed to negotiate everything will fail to see their parents as someone they can count on for all the answers.*
I think that all children will eventually see that they can't count on their parents for ALL of the answers. They can count on their parents to share their experiences, knowledge and wisdom but they will always find thier own answers whether they were TCSed or not. Sometimes these answers are the same the parents have, sometimes they are not.

Quote:

*I think when the questions get bigger (drugs, sex) these children are going to look for someone to tell them that drugs are wrong and they should wait to have sex, but are instead going to be told to be careful.*
This is not TCS. A TCS child will be told the parent's best theories about drugs and sex and if those theories are that they should wait to have sex or not do drugs then those will be the theories shared. A TCS parent IMO would provide all of the information possible for the child to see this and even information that may refute the parent's theories in order for the child to make a rational and informed decision (i.e. without the risk of being confused by the parent's entrenched theories).

Quote:

*One friend once told me that she wished her parents would give her a curfew and rules, so that she would know that they loved her.*
This doesn't sound like she was raised TCS and I'll explain why. IMO, in a TCS household there are rules BUT they are agreed upon by everyone. This, for example, means that a teenager agrees to the 11:00 pm curfew because he/she had input into the hour and because it is not an arbitary time imposed by the parents, this teenager will most often be home at that time, and if the teenager will miss that time that teenager will most often call hir parents to let them know when he/she will be home. This is much like a spouse would do. A spouse can come and go as he/she pleases without fear of punishment but AGREES to be home at a certain hour for whatever the reasons and most often, gets home on time.

Quote:

*I strive to make my son's confident and independent people, but not at the expense of others.*
This implies that TCS parents do this at the expense of others. If this is what you are saying, please explain how you think this is so.

Quote:

*We should not get everything that we want, in my opinion it isn't healthy,*
Why not? Why isn't it healthy, if it is done with everyone's consent and in a way that makes everyone happy?

Quote:

*For every book you can find saying that your method is right, or the best, I can find ten saying elsewise (although I may not agree with them all.) For every expert you have saying that TCS is the right way or the best way, I can find dozens of experts saying differently.*
Ok. Is this because I quoted the book? I did not quote the book to prove anything. I quoted it because the statements are relevant to the discussion and the theory was well-written. IMO the book "proves" nothing.

Quote:

*Perhaps that selfish attitude is the result of the TCS theory. My apologies in advance.*
I accept your apology. And I reserve further comment on this to eliminate any need to apologize.









With all due respect,

I.


----------



## Jish

I actually don't think that your's was the post I was responding to. The post that infuriated me last night seems to be missing. But anyway, I am getting tired of all the bickering about small points in how we raise our children when, for the most part, what we are doing is likely more similar than it is different. I practice many things in the TCS theory everyday, but I also take things from other areas and ideas too. Then I can take all the information and decide what is best for my family. I think that perhaps I am a bit more spiritually religious than many because I feel it is my responsibility to raise my kids in the church and to follow the ten commandments (including, honor thy mother and father.) I am not a zealot, but faith is important to my family and I take raising my children as good Catholics as a serious part of my job and TCS contradicts this in some areas. I'm going to take a break from this thread and this theory for a while and simply enjoy the holidays with my family. If anyone has any advice for my biting post, please let me know, but I won't be here for a while - it is too frustrating.

Happy Holidays everyone!


----------



## lilyka

AP is easy and make life easier for us. No matter how much we made orwhere we lived or what we have. Even now a my dd is entering the most difficult phase of her life I still see the benifits of an AP lifestyle "In Arms" is still the best place for a hurt, distressed or angry child. We still sleep together on occaision when she is sick or scared. When she plays house I see her being "resposive and nurtiruing" to her dolls. We homeschool and that seems such a natural extension o being there for her when she was little. We stiil lovingly guide her on a day to day basis and genty correct her when she is naughty.

TCS on the other hand seems to me like a luxury. I could see myself doing that if I was never in a hurry to be anywhere, if I could do things at my leisure, if I had the paitence o negotiate, and only had one child. It would be hard enough to find common ground with two people but factor in three minds that want three seperate things and I see issues.

I don't necessarily see how TCS and AP are related. They seem like two entirly different things. I mean I can see how people can do both but I don't think they are all that related. A person can still do all the AP stuff and love thier child and take thier needs and desires seriously while still maintaining that mom knows what is best, safest and sometimes just has to be in charge and make athouritarian decissions. But that is sorta off topic.


----------



## peggy

A long time ago on the old mothering boards we went through this. We never came to any agreement or consensus, and there were bad feelings all around.
We disagree...so what? As I said before there is room for TCS and gentle discipline here.
When a Mom asks a discipline question the TCS people can give their answer, the gentle discipline people can give their answer. I see no reason why we must convince the other side we are right and they are wrong. Let's just stick to the original posters question and not pick apart each others answers.
Trying to keep the peace,
peggy


----------



## discovermoma

Sounds like a great idea!!!

Now, what was the question? LOL! LOL!


----------



## JessicaS

my dd is too young for me to start asking discipline advice....

but when I see Ms Mom attacked on her parenting techniques I have a problem.


----------



## lisamarie

I am not offended, as another user had previously posted here, about TCS responses. Personally, I feel that parents providing gentle and unoffensive TCS information is fine. Just like how recently, I provided gentle, unoffensive gentle discipline/ap information to a friend who does not attachmet parent and wanted additional information on how to discipline her ds.

But, when individuals are being offended and hurt on this forum or on others forums for that matter, we all need to step back, take some deep breaths. And, we want to be gentle with our children, but what about each other? Remember, we all love our children dearly and we all want the best for them. Thats why we come here to this Mothering community.

Happy Holidays~

Lisa


----------



## Sierra

Wow! It is amazing how much passion has arisen from this discussion. It makes sense, though, that our methods of caring for our children, particularly when we are talking about things as important as helping them or guiding them to grow into healthy adults, invoke a deep sense of meaning in our lives. From meaning grows passion.

Despite this passion, *I hope this conversation will continue with a deeper sense of respect and gentleness toward one another as care takers of our children. All of us want to be the best parents we can be for our children*.

What colors our various parenting styles in their unique shades is a complex mixture of our own life experiences and history, our cultural backgrounds, our present life circumstances, the composition of our families, our personalities, the personalities of our ever unique children, and numerous other factors that will vary from person to person and family to family.

There are no one-size-fits-all approaches to parenting. Even in parenting our own children, we know that with each child, new strategies and desires and needs develop. I take the stuff that works for me out of many theories. I take what works for me from TCS and leave the rest. I take what works for me out of Gentle Discipline and leave the rest. I am so grateful that I have such a wide array of theories and approaches at my fingertips (in this community, in the library, in magazines, etc.) to examine and learn from.

I do constantly examine my own assumptions and approaches so that I may regularly improve what I'm doing. I think most of us do that or we wouldn't be here.

This forum, and particularly, this thread, provides an excellent opportunity to do this examination. Of course, each of us has the right to choose when we do self-examine as parents, and when we do not want to undergo this self-examination; and each of us has the right to self-examine only to various degrees, as well as the right to make decisions that work for us as individual families despite what others may think about those decisions.

What concerns me in this thread, as someone watching from the sidelines, is that there have been a couple of instances in which folks have lost their cool and entered the realm of flaming and disrespectful posting. Perhaps it's time for a break from this conversation. Maybe we should all agree to come back to this next week??? I don't know. *But the fact is, these are support boards, and it is important that the need for support is not trampled on by the passions we have for various causes*.

As Peggy said, when folks ask a question, we can support and offer guidance from all our perspectives, but the person asking the question should not then be subjected to a stampede of angry and non-gentle posts that stop adressing the original question.

*In this thread, where I believe there was no question and the purpose of the post was to open up a conversation about TCS theories, it is important that that same sense of gentleness and respect is maintained*. No matter how much we disagree. No matter how passionate we are. Let's allow each other a little breathing room.

With respect,
Sierra


----------



## Sierra

Oh, I also wanted to recognize that it looks like a lot of folks are trying to refocus this conversation so that it is more respectful and compassionate. I'm happy to see this progress, and I hope we can all move forward!

Sierra


----------



## marymom

ok, Im probably exceeding my # of replies to this issue but I was thinking the other day as I spat out my rather hasty post above that maybe it would be more comfortable to have exchange on this if we all had a common definition of what luxury is-

ALl these labels drive me crazy and I may be out of my league but I think good parenting is a luxury- and as someone else said it well-
also an excellant investment-
but the rich always get richer and rich CAN be a state of mind- but that may be getting into prosperity consciousness too?


----------



## pie

It seems to me that every thread in gentle discipline turns into a TCS vs AP debate. It really makes it difficult to get an answer or help here and I need answers and help in this area. I have gotten nice answers from both sides of the coin and am strong enough to choose what is right and wrong for me. Why do the TCS and AP camp have such a problem accepting each other's presence? Look, I don't really understand the whole TCS concept and even if I did I might not posess that kind of patience. And sometimes the more mainstream AP experts are a bit too disciplinarian for my tastes. So I am not choosing sides here. However, this endless debate of who is right and wrong and why is exceedingly tiresome. Can't we agree to disagree, post our posts and comment on what we don't like or agree with specifically and leave it at that? Or keep the debate to it's own thread? Because noone is winning here, especially the kids of mothers who need simple advice and support and not indoctrination.


----------



## paula_bear

Mamapie - I don't see this as a debate of whether one or the other approach is right. What feels right to you? That is the only right answer, in my book.


----------



## pie

i know that post sounded raggy but I still maintain that this isn't really a gentle discipline forum but rather a TCS vs AP debate. I am littering this thread by even mentioning it. I will just keep away until everyone can learn to live w each other. I think that feels right to me. I mean that gently, and I wish we were speaking so you could hear my tone and not think I am beiing harsh.


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by Heavenly_
If he doesn't want to take a bath he's doing it. I am not going to breed germs because an 11 month old feels like boycotting bath time.[/B]
I know that heavenly has received much criticism, but this statement strikes me as ludicrous! Whoever decided babies need daily baths, anyway? I must say that my children bathe every 2-3 days in the wintertime and they are perfectly happy and healthy. I can see where a daily bath becomes a ritual and some babies thrive on that unchanging routine, but skipping bathtime will not in any way breed germs!

My 22 m/o dd HATES getting her hair washed, so we limit it to once weekly. We could probably wash it even less w/out doing her any harm... Some would consider our weekly hair-washing coercive, but I try to do it as gently as possible and am always racking my brain to come up w/ ways to make dd WANT to do it. (Last time I actually got her to cooperate by letting her do it herself and using a minimal amount of water to get her hair wet initially. I also didn't rinse as much as I would have liked, but stopped when I saw she'd had enough.)

In a way, heavenly's comments were terrific because they sparked such an interesting debate and helped us all to learn more about TCS. I strongly recommend all who haven't done so to check out TCS website (see larsy's original post for link) and see that they encourage debate. We SHOULD NOT "agree to differ," the 'politically correct' way to handle any arguement. Debate should be encouraged, although this is not to say that it shouldn't be done without having respect for both people and opinions...


----------



## Sierra

Quote:

_Originally posted by paula_bear_
*Debate should be encouraged, although this is not to say that it shouldn't be done without having respect for both people and opinions...*
Right. That's what I'm saying







. But it is also important that never should debate trample over someone's need for support on these boards. These boards are support boards. Please, please, please, let's go gently...

Sierra


----------



## bigcats

I spent some more time thinking about TCS theory and identified this problem that I have with it:

I do agree that children are rational and logical. In other words, there is a *reason* for every behavior the child exhibits. However, I also believe it's true that children are more myopic in their reasoning than adults are, even when information is given to them. For instance, using my toy-out-the-window example, the child who is given information that a likely outcome of a toy being thrown out a window is that the toy will break. Assume for the example the toy really is a special one to the child, and not one he/she wants to break, but that he/she really wants to throw it out the window (possibly to test gravity, or to check to see if the parent's information is correct, whatever logical reasoning you want to come up with). He/she is not willing to throw something out the window in its place (or is willing to throw other objects, but ALSO wants to throw the toy out the window - I've been in many situations like these!). In this case, the child is not able to hold both the idea that the toy may break AND the idea that it sure would be fun to test this out in their head at the same time, even though they have perfectly logical reasons about why they want to throw the toy. Sort of like Piaget's kids not being able to hold both height and width of a glass in their minds at the same time, and so being unable to conserve volume. In summary, does this mean the child's logic/reasoning abilities are not fully developed, and if so can we then expect children to make good choices most of the time?

Also in regards to the toy-out-the-window example, what if the child does regret the decision to throw the toy out the window afterwards and wants me to buy a replacement, but I feel coerced having to shell out $30 when we're just scraping by as it is? We'll assume for this that the child is 3, not an older child who could perhaps earn the money his or herself (but even in the case of an older child, would requiring the child to do that be considered coercive?)


----------



## discovermoma

To the original question:
I am an AP/NP parent that pratices TCS. I find that the two have much in common and makes it easy to do both at the same time. I'm a SAHM with only one child so that might make it a luxury to not have to deal with more than one opinon. I consider my life's position and my dh's undevoted support to be a luxury in an emotional sense. We only make $1000/mo so it is not a monetary luxury at all to be able to do both. I never have to be anywhere at a certain time, so that is less stressful. I really don't know if I would be able to do all that I have time to do now if I worked. The last job I had (loan processing for a mortgage company) was very stressful and had long hours. I do go grocery shopping with a friend of mine who has a young child that my dd loves to be around. By the time we get to the checkout I'm very stressed!!! I'm not sure how I would handle two kids. I'm getting stressed out just imagining it.

To the last statements: I have been AP/NP since the birth of our dd, but didn't realize there was a term for our style of parenting until dd was 6mos. I have been learning more about TCS in the last few months, and again, I had pretty much been doing this from the start. I don't think of myself as being AP vs. TCS because I believe the two of these approaches fit well together in our home. As said before, one has become an extension of the other. I am not against gentle discipline as it is a part of TCS theory. I still can lose it when it comes to some of the things my dd does (or doesn't) do. I still try to do my very best for her and I am far from perfect. But, I try to be as perfect as I can everyday by using the AP and TCS methods.

I love any and all advice. I find that I not only learn from things I agree with, but also from those things I disagree with.

I wish I knew how to put smiley faces on my post to show that I'm not talking in a harsh way, but since I don't, all I can do is tell you that I'm speaking/writing in an easy going way, not judgemental and certainly not to be offensive.


----------



## paula_bear

I have started a thread in the 6-8 yr old section of parenting and would like advise on how to switch from "conventional-type" parenting methods to a more TCS-geared approach w/ an older child. Would appreciate more experienced TCSers to explain how I might do this gently and effectively. Thanks for the input.


----------



## Lila

I would like to withdraw my statement, as it was off topic, and I do not wish to ruffle any feathers. Sorry


----------



## Sierra

I would like to refocus on this original question a little bit and reiterate what Ms. Mom has said and what I said earlier today in the TCS thread.

*The primary purpose of this online community is as a support board. Disagreement and respectful discussion of parenting issues are always welcome, but never should debates trample over someone's need for support.*

Let's work to become more gentle and compassionate and respectful with each other, even in our disagreements. And when a mom asks for support and guidance, I hope we can all respond to _her_ needs first and foremost.

Gently,
Sierra


----------



## larsy

BTW, there are TCS families with all numbers of kids. It is a matter of attitude, not numbers.









best wishes!


----------



## Netty

_Originally posted by bigcats_
****I spent some more time thinking about TCS theory and identified this problem that I have with it:

I do agree that children are rational and logical. In other words, there is a *reason* for every behavior the child exhibits. However, I also believe it's true that children are more myopic in their reasoning than adults are, even when information is given to them. For instance, using my toy-out-the-window example, the child who is given information that a likely outcome of a toy being thrown out a window is that the toy will break. Assume for the example the toy really is a special one to the child, and not one he/she wants to break, but that he/she really wants to throw it out the window (possibly to test gravity, or to check to see if the parent's information is correct, whatever logical reasoning you want to come up with). He/she is not willing to throw something out the window in its place (or is willing to throw other objects, but ALSO wants to throw the toy out the window - I've been in many situations like these!). In this case, the child is not able to hold both the idea that the toy may break AND the idea that it sure would be fun to test this out in their head at the same time, even though they have perfectly logical reasons about why they want to throw the toy. Sort of like Piaget's kids not being able to hold both height and width of a glass in their minds at the same time, and so being unable to conserve volume. In summary, does this mean the child's logic/reasoning abilities are not fully developed, and if so can we then expect children to make good choices most of the time****

From the TCS point of view, is it wrong to assume that children have certain limitations without first observing them ourselves. And even then, we should not assume that the same "limitation" will be there the next time a problem comes up. We assume that the child is rational and so we *help* the child do what s/he wants to do. In the example you offered, the child wants to throw a favourite toy out of a window. We assume that the act of throwing this toy out of the window will break it and we assume that the child does not *want* the toy to be broken. And, of course, we *always* assume that our assumptions could be wrong ;-)...But in order to help the child do what s/he wants to do and prevent the results from causing distress or harm, we inform the child of the possible consequences. We could also demonstrate the possible consequences by throwing something else out the window first ("see, when I throw this out, it breaks. That might happen to this toy if you throw it"). If the child still wants to throw the toy out, we help hir in whatever way we can. Perhaps the toy won't break. Perhaps it will break and s/he will be fine with that result. But, yes, it might break and s/he might be very upset. S/he made a mistake. Do we punish hir for this? Do we say, "I told you so?". No. I think that a responsible and caring parent does all s/he can at this point to comfort hir child. Perhaps the toy can be replaced. Or perhaps it can be fixed. Or some other solution may be found to help the child out of the state of coercion.

****but I feel coerced having to shell out $30 when we're just scraping by as it is? ****

If this is truly the case (and I think it is important for parents to be honest about these things....If something you valued broke accidentally, would you "find" the money to replace it?), then the parent could provide that information *beforehand* so that the child can take that into account in hir decision. If the child is too young to truly understand these consequences, the parent could offer comfort afterwards and something *else* to cheer the child (ice cream? a game? a walk? etc...).

****We'll assume for this that the child is 3, not an older child who could perhaps earn the money his or herself (but even in the case of an older child, would requiring the child to do that be considered coercive?) ****

If the child did not agree that this was a good solution, then it would be coercive, yes. Replacing the toy by earning hir own money is *one* possible solution. There are certainly many others. The point is that the family would work *together* to find/create solutions that *everyone* was happy with. In a TCS family, no *one* person decides the best solution for everyone else (whether this person is an adult or a child).


----------



## Mommy22B

Couple of situations for you TCSers.

First, there is a Christmas party atour church this Friday. I am looking forward to going. Let's say on this evening dd decides she doesn't want to go out. If this happened in one of your homes what would you do? The basic core question here is if parent wants one thing and child wants another thing, 2 things that contradict each other, does the child always get her way in the end?

Next, my husband is, IMO, inconsiderate of others. One example, in the grocery store today, we were letting dd walk around carrying something for us. She walks slow as she is only one and a half. She is standing in the middle of the aisles and moving very slow. I notice people trying to get by, waiting for her to move, when she really isn't on her way to move, but rather keeping a straight slow path in front of them. KWIM? I know I am generally care too much about what others think, but this bothers me to no end. My dh seems not to notice whos way she is in. Is it bad of me, in your opinion, to move her out of the way? Or pick her up?

One more example. We were in a small store the other day. DD was picking everything up and smelling it...(actually blowing her nose on it.) The store lady seemed to begetting frustrated. Dh was there with me so he took her outside for a bit, but if I had been alone it would have been awful!
Oh, I thought of another one!







When we go to Walmart or whatever sometimes dd doesn't want to ride in the cart. But when we let her walk it is so so slow, looking at everything and touching everything, finding something she wants and then a fit when we put it back ( although we are getting very good and sneaking things back onto the shelves behind her back....very coersive I know, but we really can't afford to get her things.) You might say leave her home...This is kind of sensitive for me because I like going shopping with dh. He works alot so the time we have together is percious to me, so I would like to spend as much of it as we can together.

Anyway, I have to say I love most of what this theory has to offer. I am trying more and more to respect my dd's wishes. I still fail plenty but it feels good when I succeed. A few weeks ago i may have forced my dd to get dressed when I was ready for her to get dressed. Now I know to carve out an hour long block before we have to go somewhere to give time for her to decide to get dressed. This sounds like it is a bad thing, but it is wonderful not having to push her into something she doesn't want. It is amazing to dh and I how these social ideas are all stuck in our brain. That kids are lower class citizens and need to be pushed around. It makes me sad now when I do force her to do something. I feel so abusive because i am so much bigger than her...and I just don't care about what she wants at the time. That is so rude! Anyway, you ladies are really helping me alot to be a better mommy! Thanks.








Beth


----------



## grisletine

ok we have some silly questions over here...

our little girl doesnt like her carseat most of the time... we feel it is obviously very coersive to leave her in the seat when it upsets her.
when we have tiem we will stop on the side of the road and wait for her to accept the seat. when we arre in a hurry, however, into the sling she goes...

is this ok by tcs?

what were really wondering about is baby proofing, namiely baby gates. i know disallwing exploration of dangerous things {stairs, outlets} is coersive..

but how abour if you took the gate down whenever the child expresses interest in the stairs?

we'd be willing to help her explore whenever she wants but would still worry that shed fall down the stairs {some random time when we didnt realize} if we didnt have the gate.

{we have a split level home, with hardwood stairs that end in stone... and a wall. }








:


----------



## Linda in Arizona

You mean you are driving down the road with your baby in a sling rather than a car seat?

And you are considering leaving your home where your child could fall down steps and land into stone and wall??

I think it is considered child endangerment and is illegal. Kids die from stuff like that.


----------



## bigcats

Mommy22b's question brings up another one for me... how do TCS parents deal with rules imposed by outside society? For instance, what if a 6 year old wants to go to Toys R Us but wants to be barefoot (no slippers, boots, princess shoes, or sandals will do)? There are laws against going shoeless in stores. This is just one example of the obstacles one could come up against. Wouldn't it be coercive to tell the child she needs to decide whether to wear shoes and visit the store, or go barefoot and not go to the store? But what other choice do you have? This is just a hypothetical example of an outside rule that could cause a problem... one must run into a million of them.

I'm still digesting the reply to my last question!


----------



## paula_bear

Mommy22B, very good questions. As far as the xmas party goes, could you prepare DD for it by letting her know in advance? I'm sure she would have fun as well, could you start pointing out to her what will go on at the party and see if you can't generate some excitement on her part? (p.s. I'm really new to TCS, so if I am giving bad advice, someone pls let me know...) Would it be possible to arrange for a back-up plan - someone to come sit w/ her at a moment's notice if she decides she doesn't want to go? I don't think you and DH should have to miss out if DD doesn't feel like going, since this is important to you... Maybe you could even let her know ahead of time that if she doesn't want to go, so-and-so will come over to play w/ her and Mommy and Daddy will go to the party. Maybe she is too young for this type of interaction, I don't know. I believe they understand way more than we give them credit for!

Now, with the store thing, preparation is key. My sister has a rule - she never buys ANYTHING for her 2-yr-old when they're out together. So far, this has worked for her - he doesn't expect it. The problem with toddlers is that they tend to over-generalize: "We went to Walmart. Mommy bought me a book. When we go to Walmart, Mommy buys me a book." Some parents give children a verbal warning before entering the store, "Darling, we are here to buy such-and-such. You may look at the books if you like, but we won't buy them today." I also use this as an opportunity to practice self-restraint. In order to teach my children to resist that impulse-buying, I must model that behavior myself!

With the cart issue, I allow her out of the cart only in certain stores. This works for us, I don't know if it would be considered coercive, but otherwise I'd have to leave her home to get the grocery shopping done! Much of the time she accepts being in the cart, much as she accepts that when she rides in the car, she must be fastened into her carseat. Believe it or not, I find STAPLES to be a great store for her to run around - she plays in the office furniture w/ big brother, "talks on the phones" etc and the staff don't seem to mind. Allowing her freedom in some stores seems to satisfy her need to explore or to push the cart herself.

As far as putting items back on the shelves, I leave that up to DD. I do not sneak them back. I have found that if I say, "OK, it's time to put that [item] back on the shelf now. Say bye-bye to the [item] now." That works wonders for some reason. She is in control and she has closure. The item itself is not so important to her at this time and usually she knows she is only "borrowing" it, so to speak. I don't usually buy her things at the store when she is with me, so she doesn't have a problem returning them to their proper place. (This even goes for things one might expect her to part with only after having thrown a tantrum.) I hope this method will work for you, too.

As far as your DH being "inconsiderate," I don't really see it that way. If DD is slowly meandering through the aisle, holding up traffic so to speak, don't you think it is up to the people behind her to say, "Excuse me, little girl. Would you mind moving to the right so I can pass by?" I would encourage DD to have her own interactions w/ people. Maybe they are senior citizens w/ no time constraints and love being close to the energy of your daughter. Maybe watching her explore at a leisurely pace was the highlight of their day! I try not to interfere too much when it comes to my childrens' interactions w/ others. Just a thought.

It sounds to me like you are on the right track. I hope what I have said here makes you think of looking at these situations from a different (not necessarily better, mind you) angle. Good luck and I hope you and DH have a wonderful time at church Christmas party on Friday! (Let us know how it all turns out...)


----------



## Alexander

Hi Grisltine,

As you know, I know nothing about TCS. However I agree with Linda in Arizona in that it is not sensible to ever put your child in danger. I can not imagine TCS would advocate that in the least, because (from what I have seen from these discusions) TCS seems on the whole to be sensible.

You must NOT put your child in danger for the sake of not coersing.

I have noticed that children who are not coersed, or those who are coersed a lot less than normal, they are far more willing to comply to your will. Just don't use up your "credit" with truely unimportant stuff.

When it comes to putting MY kids in the car seet, _*there is no discussion*_. Remeber thought that kids love to emulate their elders, so if you always point out that you are wearing a seat belt, they are more inclined to want to too.

Nor is there discussion when there is something dangerous being done in the kitchen. We had a barrier to the kitchen until our children were old enough to understand what was dangerous and that they must not touch certain things. This meant that if they wanted to come into the kitchen, either DW or myself either carried them or was at their side ALL THE TIME.

As for your stairs, keep and use the barrier. "practical non-coersion" here would be to help the little one up or down when-ever she asked. Let her practice with you. One day she will be confident about doing it on her own, and you will recognise the steps towards independence as they occure.

So to summerise:

1) On danger, *I lay down the law*.

2) I educate to the max of their ability to comprehend.

3) If they are not capable due to age or education, I make special effort to enable them to achieve their objective by being near by to protect them.

4) When they are capable, the "law" desolves.

Hope this helps

a


----------



## Ms. Mom

This is an interesting scenario. My dh and I had an agreement long ago that even if we did not support each others choice (like giving the intact patty to ds) then we would bit our lip and discuss it later.

It's not that we beleive you shouldn't argue in front of your children. But contradicting your spouse in front of a child is so confusing.

When parents don't agree on parenting styles, they really need to work hard on keeping communications open and try to come to a resolve. In the mean time calling a truce on contradicting each other would be a good idea.


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

_Originally posted by larsy_
*BTW, there are TCS families with all numbers of kids. It is a matter of attitude, not numbers.








best wishes!*
As far as interaction between parent and child is concerned I agree, but sometimes getting kids (or one in particular) to respect the other. . . . phew!







: negotiation can rapidly turn to dictation!









a


----------



## Alexander

Thank you all, very much. I have read what everyone has written, and thought about it for the last weak, and realized that the title is not what I think, or have come to think.

A better tiltle would perhaps be "understand your instincts before you follow them."

a


----------



## paula_bear

I would like to reply to a thread by Laelsweet from Monday concerning non-coercive methods to keep a young child from touching and possibly breaking the old family's traditional objects. The young couple could try to introduce what I call "the one finger touch rule." Any object may be touched as long as the child uses only one finger. Many times this is enough to satisfy the young one's curiosity, but prevents hir from using enough brute force to injure the object in any way!

Another option (depending on the exact age and comprehension of the child) would be to sit down and discuss how these objects are important to [grandparents?] and how it is important for us to respect the property of other people. Maybe give an example of how child would feel if someone broke hir favorite toy? Then the parents could suggest that the child ask [grandparents] permission to explore the object with supervision. I believe that all the "don't touch" talk only makes these delicate objects more desirable for toddler touching! If one can find a common preference for satisfying child's curiosity while keeping objects safe from harm, all the better for everyone.

Good luck and happy holidays.

P.S. As an aside, I see that we have NOT dropped this debate for a week as Sierra suggested, but I feel glad to have noticed a bit more respect from everyone. I also noticed a few new threads have started up - can't wait to check them out! AND I just wanted to point out that if this thread seems like a debate between AP and TCS, well isn't that the point? This thread was started specifically to talk about TCS, isn't a comparison to other methods a natural consequence of that? I also disagree w/ the idea that this debate has overtaken the Gentle Discipline boards - there are still many unrelated topics up for discussion on other treads!


----------



## larsy

The quote from the TCS website, in the context of Sarah Lawrence explaining that while she owns the journal and the TCS list...

"But there can be no official definition of what it means to take children seriously, just as there can be no official definition of what it means to be a Conservative, a Liberal or a Socialist. No one "owns" such labels. Various thinkers and writers, who want to apply such labels to themselves, simply have to enter the fray in the field of ideas and try to persuade others that their version is true.

So to answer the question directly, "who is to decide whether an evolved version is still TCS or not?", the answer is no one. Or anyone who wants to. "

I take that to mean that anyone who wants to can criticize and refute the ideas of TCS, in order to determine *to their own satisfaction* what is true. I don't think truth is relative- one truth for me, another for that guy over there, and it is all equally true. I think truth is objective, and we are all capable of knowing it to our best ability. Many people are content with the version of truth they are handed by previous generations, many are not and strive to get closer to the truth.

How to know whether one is closer to the objective truth about morality (right and wrong) or not? That is a question that many have been struggling with in the light of 9/11 which has thrown this question into stark relief. My current theories have to do with the fruits that actions bear, but I am acutely aware of my fallibility in all matters, including morality and parenting and education. I speak the truth as I see it at this time. Like the blind men examining the elephant, I might have ahold of the trunk while another is describing the toenails. By sharing information and experience and looking for more information and bearing in mind that we could be wrong about any part of our most cherished theories, we can all inch closer to the truth of any particular matter.

It's a slippery fish, truth. No one has a monopoly on it. What can we do but speak it tentatively and be willing to learn? Oh, well, I suppose we could remain silent. That doesn't do much for learning, though.


----------



## discovermoma

Biting into something hot...

My dd will not put anything in her mouth that is hot. I'm not really sure how she knows something is hot, I can only quess. She will either feel it is hot when she picks it up with her fingers, or as she moves a fork/spoon full of food towards her mouth she can feel the heat of the food. Once she determines the food is hot, she will then say "blow" and proceed to blow on her food until it cools down to her liking. She has only been doing this since age 18mos, before this age I never served her food that was hot. I always waited until it cooled down before placing it on a plate for her. Not to say that I now give her hot food all the time, but she has become aware of the temperature of food by wanting bites of our food. That's where the word "blow" comes from. I would say "hot" when I placed the food up to my lips and then say "let mom blow" on it to cool it off.

Why serve a child hot food in the first place? This is not a natural consequence, it is one that is set up to teach a lesson. This is not TCS.

In Ksmami's example sounds like, imo, that the father has a power problem. This has happened with my dh on occassion, usually when he has been working log hours and feels left out. I believe this has to do with father not always being around the child and in his attempt to help with child responsibilities he feels slighted and acts out in a defensively.

TCS has carried over into other relationships. My relationship with my dh has taken on a whole new calmness. After implementing TCS into my relationship with my dd I found that I was also taking everyone else around me seriously. One extreme change in attitude is with my mother. We had a strained relationship since dd was born due to our differences in parenting styles. Now when she makes unwanted comments about dd I don't react so defensively and try to see where she might be coming from.

Well, this is longer than I intended. Everything written is the way our family handles TCS and not to say that our way is the only way or the right way. That is TCS, everyone is allowed to have their opinions, no matter how young or old they are.


----------



## bigcats

Quote:

Why serve a child hot food in the first place? This is not a natural consequence, it is one that is set up to teach a lesson. This is not TCS.
I can imagine a scenario when the hot patties have just finished cooking and are cooling on the counter, but the toddler does not want to wait and asks for one immediately. I don't think the poster meant she purposely set the child up to be burned by giving it to the child before it cooled, and before the child asked for it. And she did explain to the child that it was hot and could burn.

I'm interested in this because I'm still unclear about why natural consequences are against TCS philosophy (as stated on the TCS website). I understand trying to come up with alternative ideas that the child might enjoy safely ("Would you like to bite into this apple while you wait for the patty to cool?") but in the end, if the child insists that only biting the hot patty will do (and if it hasn't cooled off enough already due to the length of the discussion!) then how is it un-TCS to allow the consequence to occur (and of course, provide comfort to the child afterwards)?


----------



## larsy

Just Wondering wrote:

" Before I had children, I had theories. Now I have children and no theories, because both children had to be brought up quite different to each other, and quite differently to my husband's first three children. "

Parents have theories about parenting, whether they are conscious and articulated or not. Theories are complicated and shifting and often a combination of explicit and inexplicit, imo, so it does take some stopping and really thinking about what one thinks about this or that situation and what is the right thing to do. Parents often act in the grip of memes and unconscious motivations (my parent's words came out of my mouth! I was never going to do that to my child!). Dragging out the theories behind the actions and dismantling them and criticizing them in the light of reason is very helpful, ime&o, in figuring the morality of parenting actions. If we were appalled by the way people treated us as children, what suddenly makes it right to treat children that way, now that we are the adults?

Quoting Just Wondering again:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"by the way, if you say 'fuck' in front of Grandma, she may react badly". In this respect, TCS agrees with enlightened conventional opinion. The big difference concerns what happens when the children reject your best theories. TCS advocates scrupulously respecting children's wishes in regard to the conduct of their own lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Interesting. So if the said child litters the neighbourhood and grandmas house with said word, you scrupulously respect your child's right to swear in the presence of the grandmother and just let them carry on... Hmmmm. this gives interesting pointers about the possible NATURE of the people concerned. "

Yes, people who respect individual autonomy. The child has the information they need to avoid offending people who would be offended by what is, after all, simply a word, albeit one that is loaded for a lot of people in this society. Child can protect hirself from unwanted consequences of using that word around people who would be offended by it, and those people don't have to hear the offensive word.

"Children learn by seeing behaviour repeated by their parents. What sort of parents constantly swear in front of their children? "

Er...so all children who pick up swear words, do so at home? This is not consistent with tales I have read, probably some on these boards, by parents who do not use certain words who are wondering what to do with their child who has come home with this or that word. And I suspect that all sorts of parents, from horribly abusive to loving and respectful, use some of these loaded words when in the presence of their children. Word choice is not a dependable predictor of character, perhaps.

"I assume the people who set the site up...which raises serious questions about the validity of the ASSUMPTIONS upon which their theory is based. After all, we have to accept the assumptions, to accept the theory."

Assumptions can sure lead a person astray. Assumptions are tremendously subjective. A person can assume they are projecting all sorts of moral messages by the choices they make, while others will interpret their actions and words according to their own assumptions.

Which leads me back to the question of how do we determine objective truth? At this point, I think that critical rationalism is a good way to evaluate information. Conjecture and refutation. Humans are capable of creating knowledge based upon observation and information and experience. We create theories, and we adjust them according to our observations and information and experience.

So, yes, TCS is based upon the theory that coercion is harmful. If a person is not convinced that this is true, then they will not agree with TCS theory. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that coercion in the parent-child relationship is better- that is, a preferable moral theory- than non-coercion.


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by Linda in Arizona_
*

I'm feeling the same way. NCP/TCS folks say that they believe that their children are the ultimate best judge of their own best interest, but they don't seem to believe that of other parents.*
I see this as an instance of defensiveness on the part of people who happen not to agree w/ some or all of the tenents of TCS. I would like someone to show me (in the form of a quote) where they have experienced such coercion from TCSers. If one finds oneself reacting violently to another's idea, it usually means that one must examines one's own ideas, not "attack" the offending one, IMO anyway...

Quote:

*
NCP/TCS says that parents offer their experience, but don't assume they are right. (without boundaries pg. 96) Yet the people who say they feel this way toward their children can possible admit here to other parents that their "theory" of non-coersion might be wrong. And they seldom offer their experience, just the theory that children should be allowed to do whatever they want to.*
I disagree w/ this statement. Again, please show me where TCSers are working on the assumption that parents who follow other methods are wrong! I really think this defensiveness is an indicator that one needs some self-examination. TCSers DO offer their own experience, only they do it hypothetically in order to protect the identity of the children involved. (see TCS website for explanation behind this.) It just takes some getting used to, but I have found a wealth of useful info that I was able to apply to my own situation, in addition to discussions of the theory behind it all.

I would also like to dispute the statement that TCS theory infers that "children should be allowed to do whatever they want to." This is NOT TCS, this would be laissez-faire parenting (or negligence depending on exactly what the child was doing.) The theory behind TCS is to seriously consider what the child wants, and not to automatically impose one's own will. The goal here is to FIND A COMMON PREFERENCE, which may or may not take the form of what the child originally wanted. I think this is a huge difference from allowing a child whatever they want.

Quote:

*
The very nature of the NCP/TCS system is that you must be willing to admit that you might be wrong and someone else i.e. your child might know what is better for them, so how I can you say that is what you think and then be so evangelical and preachy? After all, you might be wrong. We might know what is best for our kids. It is a possiblity.*
Again, I see this statement as a knee-jerk reaction. Where does one get the idea that TCSers think one or one's parenting styles are WRONG? In all the relational "problems" we have seen as a direct result of these discussions, I see the main culprit to be the defensiveness of those refuting TCS theory. That is my opinion, and may very well be wrong, but I have the right to express it here. Please give concrete examples of how TCSers are "evangelical and preachy." I just would like to see where this judgement is coming from - maybe I haven't read all the threads you have.

As far as the actual discussion (see how these arguements detract from our primary purpose?) I think a better term to alexander's use of the word "instincts" might be "entrenched theories." (see TCS website for clarification of that term) The only instinct we humans are born with is the desire to suck. The only fear we have at birth is that of falling. All the other "garbage" is learned along the way, mostly from our family of origin. So when people have responded, "Yes, I do follow my instincts, and my childhood was just as screwed up as anyone else's..." A more accurate way of describing this would be to say that one has identified entrenched theories and decided to change them. Otherwise, it would be impossible for us to do things differently than our parents.

Well, I'll leave it at that. Hope I didn't step on any toes, but I feel that TCS is constantly under attack and no one has brought up this issue. I would like to see us face it head-on. AND IMO the responses from TCSers haven't been nearly as [insert negative adjective of your choice] as some have made out...


----------



## discovermoma

This is where maybe the "luxury" of time comes in. I had a terrible time with the carseat after dd turn 6mos and stoped falling asleep the minute the vehicle started. One very frustrating trip was when it took me 2hrs to drive a 45min trip home from the grocery store. I didn't have anywhere else to be and since we live so far from the grocery store I always take a cooler to keep the food in, so no worries about spoilage. Sometimes dd is testing, little whines here and there. This usually means she is bored so I sing songs to her or offer toys and books. But when she is crying, I always stop the vehicle and take her out of the carseat until she will go back in it on her own. This usually happens after a long outing and I think she wants to reconnect with me by being held. She almost always wants to bf.

We don't have stairs, but have been to houses that do. We spent 5 days at BIL house one time, our first experience with stairs. They did not have a child gate so there wasn't an option as to wether to use it or not. Later on I realized this might of been a good thing because we were unable to control the scary situation and had to work with it. Again, time was a "luxury" as we were visiting and had no worries about having to be anywhere or do anything else except hang out. But this also would have been the case if we were at home, I'm a SAHM who hates to go anywhere. In your circumstance I would keep the gate up, but take it down when dd showed interest in the stairs. You could even tie a bell on the gate so you could hear when she is pulling on it. Then she can explore them with you by her side. Stone floors scare me, so I would try to pad it with something just in case. When dd was done with exploring I would put the gate back up. By making stairs off limits, as with anything else, it makes them more appealing. By working with dd through the curiousity she can explore while you are there with her as a safety net.

This advice is given as an example of what our family would do and not in any way to say that it is the only way or right way to handle situations.


----------



## paula_bear

Just wondering where Just Wondering got all those quotes - I do recognize some of them from TCS or these boards, but others are new to me. I just responded to alexander's thread regarding all the flack directed at TCSers these past few weeks. Why do you think that one theory causes such a violent reaction from people?

I disagree with your assertion that three women are dominating this debate and trying to decide what others should think, although I think I know the individuals to whom you refer. I for one have gleaned some useful information from ALL the posts, all the while retaining my right to disagree. And I have not found it necessary to post every disagreement I have with every idea that causes a negative reation in me. Personally, I believe that my negative reactions can serve as an indicator that I need to take a look at my own ideas and do some serious self-examination. I think all would benefit from at least examining their own feelings before immediately responding to ideas they find provocative.

Anyway, you brought up many interesting points for me to mull over myself. Thanks for your post!


----------



## paula_bear

I agree that in situations where safety is an issue, sometimes we must impose our will on the child. But I also believe that, much of the time, we can enlist cooperation from the child w/out having to coerce.

Take the example of the carseat - child has never riden in a moving vehicle outside the carseat, so s/he has no reason to expect that s/he will not be asked to sit in carseat. Sometimes it helps to let hir climb in and help me fasten one of the buckles. S/he feels a bit more in control. I also try to provide engaging objects for the ride - books, toys, snacks, etc. And I try to focus on the destination or activity to which we are headed. DH and I have had some resistance lately - child throws head back and tightens body when put in seat - imagine trying to buckle up a long board. We find this very challenging and hard to handle w/out some bit of coercion as child seems to have temporarily lost all ability to reason... (I would welcome additional advise from others on how to handle this situation w/in the confines of TCS.)

I would leave up the gate at the stairs and, as others suggested, explore them together as requested by the child. Same goes for other potentially dangerous areas of the home. TCS is a very logical and rational theory and sometimes it simply makes good sense to childproof the home, removing restrictions as they become unnecessary. There are plenty of other ways one can provide child w/ freedom to explore and learn w/out compromising on safety.


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by discovermoma_
*Biting into something hot...

My dd will not put anything in her mouth that is hot. I'm not really sure how she knows something is hot, I can only quess.

Why serve a child hot food in the first place? This is not a natural consequence, it is one that is set up to teach a lesson. This is not TCS.*
My children are the same and their definition of "hot" is way cooler than my own. I guess their palates are much more sensitive. I don't worry about the young ones getting burned, b/c they don't seem to allow that. Sometimes food is still hot (to them) when served and I don't do that to teach natural consequences - it just fits in w/ our mealtime arrangements. I still think I am following TCS, though.

Quote:

*
In Ksmami's example sounds like, imo, that the father has a power problem... I believe this has to do with father not always being around the child and in his attempt to help with child responsibilities he feels slighted and acts out in a defensively.*

Yes, I agree it seems like DH has some of his own issues and entrenched theories to deal with. The fact that he seems very reluctant to do this, or even to recognise a problem w/ his methods, could very well turn into a HUGE obstacle to any sort of family harmony or partnership btwn the parents.

Perhaps DW could come from an entirely different angle - instead of "preaching," try to identify the source of these conflicts. Does DH feel left out of parenting decisions? Could DW try to let DH know that his input is valuable, even if she doesn't agree w/ it? Is there a way for DW to foster a more rewarding relationship btwn DH and DS? Maybe, in attempts to protect DS, DW is actually trying to coerce DH into accepting her theories... Just a thought. Perhaps DH could be "in charge" of something, say bathtime, and allowed to do it his way.

I hope k'smami reads these responses!


----------



## Netty

[I have no idea how to do the quote response, so if anyone would like to write to me privately to explain, I'd be grateful ]

_Originally posted by Mommy22B_
Couple of situations for you TCSers.

***First, there is a Christmas party atour church this Friday. I am looking forward to going. Let's say on this evening dd decides she doesn't want to go out. If this happened in one of your homes what would you do? The basic core question here is if parent wants one thing and child wants another thing, 2 things that contradict each other, does the child always get her way in the end?***

It may help to think of the situation in a different way. What would you do if a house guest changed hir mind and decided s/he didn't want to go to a scheduled event? Would you not do your best to accomodate hir? Perhaps someone could stay home with the child? The parent could find something about the event that s/he knows the child will enjoy and remind hir of it? TCS families plan events carefully, ensuring that there are always alternatives available. If it is an important event for one person, then that person is responsible for planning in advance how s/he will be able to attend without coercing anyone else.

****Next, my husband is, IMO, inconsiderate of others. One example, in the grocery store today, we were letting dd walk around carrying something for us. She walks slow as she is only one and a half. She is standing in the middle of the aisles and moving very slow. I notice people trying to get by, waiting for her to move, when she really isn't on her way to move, but rather keeping a straight slow path in front of them. KWIM? I know I am generally care too much about what others think, but this bothers me to no end. My dh seems not to notice whos way she is in. Is it bad of me, in your opinion, to move her out of the way? Or pick her up?****

Again, perhaps it will help to look at it from a different angle. Do you think that it is more important to attend to the needs of strangers or the needs of your immediate family? For whom are you, ultimately, responsible? Why would you be more concerned about a stranger than your own child? And why would you be willing to coerce your child rather than a stranger? With whom do you strive to have a relationship of trust and compassion? While I agree that we should strive to be responsible citizens in society, we also must consider the experience and knowledge of the person in question. If it is possible to move the child or pick hir up without coercing hir, then it is fine to do so. But I think that parents have a responsibility to model appropriate attitudes towards children in our society. Would it be right for someone to be so impatient if the person were in a wheelchair, on crutches, extremely old and feeble? Would we consider physically moving or picking up such a person in order to clear the way for someone in a hurry? Children are people too. Do we physically move a child because it is right to do so, or merely because *we can*? Your child's needs and desires are just as important as that stranger's need. I think it is our responsibility to act as advocates for our children's rights whenever possible.

****One more example. We were in a small store the other day. DD was picking everything up and smelling it...(actually blowing her nose on it.) The store lady seemed to begetting frustrated. Dh was there with me so he took her outside for a bit, but if I had been alone it would have been awful! ****

Why would it have been awful? How is it harmful for someone to smell something? If s/he actually soiled the items, perhaps you could wipe them with a tissue afterwards. I find it helpful to pay no attention to store employees unless they actually address me or my child. If they are concerned that something will be broken, I assure them that I will pay for any broken item. I have even given my credit card to the employee to hold while my child explores the store. This way I can attend to my child rather than the store employee and I can help hir explore things safely and carefully. Children, ime, understand when something is breakable or fragile, and will learn how to handle such objects if given the opportunity to do so.

***Oh, I thought of another one!







When we go to Walmart or whatever sometimes dd doesn't want to ride in the cart. But when we let her walk it is so so slow, looking at everything and touching everything, finding something she wants and then a fit when we put it back ( although we are getting very good and sneaking things back onto the shelves behind her back....very coersive I know, but we really can't afford to get her things.) You might say leave her home...This is kind of sensitive for me because I like going shopping with dh. He works alot so the time we have together is percious to me, so I would like to spend as much of it as we can together. ***

Again, in a TCS family, no one person's needs take precedence over another's. And the majority does not rule either ;-). It is the responsibility of the parents to find or create common preferences so that everyone's needs are met. If you like to spend as much time together as possible, why not slow things down and go at your child's pace? Is there a reason why you must hurry? If there are things you *must* get done, is it possible for one of you to go off and do these things while the other helps your child explore? Can you make it *fun* for your child to ride in the cart? Would s/he prefer to ride in a backpack? A shoulder ride? Also, why can your child not choose items to buy in the same way as you do? Have you considered that your child might be less likely to grab many items if s/he trusted that s/he could have whichever item s/he really wanted? I know that most parents are afraid that their children will want to buy everything they see, but ime children only demand lots of things when they are used to not getting them. When a child trusts that s/he can have what s/he wants (or that a preferable alternative will be found for hir), s/he is much less likely to hoard items and throw tantrums.

****Anyway, I have to say I love most of what this theory has to offer. I am trying more and more to respect my dd's wishes. I still fail plenty but it feels good when I succeed. A few weeks ago i may have forced my dd to get dressed when I was ready for her to get dressed. Now I know to carve out an hour long block before we have to go somewhere to give time for her to decide to get dressed. This sounds like it is a bad thing, but it is wonderful not having to push her into something she doesn't want. It is amazing to dh and I how these social ideas are all stuck in our brain. That kids are lower class citizens and need to be pushed around. It makes me sad now when I do force her to do something. I feel so abusive because i am so much bigger than her...and I just don't care about what she wants at the time. That is so rude! Anyway, you ladies are really helping me alot to be a better mommy! Thanks.







****

That sounds great, Beth! Yes, TCS really challenges our entrenched ideas about children's autonomy. I also find it amazing how differently I see the world since discovering TCS. And it has not only changed my relationship with my children, it has most definitely affected all my personal relationships in profound and far-reaching ways. In a TCS home, *everyone* is liberated. And what an amazing world we create when realize our freedom to do so!

Netty


----------



## larsy

From the TCS website:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Puzzled parents often ask questions of the form: "what if a child does [insert some absolutely awful thing, X, here]? Then what would a non-coercive parent do?" This question may seem meaningful, but it is pointless and misdirected. It assumes that children are inherently irrational, foolhardy or wicked and asks how non-coercive parents handle these ghastly problems. But such problems arise out of the relationships between coercive parents and their children. They are caused by coercion."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just Wondering asks:

"In other words, our children do what we don't want them to do because we coerce them?"

The perception of children as "irrational, foolhardy or wicked" comes with the mindset of coercion. Coercion can cause a mind to not be able to think rationally in areas/subjects/activities where coercion occurs. The person has a jumble of confusion going on in their mind- conflicting impulses, wanting to do X while being forced to do Y- and so is unable to think clearly about the subject. The oddest coping mechanisms can be laid down, that might serve in the moment, but do not serve well in the years ahead. Entrenched theories are set in place, which can keep a person from dealing effectively in that area, keeping their thinking irrational in that subject, for the rest of their lives. These entrenchments are remarkably difficult to dislodge- even when one can recognize the irrationality of their entrenched habits, they might not be able to stop doing it or feel bad when they force their self to stop doing it. I'll wager every one of us here can recognize an entrenchment (or 20) that give us grief in our lives. Such faulty theories make it difficult to be able to solve problems, let alone be able to think about them clearly ("thinking for one's self").

So, yes, families that operate through coercion will act differently than families that operate through non-coercion. A child who knows that a parent is not going to coerce to solve a conflict will not hesitate to approach parent for help and information about any subject, even one that might be controversial. A child who knows from experience that parent does not want to help hir do something that parent does not approve of, is more likely to try whatever it is out behind the parent's back, without the benefit of parent's information and experience to help child stay safe and to make an informed decision about doing it/doing it safely.

A parent who sees their child as a rational person will be sharing information and their theories (which often requires a parent to really examine their theories in ways that they haven't as they do this theory-sharing, it's a great thing!) with their child about all sorts of things, including drugs and sex and lighting matches and swearing and climbing to high places and playing in the street and how to treat friends and about traditions and on and on, rather than just feeding them what parent thinks is appropriate for child to know based upon their age/stage of development/some other objective or subjective criterion. When the subject comes up, that is the time to explore it as much as the child wants to. Help them learn, when they are interested in learning about it.

This does not mean that 'all TCS children will abuse drugs', for example. People abuse drugs for many different reasons, often, I conjecture, to escape from the painful life they are living and don't see any way to change (hmmm, I guess that also applies to many people who use legal prescription drugs, as well). A person who knows how to solve problems and how to recognize what they want and to figure out ways to get it without hurting other people, is an unlikely prospect for abusing drugs. Many people use drugs for various purposes-including aspirin and caffeine and antibiotics and alcohol and pot- and it improves their lives without causing them harm, and it is their choice to make as autonomous individuals.

I think that coercion bolsters a false sense of control. A person is going to find ways to do what they want. They can do it with support and knowledge, or they can do it sneakily and with limited knowledge. They can wait until they are 18 and then rush out to try all sorts of 'forbidden fruit', most likely with entrenched theories firmly in place and without good information and thought about possible consequences. This is so common in our society, that is thought to be 'normal'. It is normal because of coercion.

Back to Just Wondering:

"Here's another
quote: (from the TCS website)"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The basic human choice is not between ourselves and others: it is between right and wrong"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Whose definition of what is right or wrong? They can't define that, and have admitted that. (though in not defining that they specifically exclude all previous groups as being "wrong". "

Morality is not subjective, imo, so that would be the search for objective right and wrong. I am thinking one can tell what is right by theories that seem to be closer to the truth.

And I think (and TCS theory ariculates) that people are quite rational (though lacking in experience and knowledge of the world and relationships) from birth, so yes, I am convinced that theories that do not treat people as rational and autonomous are wrong. YMMV

"So are we supposed to let the child decide what is right and wrong? "

Is there a magic age when suddenly people know what is right and what is wrong? How do people figure this out? Seems like a life long endeavor, to me, and the more input each of us has when trying to decide what is right and wrong, the better.

Parents are there to help children learn about right and wrong, just as parents are learning about right and wrong. If child wants parent to make that deliberation for hir, all well and good- and that is certainly what parents do for their children before parents are able to understand their children's communication. But once there is no doubt as to what child thinks, and if child and parent differ in their conclusion, a non-coercive family will look for/create common preferences to resolve the conflict.

To default to coercion is to close off avenues of learning for both children and parents.


----------



## sagewinna

"I know a few young mothers here who I think were pretty much brought up sort of TCS. Certainly not so much Laisse faire. They were never smacked, or yelled at, and always wore what they wanted when they wanted, and got the food they liked... And they are the mothers who are finding motherhood very very difficult. They didn't go through labour (why bother with pain) they didn't breastfeed, (they didn't WANT to)--- in fact, their children are emotional antagonists to their lives, because all their lives, they have got either what they wanted, or forced a compromise. "

Wow! What a sweeping generalization! Geez. What I hear you say here is that there are a few mothers on this board who used drugs during labor and chose not to breastfeed, and who are so used to thinking about themselves that they can't handle the fact that their kids have needs too.

It sounds like you are feeling very emotional about the whole TCS way of parenting. The thing is, it works for some parents. I respect any non-violent, respectful way of parenting. As I have read more about TCS I have come to the realization that a lot of decisions made for children by adults are abitrary at best. (Such as: clothes that match, eating everything on your plate, or riding in the shopping cart instead of walking)If nothing else, waking up to that fact has made me a better parent to my kids, and has lessened the conflict in my household dramatically. My kids are no less well behaved in public, it's just a switch in my reaction to things that happen on a daily basis. I can scream and yell, or spank them when they do something that pushes my buttons, or I can wait a moment, think about why those buttons are there (Usually because it was something I was not allowed to do as a child) and talk with them about it to come to a mutually satifying conclusion.

2 cents from someone who does not follow TCS at all times, but has learned a lot from it!


----------



## larsy

Paula_bear, I could be mistaken about this, but I think the three people that Just Wondering is referring to are Sarah Lawrence, David Deutsch, and Kolya Wolf, who were responsible for the discussions in the early TCS paper journal and so many of the underpinnings of the TCS theory.


----------



## larsy

From Just Wondering:

quote: (from the TCS website)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When someone complains of a child being, or growing up to be, 'self-centred' or choosing 'self-gratification', remember that what they are really saying is: "He is doing what he thinks right - and I fear what he may think."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A fear of people thinking for themselves, of acting in their own best interests. What should people act from, someone else's best interests? Not that others' interests do not intertwine with our own, because they do in close personal relationships, and that is part of acting in one's own best interests. The best interests of the community will also be in there, somewhere. What better motivation to act out of?

<snip>
"With such a new concept, we are looking at an experiment here and now. We cannot look back at a generation of TCS kids and look at them to see if "they turned out alright". No matter what system used, some will turn out alright, and some will not. "

It's all experiments, isn't it? Testing out theories and creating better ones, over and over, all our lives.

Children are not products. They do not 'turn out' like a cake or a wood working project. They are people, autonomous and complex and unpredictable, and it is right to respect each one as such.

TCS is not a system. It is a philosophy, and living one's life is a process. Trying to live by rules and systems and methods will surely bring disappointment. "I did it all by the rules, and it still didin't turn out right!"


----------



## grisletine

i only out her in the sling in the car when the situation is like discovermoma said... when weve been trying to get home for 2 hrs already... we liveout on a dirt road so with her in the sling and me buckled i dont feel too worried.. i know i shouldnt make a a habit etc... i know its wrong but sometimes my patience wears thin. i wish she was old enough to distract her with toys and things but she will have noneof it!
{i must add.. it is pretty rare that were in that much of a hurry... just wanted to know if tcs would advocate letting her cry until we got there.. which i couldnt do anyways.}

yes i was planning on the gate and pillows at the bottom.. just wanted to see others' thoughts.


----------



## discovermoma

I wanted to add some other thoughts on the carseat issue. We have added additional padding to our toddler seat in the space directly where her back rest. For some reason our carseat didn't have any there. I have also noticed that if we get in the car after it has been sitting in the sun or it is a hot day, that her carseat is very warm to the touch. Our dd is a "hot" baby that sweats if covered up or overdressed. I think she would sometimes act out against being overheated or even remember how uncomfortable she was the last time she was in the carseat. I remember the "stiff as a board"!!! That was not a fun time for any of us. Trying to find out the cause of her refusal to sit in the carseat was at times frustrating, but not having to listen to screaming during the whole car trip made it worth the effort. It may seem silly to others, but I have actually canceled the "trip" and taken dd back in the house. It is hard to know what is going on in her head when she is unable to communicate this verbal to me. One time after going back in the house she went to get her baby doll then walk over to the door and said "go-go". I had no idea she just wanted to take the doll with her, but she went into the carseat with no resistance afterwards. Go figure!?!

Edited to add: We live off a dirt road, it is another 3 1/2 miles to our house after we turn off the highway. We allow our dd to be out of the carseat on this road. Also, don't require the carseat while she is riding around the ranch in the truck.

CIO is never an option for me! You can call it anything you want, but if dd is crying she needs something and I aim to help her get it.


----------



## Momtwice

I am very touched by your honest and heartfelt post!

I TOTALLY agree that it is harder to be the parent we want to be when stress, illness, time, money etc. throw us a curve or several.

One time when I had my second child...she was a brand new baby... DH was away on business. I was getting over an emotionally and physically traumatic birth. The baby was nursing constantly, and although a newborn, she did NOT NAP!!!!!

My toddler son suddenly became very jealous that I was cosleeping with the new baby but not him. He started to pitch a fit at bedtime. He was SO ANGRY.
I could not handle it. It is the ONLY time I was ever tempted to spank him! I am glad I managed not to spank but it was only by walking out of the room and giving myself time to cool off. I was horrified at my anger, which YES I think was caused by exhaustion and pain (emotional and physical.) And yes, I was spanked by my father, which is why, maybe, at that awful moment I felt I wanted to spank. (My mother says that her mother only spanked her once...and her mother was "very tired" at the time.) I was so ashamed of myself.

Soon after I decided to cosleep with both children. My son's anger disappeared, so did mine, and we all got a better night's sleep. (I won't say GOOD night's sleep....that came a couple year's later.)

I APPLAUD you for wanting to be a good mom. Naming the fact that you are not happy when you spank... is music to my ears...what sickens me is when people DEFEND spanking as necessary, morally right etc. We all fall sometimes and I applaud you for wanting to get back up and be a better mom and improve yourself. Be kind to yourself. There is no one parenting system that is always "right" but listen to your heart and you will do the best you can.

We were not meant to parent in isolation...yet so many time we have to. No wonder there is so much depression around.


----------



## Wildflower

To Larsy and others--I've so enjoyed your explanations of TCS. I'm a first time mom of a 4 month old darling. I've been reading all of the TCS threads for a few days and it really resonates with me--its sort of exhilerating that my own natural (though unformed ) inclinations--regarding treating my precious being and all her discovery processes with the utmost respect--already elucidated so well and practiced by others. Very exciting!

One thing stuck with me a lot tha Just Wondering talked about: 'as an AP parent what you want is irrelevant.' I think she was explai ning why its not great to raise kids thinking they can do anything they want, because then they might not choose to do things that are better for other/more responsible, like AP, just because they don't feel like doing them. Sigh...This sentiment makes me feel a little sad. I've found through these 4 months of AP that my wants are in no way irrelevant. In my heart I want nothing more than to cosleep and breastfeed and comfort her when she cries. Our wants are deeply the same wants. It would kill me not to sleep with her sweet self, not to sing and rock and kiss when she cries. Sure sometimes I'm tired, but still, I want very very much to nurse her when she needs milk in the night. Just made me feel sad to think that lots of people's experience might be that they are forcing themselves to do these things out of duty or something, when doing it cancels out they're actual personal wants. Because I think the babes would feel that. And it might feel better to them to be parented in a different way even, if AP parenting is going to be this burdensome thing for the parent. Maybe Just Wondering meant something else. I just wish AP parenting could be joyful for all as it is for us. Sigh...

I would really be interested if anyone has stories or ideas about how to apply TCS to a little little babe. I'm pretty good at reading her cues at this stage (4 months) but about once a week she gets distressed and I try everything I can think of and she's still distressed...We,re going to start babysigning in a few months, which could solve some of the miscommunication factor, but it would be wonderful to avoid coercing her at this early stage just because I couldn't understand what it was she (didn't) want. If we're doing something and she becomes unhappy, I try to change/stop what we're doing, but there are so many variables sometimes (getting cold? tired? hungry? bored?hurting?)...Maybe I'd just like a little reassurance...Thanks for all the inspiration, sacred sisters in motherhood. Be well, all of you.


----------



## paula_bear

Thanks, larsy, for the clarification regarding the source of some of the quotes used in the original post by Just Wondering. Can you direct me to the source of those papers by Lawerence, et al? I would be really interested to read them...


----------



## larsy

If there is coercion present-- as in, a crying baby- there is a solution to be found. I think a sling when driving on a dirt road is a common preference. I've used slings on airplanes and in cars and we've all lived to tell of it. Yes, car seats and seat belts help to keep us safe when traveling in cars and there are good reasons to use them. Children can understand those reasons- do the test of large stuffed animal on seat next to belted in child, do a sudden stop at a slow rate of speed, so that child can see what happens when the car stops. Child does not want to be hurt. Discovemama speaks sense, about children needing something and parent helping to get it. Not responding to cries is not responding to needs.

Life is full of risk, and we cannot avoid it all, nor would that be desirable. Parents and children can learn to do realistic risk assessment, do what they can to mitigate risks, take the risks that seem reasonable to them to take, and live life as they wish to live it.

The gate and pillow solutions sounds reasonable to me. When child knows that parent is willing to hir explore and will remove barriers to help hir do so, it sounds like a common preference.


----------



## paula_bear

Thanks for the response to the "stiff-as-a-board" reaction, discovermama - I will try to take DD back to the apt next time. I agree whole-heartedly w/ your statement about a child's crying being an indicator that they need something! I never heard that phrased quite that way before, but trust me, I will be quoting (and silently thanking) you in explaining my [gentle, I hope] ways of dealing w/ my kids to people who think coercion is the only right way to handle children! WOW! This is such a great place to learn - every day I learn at least 10 wonderful things from y'all.

Fondly,
Paula Bear


----------



## k'smami

Hey Sagewinna,

I think that when just wondering said "here" she meant New Zealand.


----------



## k'smami

Dear Just Wondering,

First of all, thank you for actually reading the website to understand the basic premises before deciding that there is a flaw.

And now to your post...

Quote:

_Originally posted by Just Wondering_
*Everyone who is TCS here treats the concept as if it is fact, and proven, and yet it is not.*
Yes. I do this but I do not claim it to be a "proven fact". Meaning that, yes, I believe that this is a fact but I am cognizant of the fact that this has not been "proven". This is much like people who advocate Gentle Discipline. They must believe that hitting is wrong in order for it to work. And although there may be studies that prove that beating children is harmful, there aren't any that I'm aware of that proove an occasional swat not done in anger (as I have seen people advocate spanking) is harmful. However, many women here are committed to not spanking, even in the controlled way that I explained above, because they believe it is wrong. So just as those who advocate Gentle Discipline believe that spanking is wrong, TCS advocates believe that coercion is wrong. So just like for Gentle Discipline to work parents must believe that hitting is wrong, TCS advocates must believe that coercion is wrong in order for TCS to work.

Quote:

*Children learn by seeing behaviour repeated by their parents. What sort of parents constantly swear in front of their children? I assume the people who set the site up...which raises serious questions about the validity of the ASSUMPTIONS upon which their theory is based. After all, we have to accept the assumptions, to accept the theory.*
A lot of AP mothers on these very forums swear in front of their children (including me







). In fact, a few months ago there was a thread all about it.

Now since I am coming from the opposite side on the swearing issue, I'd like to know what "interesting pointers" you have come up with about the possible nature of these people (which seems a lot like attacking the person, not the argument) and how this affects the validity of the assumptions because I'm not seeing a connection. (Feel free to respond to this privately if you wish. I promise I won't take offence







.)

Quote:

*In other words, our children do what we don't want them to do because we coerce them?*
Yes. I've seen this many times. It's commonly called defiance and rebellion. Some children who expereince coercion do not rebel but many children do.

Quote:

*So are we supposed to let the child decide what is right and wrong?*
Yes. After the parent has shared their best theories on the subject, the child will decide for themselves. If the arguement is rational, it should stand on its own without coercion. (IMO)

Quote:

*With such a new concept, we are looking at an experiment here and now.*
Perhaps. I'm sure that way back when they invented Waldorf and Montessori these education philosophies were looked at in the same way by most people. Someone has to be the first. And if you think that what you are doing is the right thing for your family, who cares how new the concept is?

Quote:

*What they call parental control which is coercive, I might not consider as breaching a child's right at all. For instance:

My child will sit in his car seat whether he wants to or not, and I don't give a brass razzoo about whether the child believes that he should not be in a car seat. And my six year old will not walk through town wearing no clothes, just because he hates them. And my adolescent is not going to have a mercedes Benz as a first car, or to use a more apt definition, the designer jeans that are the current peer pressure - because we don't have the money spare to do that. And if he thinks he is going to do speed, and other recreational drugs in this house, because he thinks that is right, then he has another think coming.*
I think that in all of these examples it is possible to find a common preference. Meaning, both parents and children are going to get what they want. So in light of this I would consider it breaching a child's rights (in my family).

re: financial hardship and TCS

I think that a child who is aware of the budget can rationally see when the family can afford something so they probably won't ask for it. To use myself as an example, I was involved with budget discussion from a very young age as well and I had a very clear understanding of what we could afford and if we couldn't afford it, I wouldn't ask. However, this was due to the fact that I was thinking about money rationally, not because my mother used parental control to make me understand.

Quote:

*But then, I have very sensible children, who have always been in on everything in this family. Including Budget discussion from the age of 8 years.*
Don't look now, but that sounds a lot like TCS! LOL









Quote:

*and which does not prepare children to cope with the wrold today, perhaps even with a view to changing it*
Why do you think that TCS does not prepare children to do this?

Quote:

*I know a few young mothers here who I think were pretty much brought up sort of TCS. Certainly not so much Laisse faire. They were never smacked, or yelled at, and always wore what they wanted when they wanted, and got the food they liked... And they are the mothers who are finding motherhood very very difficult. They didn't go through labour (why bother with pain) they didn't breastfeed, (they didn't WANT to)--- in fact, their children are emotional antagonists to their lives, because all their lives, they have got either what they wanted, or forced a compromise.*
Hmmm... I don't see how this proves anything about TCS, mainly because thre are plenty of women in the world who think like this and were not parented with TCS.

Quote:

*TCS creates division amongst parents.*
I would say that all parenting philosophies do or at least have the potential to do this. How many times do we see AP mothers go to a mainstream website and find that their ideas cause a great deal of division among the parents there?

Quote:

*it does make people like Heavenly and Jbcjmom and others feel sort of railroaded.*
Please tell me what you mean by "railroaded". I saw it as disagreeing with eachother's theories but maybe I'm not seeing how I'm wrong. (Perhaps we should discuss this privately since it's off topic to the main points of your thread. I don't want to offend people so I would really like to know.)

Quote:

*You might not like my opinion. But you did ask for it...*
I thank you for sharing.


----------



## k'smami

Can you believe I won't be quoting anyone? LOL







I actually agree with everything that was said. I also definatly see how the mother is trying to coerce Dh into parenting the way she thinks is right.


----------



## larsy

Just Wondering wrote:

"Though TCS seems to be denying the role of "instincts" I actually feel that true TCS would encompass not only instincts, but an inate understanding of a child's mind. "

How can anyone innately understand another person's mind? You believe that you can read people's minds? <incredulous> This is profoundly disrespectful. Not to mention, impossible (thank goodness!). Most people have a hard enough time knowing what is going on in their own minds, let alone someone else's!

A parent who spends lots of time (or not, I suppose) with their child will be able to make their best guess as to what their child might want, if the communication is not clear, or if they see something that is similar to things that their child has enjoyed in the past (keeping in mind that the child's preferences/interests might have changed), and often be successful at guessing what their child wants and are able to help them get it. But this is not 'innately knowing' what is in another person's mind.

Instincts... well, I have witnessed many discussions about the role of instinct in rational decision making (check archives on the TCS list) and it seems to me that, while instinct might bring something to one's attention from below the level of consciousness, the decision one makes using that input will benefit from reflecting upon it in the light of reason. The instinct might make perfect sense, and be acted upon as such. Instinct can also be over-ridden, when it makes sense to a person to do so- for instance, a hunger strike or a nursing strike.

As humans are able to solve problems creatively, we can go instinct one step better. A mother might instinctively know to put her baby to her breast, but if that baby is unable to latch on properly and use hir tongue and jaw properly to milk the breast, that baby will not be able to get enough milk to thrive. That problem can be solved in a number of creative ways, and that baby is not doomed to die or live weak and sickly because it cannot nurse properly. Humans engage creativity and solve the problem.

instinctively ducking and covering,








l.


----------



## discovermoma

k'smami, that's not fair! Give us a target!

LOL! LOL! LOL!


----------



## larsy

Just Wondering referred to "a basic premis from TCS, which is that we are (all) rational." and "the basic premis is that a child is rational, and adults are more so".

Actually, I think the reverse is true- that children are often more rational than adults, before they get confused by coercion.

And it is not across the board. We all have areas where we can think clearly, and areas where our thinking is muddy. Few people, I conjecture, experience systematic coercion in all areas of life- at least, and remain sane. But then, what is sanity... but another can of worms. Never mind.


----------



## grisletine

just wondering... i disagree with your statement that babies are not rational because they do not understand from birth that when mom isnt visble she "hasnt abandoned them forever" .. you go on to sya that they dont know this yet from lack of experience... is that the same as a lack of rationality? i think the fact that a baby eventually learns that mommy is coming back proves that the child *is* rational..
i mean .. the child isnt rational until they have the experience to learn from?

~ sadie


----------



## outlawmama

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but we need to remember that what we consider "traditional" parenting--NOT cosleeping, non-intuitive, non AP/TCS, etc--has only been common cross-class for a little over a hundred years, since the industrial revolution. Before the industrial revolution it was only the very wealthy who could afford to pay for somone to watch thier children, to separate themselves from thier kids, have wet-nurses etc. This standard was considered proper. The rest of the masses almost all lived in tight family groups with both parents at home and working together and bringing up the children to help with the houshold. It wasn't until industry forced poor families to separate by out-of-home jobs that high rates of child abuse began to be noticed. And then, of course, with the rise of the middle class people wanted to act as much like the rich as possible--to have a "nursery" for thier babies, to not have to breastfeed thier own child...
This is obviously only the european model. Cultures throughout history--I'm specifically thinking about Native american cultures--have raised thier children in an extemely AP/TCS style where it was inherent in the culture that children were treated with respect and nuturing, with the knowledge that children are our future being at the forefront of every decision. In the Dakota culture, if there was a parent who beat thier child that parent was approached by the community and if thier parenting did not change, they would be exhiled from the tribe and thier child would be adopted into a capable family. It was also considered irresponsible parenting to have children closer than 5 years together, that a mother could not properly give her attention to her kids if they were that close in age--of course, that is also surely due to the nomadic nature of the tribe, but I find it telling none the less, as it was also a common belief among the "eskimo" tribes who were not so nomadic.
Anyway, my point is that historically, there have been cultures where there were none of the luxeries we have today--indoor plumbing, central heating, cars, ready-made clothing etc.--and parents were able to "AP" parent perfectly well because they were culturally expected to do so and it is how they were themselves raised. To do any thing else would be unthinkable. For most of us, who were not brought up AP and who don't have an amazing support network, when we are stressed out due to whatever we fall back on yelling, and punishment, and separation because that is our default parenting. For myself, having two children under five and a less than 25,000 a year income, and no family within 800 miles has been the nost challenging, mind-blowing experience. I know if I had more cultural examples and support I would fall off track much less often than I do. But, alas, living here in this time that is just not reality. So I come here to these boards to remind me of what I believe in, I read mothering mag, and other literature, I try and build my own community.

I've rambled...


----------



## sagewinna

Quote:

_Originally posted by k'smami_
*Hey Sagewinna,

I think that when just wondering said "here" she meant New Zealand.*
Even so, I think it was a very generalized point of view!


----------



## sagewinna

Just so you know, I have never spanked. I was using yelling and spanking as examples of way some parents deal with things. Perhaps my wording was confusing.

I disagree that AP means you don't have abitrary rules for your kids. I find that many power struggles between parent and child come from decisions for the child that may not make sense to the child. Do AP parents never have problems with bedtime, or keeping shoes on their child or even mealtime battles (There have been several threads about food battles lately)?


----------



## Mommy22B

I don't understand why everyone has to argue about this?!?!?! Cant we all just accept that we all raise our children differently? Why do people have to get all offended? To me the TCS thread started by Larsy was for those interested to discuss is, or even for those who don't understand it to debate it. Why must people take offence? What if it was your parenting style being attacked ?if this were a mainstream board perhaps all you "AP" parents would be being yelled at for your style.
I just don't understand why we can't all agree to disagree and stay out of each other's business.
Beth


----------



## Jish

Just Wondering,
What an impressive post (the lead post)! You obviously know where I stand on this topic. I too have read the TCS website, but wow, how long did it take you to create that post. I couldn't have agreed with you more. The thing that frustrates me is that most of the time we are all probably parenting in a very similar way. I offer choices, I try to come to agreeable solutions, but as I have said before, I don't run a dictatorship, but it is not quite a democracy either. I am the parent and that gives me certain responsibilities to my children -- in my opinion. No one has to agree with me and that's fine. I have just been wondering where the "support" in these threads has gone.

To Wildflower - Why wait to start signing? I started at day one with my youngest (about 8 months with my oldest.) They may not be able to sign back, but they certainly recognize the signs early. My son knew the sign for "breastfeeding" by three months of age. He would get so excited when he saw me do it. If you are looking for a good website try handspeak.com It is a great site. If you want any help or advice in this area, just let me know.


----------



## Mommy22B

Thank you for your answers.
I guess my main problem with TCS right now is that dd is not very verbal. I know she understands much of what we say, but, as an example, if we told her before entering the store that she could get one item she wouldnt remember that. Or trying to explain about a party we are going to when she hasn't been to a church party in months...(She is 17 months by the way)
But i admit that maybe I underestimate her. Perhaps she understands much more than I think she does. I think I will try explaining things to her more from now on and see how it goes.
And you are right on the question about her meandering in front of people. Something that helps me grasp this TCS concept is to picture myself doing some of the things I do to dd to older people. Seeing myself annoyingly pick up an old lady in a wheelchair and scoot her aside was just too much for me. I see the error of my ways.







The issue there is that i care way too much what others think...(See my other thread today....)
ANyway, thanks.
Beth


----------



## erika

your rambling was great, outlawmama! My turn now...

How interesting that having children closer than five years apart was frowned upon. Mine are just shy of five years apart and I still think I have a tough time negotiating enough attention for them both!

I'm reminded of something a friend from Africa (Zaire) said, a mother of seven children who had been in the US for two years: "I really understand why people in this country have so few children". I asked if it was because of the extended family in Africa and she said, "No, it's because in Africa the children are outside playing all day. Once they can walk they come home to eat and sleep and that's it. It's really hard to have them in the house all day."

It was particularly frustrating when I was pregnant, not having the strength to take dd to a playground, and knowing that she was really old enough (4yo) to find her way there and back by herself - and yet the safety risks today prevent me from allowing her to even play in the front yard unsupervised. Some things used to be much simpler.

But I do think positive parenting is getting easier. Believe it or not, committing myself to homeschooling the 5yo has helped. It was a commitment to at least 30 minutes every day of positive interaction between us - and it appears to have rubbed off on our other interactions.

Now if I could just find some time for myself....


----------



## erika

actually, I want to add one more thing, in reference to outlawmama's comments -- some AP practices haven't been lost for that long in our US history. My mother, who was born (and breastfed) in the 40's in rural Pennsylvania, remembers falling asleep in bed with her aunt and brother every night with the aunt telling them stories until they fell asleep, and only then carrying them to their own beds.


----------



## paula_bear

Thanks, outlawmama, for taking the time to articulate those points so well. You have provided me with much info to mull over and consider. When I get those attacks of self-doubt, I will remember that the "majority" is actually quite a "minority," speaking from an historical perspective. I feel fortunate to have had a mom who didn't have anesthesia for any of her 4 births (we all came too fast...) and my dad was actually present for my birth back when fathers were banished to the waiting room to smoke cigarettes and pace the floor nervously awaiting the arrival of some stranger to report on the status of wife and child. (LOL) I was lucky enough to have been breastfed for 3 precious months before mom "ran out of milk," or so she thought. So when I feel critical for facets of my folks' parenting style with which I disagree, I can remember to thank them for these gifts.

I read somewhere that in a 30-year study, they found that women related to their babies in almost identical ways to the way their own mothers related to them. So I certainly hope that my efforts to find a parenting style that respects my children and treats them gently will be passed down to future generations.

Anyway, I think I've strayed far enough off topic here, but outlaw you really got me thinking tonight!


----------



## grisletine

i think we just hve different definitions or something. you're talking about rational thought.. that it comes after the baby has processed enough information ...

but if the child is capable of rational thought when she learns something doesnt that make her rational b4 she learns it?

im sorry i have a hard time articulating my thoughts but there is a differnce between rational thought and being rational.

like you were speaking of a game, that you cannot rationally analyze the agme until you know the rules. so maybe you cant make rational decisons about the game yet but does that mean you're not rational at all? you yourself said youre capable of logical analyses on it when you learn the rules and the outcome is rational thought.

i feel that you were rational b4 you learned the rules because you were capable of logical analyses, even though you did not have all the info to make the rational outcome.

am i making sense?


----------



## k'smami

Just a quick reply before I finish writing my other long one...

Quote:

_Originally posted by grisletine_
*i think we just hve different definitions or something. you're talking about rational thought.. that it comes after the baby has processed enough information ...

but if the child is capable of rational thought when she learns something doesnt that make her rational b4 she learns it?

im sorry i have a hard time articulating my thoughts but there is a differnce between rational thought and being rational.

like you were speaking of a game, that you cannot rationally analyze the agme until you know the rules. so maybe you cant make rational decisons about the game yet but does that mean you're not rational at all? you yourself said youre capable of logical analyses on it when you learn the rules and the outcome is rational thought.

i feel that you were rational b4 you learned the rules because you were capable of logical analyses, even though you did not have all the info to make the rational outcome.

am i making sense?*
Yes, that's pretty much what I was about to say.


----------



## larsy

Just Wondering wrote:

"I did not say "read" someone else's mind. I said understand another person's mind. How they process things, the way they analyse things. How is this profoundly disrespectful?"

I think this is profoundly disrespectful, to assume that one knows what is going on in another person's mind, because it is based upon assumption and not real knowledge.

I know people who feel quite disrespected when another person attempts to finish their thought for them, and call attention to the fact that this person has interrupted, and would they please listen? I also know people who are able to finish each other's sentences correctly much of the time, and who do not feel the least bit coerced it- though sometimes, maybe a bit, when the person is going on about what they think the person was talking about and they are wrong.









Yes, it is lovely to be in sync with loved ones and share quite similar world views and to have ongoing discussions so that each knows the other's ideas and preferences (at the point of the discussion) in the matter, but the fact is that people's ideas and preferences change-sometimes frequently- in the light of new knowledge, so assuming that one knows what another is going to say (which, ime, turns out to be wrong a percentage of the time) and to assume that one knows what is in another's mind are likely to be dangerous assumptioins.

Dangerous in that such assumptions can lead a person to treating others according to the assumptions and to miss the reality of what the person is actually trying to communicate.


----------



## larsy

In the parent-child relationship, who holds the power? Who has the access to the world- be it locomotion or language or money- and the knowledge and experience to get what they want?

Since the imbalance of power is strongly on the side of the parent, it behooves parents to not abuse their position and to be scrupulous about helping a child get what they want in life. It is the right thing to do, isn't it?

Parents are responsible for having put their child/ren in the position of living/exploring/riding in the car/whatever; parents are responsible for helping children to learn about the world so that they can get what they want in life.

There is not a reciprocal responsibility for children to help parent get what they want in life- though if that is how they are treated, as they are doing the important work of the first many years of life, of learning how to negotiate the world safely and effectively, they are likely to carry on that way, imo&e. It is in their own best interests, a good and powerful motivator.

So, do children coerce parents? Certainly, there are many instances of conflict where a parent experiences coercion in their mind, but is this the child's doing? Other than the mere fact that the child is there, in existence and in relationship with their parent (which the parent is responsible for), and that child has a different idea than the parent, I don't see the child as responsible for the parent's experience of coercion.

Surely we can't fault the child for having ideas. That is a good thing, right? And how do people learn? Conjecture and refutation. Child has the conjecture (stairs! explore them! can I climb them?); if s/he can't get help with the refutation (up is easy, down...forward or backward?) learning will be cut short. Coercion cuts the learning (about what child is interested in) short, at the risk of entrenching irrational theories (stairs are dangerous! stay away! I will hurt myself!).

When there is conflict in a parent-child relationship, how is it to be resolved? Those of us who are convinced that coercion is the wrong way to solve problems in this close and important relationship, will look for the common preference. We will help a child explore what it is that s/he wants to explore, in a way that does not involve self-sacrifice on our part or the experience of coercion for any of us involved. At least, that is what we shoot for, even if we don't always make it, being fallible and imperfect humans as we are.

When a parent is experiencing coercion in their dealings with their children, what can they do to not feel coerced and not inflict coercion on their child? Beyond creating/finding common preferences, a parent can find good information and seeds of solutions by examining their theories about the matter. Am I objectifying my child, by assuming that s/he is this way or that? What are my assumptions and expectations? Are they reasonable? Do I really believe that child will never do X if I don't make hir? Am I expecting this because that is the way it has been done in the past/in the predominate paradigm of society? Do I really believe that is right? Am I insisting on my way because it is more convenient for me? How can I help child get the experience child wants without it being inconvenient for me? Are my priorities such that I would rather do the clean-up/interrupt my project/change my plans so that I can help child learn what s/he wants to learn at this moment by exploring X? and so on.

Engaging creativity and opening up to the non-coercive solutions is very effective in solving problems. No one wants their child to be hurt in their explorations of the world. Fear seems to be the greatest factor in people coercing their children. Fear of them getting hurt, fear of future health repercussions, fear of what other people will say, fear of child not fitting into society properly, fear of not getting enough sleep... Thinking about these fears in the light of reason, assessing reasonable risk, getting more information about X, considering whether it is a parent's business to be deciding about X or is it really child's decision to make (about their own body, for instance), can help people to avoid coercion for their selves and for their loved ones.

Criticism of theory welcome


----------



## larsy

Just Wondering wrote:

"The TCS concept that even babies are rational people with identical autonomy is without a serious foundation. And children only acquire that autonomy step by step as their logical analysis progresses to a broader rational analysis. "

That babies are rational and autonomous from the get-go is a new and startling proposition, isn't it? As others have pointed out, babies are very capable of learning and revising their theories- of reason (processes that tend to create knowledge). Conjecture and refutation, how we all learn.

Autonomy is not to be confused with indepedence (I think we are all interdependent, all our lives, in relationship with others). Autonomy is about a person's right to be self-directed. What would be the magic age when a person suddenly gains the right to be autonomous, if not from birth? AP respects a baby's autonomy, their expression of their needs. I think autonomy is something that everyone has automatically, though it is not neccesarily recognized as such. It is customary in our society to not recognize people's autonomy at any age, except in very limited ways. It seems to me that people can live by being motivated extrinsically- by outside forces (rules and laws and authority) or intrinsically (truth-seeking morality, based upon best interests of the person). An intrinsically motivated person is aware of and values their autonomy, and that of others. An extrinsically motivated person will hardly be aware of their own autonomy, let alone respect it in their self or others.

What about this 'best interests' motivation? Is it in one's best interests to think only of their own self, and not consider any one else? How long and how well will a person survive, if they are not interested in the interests of those around them, especially those they are in close relationship with? I think that 'best interests' involves a complex web of relationship, and makes sense in negotiating the world, to act in one's own self interest- to create a life of doing what one is interested in, and so creating new knowledge that is vital and alive and useful to one's self and others.


----------



## Jish

I am editing this to note that when I use the word "you" I am referring to all of us, not anyone specifically.

Just a reminder as we all throw the word "discipline" around, that it originated from the latin "disciplina" meaning "teaching or learning." Doesn't this definition fit in with what we are ALL trying to do regardless of our ideals or theologies.

I am also wondering why we seem to feel it necessary to prove ourselves as having the "right" method of parenting. Although there are definitely some wrong ways to parent, is there really any one ''right" way to parent? We are all very different people with different backgrounds, doesn't it stand to reason that our experiences would shape our values and ideals, and thus our parenting? The idea that you are right because you choose never to coerse your child and that I am wrong because I feel that children need rules and limits is closed minded, and I think that goes against your ideals as TCSers. I had a nowhere near perfect childhood, but I thank my parents for the way they raised me. I think they did a pretty good job overall, but I must emphasize that it was not peaches and cream. I have some issues with things that occurred while I was growing up, but they have more to due with circumstances at the time, or issues other than parenting style. Our parents must have done something right to make us the caring and passionate people we all obviously are.

This is a situation where noone has to "win" or be "right." We are all raising our children the best we can with the gifts that God gave us (you can read that in more ways than one.) This is one of those times that to say that we should all agree to disagree might be a good idea.

Holiday blessings to all!


----------



## kama'aina mama

Yammer I have to disagree. What we call AP. keeping the baby close to mom, etc was crucial in hunter/gatherer societies. A baby not closely watched was a meal for a predator. As for discipline and silence, as a general rule the women gathered and tended the children and the aged/inferm while the men went off often for a few days at a time hunting. Women and children didn't belong near the hunt.


----------



## larsy

If that's the case, children discipline their parents on a daily basis!









Aren't we all trying to clarify our understanding of the parent-child relationship and how that relationship can best be supported and nurtured? I find great value in the discussion of parenting theory, and I appreciate all who engage in criticism of theory here. It is a great gift of time and thought and effort. Thank you.

I don't go in for the moral relativity that I see a lot of on these boards. I think there is right and wrong. We all might see it differently, from our differing viewpoints, but I am hoping that we are all aiming for truth. At the same time, since we are all fallible, we are all probably wrong a good bit of the time.

I look forward to better parenting and relationship theory. And thanks for everybody's part in working toward it.

Sincerely,
l.


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*Just a reminder as we all throw the word "discipline" around, that it originated from the latin "disciplina" meaning "teaching or learning." Doesn't this definition fit in with what we are ALL trying to do regardless of our ideals or theologies.

I am also wondering why we seem to feel it necessary to prove ourselves as having the "right" method of parenting. Although there are definitely some wrong ways to parent, is there really any one ''right" way to parent? We are all very different people with different backgrounds, doesn't it stand to reason that our experiences would shape our values and ideals, and thus our parenting?*
I must say that I don't really see what's going on in this forum as arguing or trying to prove one method of childrearing right and another wrong. I don't think anyone here is trying to do that. And I think this thread in particular has been devoid of the perceived lack of respect and hurt feelings present in the TCS thread started by Larsy. I wouldn't even call this a debate, rather a discussion of views that seem very dissimilar on the surface, but have many qualities in common.

Yes, we are all trying to improve our parenting so that the next generation may be healthier and happier than we were. We may follow different roads, but I think our destination is the same. I don't believe one road is better than the next, but we may enjoy the scenery more on the road we choose as oppossed to another person's route. So, I say we all continue on the road that feels best, all the while sharing our experiences, perceptions and descriptions of the scenery along the way! The most glorious thing about it all is that if we remain open-minded, we may learn something and decide to take a by-road over to join someone else's path. We can alter our course at any time! Isn't that fantastic?

I for one have learned an unbelievable amount from these boards in less than a month. I look forward to continuing to come here to discuss and learn. I hope this remains a safe place to explore new options. I think it is very important that we have differences of opinion - if we all thought exactly alike, how could we possibly make improvements? We would all be "right," and that would be dreadfully boring!

Happy holidays, all. Hope to continue these discussions well into the new year!

Blessings,
Paula Bear


----------



## larsy

Gosh, Yammer, how about living creatively in ways that solve the problems of powerlessness, unfairnesses, etc, so that the anger is not necessary or to be turned upon anyone at all?


----------



## laurajean

I don't believe in letting your child CIO either. But, when it comes to the car seat... safety is the number one rule. There is no way that I would put my child in jeopardy! Regardless of the desserted dirt road or not. In fact, before I had my ds, I was in a major car accident - just because my wheel fell off on the high way. So, accidents happen and not just because of other people.

I implore you to rethink your actions. If something were to happen to your child, you would never forgive yourself.

If you must practice TCS. Then you maybe you shouldn't be getting in the car period.

I understand many of the philosophical ideas that TCS discusses. But, I do not think anyone should advocate unsafe and irresponsible behavior.

~Laura


----------



## larsy

But that's just it. Who gets to say what is unsafe and/or irresponsible behavior *for another person*? Aren't individual people capable of evaluating risk for their self, and deciding which risk is worth taking, and which isn't? What about the risk of psychological damage from coercion? Lots of people think that this is a more real and present danger on a daily basis, than the risk of a car accident (which certainly do happen, and it is worth taking precautions against).

What about all of us who grew up before there were seat belts in cars? Somehow, we made it. <whew> What about those of us who fly with babies on our laps/in slings? Or fly at all? Oh, well, I guess the odds are better with flying than driving in an auto.

I am concerned about the mindset that all risk can (and should) be avoided by everyone, forceably. Save me from people trying to save me from myself. Personal freedom out the window, human rights can't be far behind.


----------



## geomom

Yammer- You may want to check out the book 'Spare the Child' by Philip Greven to learn more about the Western tradition of child cruelty.


----------



## Jish

Larsy,

When you say you hope we are all aiming for truth, what "truth" is it that you are talking about. I was not aware that their was any great "truth" that is the focus of parenting. It seems like a pretty abstract goal. There are many things in this world that we can not prove with fact or logic. I am curious what "truth" you are striving for and how you hope to prove it when you find it. It seems to me that no one yet has been able to prove that their is a correct way to parent based on fact. It is always a matter of opinion. I have been striving to raise my children as thoughtful, caring, considerate, loving, nurturing, (this is obviously not all inclusive) people. Their happiness is a byproduct of our parenting and the relationship my dh have with each other and our children, but is not always my main goal.

Please explain this "truth" that keeps coming up, and how you intend to find and prove it. Just curious.

PS: Is Larsy your real name? I like it!


----------



## grisletine

just wondering..
ok so her decision to leave the nappy on is irrational... i believe that is where you come in.. you could explain to her how uncomfortable it will become and try to find a way to change it that wont upset the child. maybe if you heated the clean diaper in the dryer real quick? if the child adamently refuses, why deprive the child of a learning experience? eventually she will want the daiper off.

as far as the game analogy goes, im sure the others at the meeting would be willing to fill you in. and if you refused ot learn, and wanted your voice heard regardless, im sure the others present would hear you out and then make the right decision anyway.. especially if your input is irrelevant.. but i dont think theres any harm in listening.


----------



## grisletine

thank you, larsy. i couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## peggy

Honestly larsy, you can't be serious. "We all grew up with out seat belts...and we're all fine" You are telling the young Moms coming here for advice that it is better to hold the baby in the car than put him in the car seat if he doesn't like it?
You don't like people telling you that it is irresponsible behavior. It's not if it's only your life you're taking risks with, but when you decide that risk is OK for your baby, I think it is. It's not up to you to decide if he wants to risk his life. He may cry in the carseat but that doesn't mean he understands the implications of not riding in one.
No, we can't protect our children from all dangers but I think it is our responsibilty to protect them as best we can.

peggy


----------



## laurajean

So, help me to understand your stance on this subject larsy and grisletine. You are telling me that it is worth taking the risk of taking your child out of a car seat and driving rather than not driving at all? Not wanting to be in the car seat should be equivalent to not wanting to be in the car.

How would either of you feel if your child/ren were hurt due to these actions? What if your child was killed? I mean what would you do? (Besides of course be charged with criminally negligent homocide).

I just do not understand...

You speak of human rights. What about a child's right to live? Car accidents are very real and dangerous possibilities. I have several family members who have died in accidents. And I repeat, I would never knowingly jeopardize my child's life.

Yes, many people have survived w/o car seats. But, they were invented for a reason... because before car seats many babies and young children died.

~Laura


----------



## paula_bear

UUUUGGGHH! How can someone post something like that on a thread entitled 'Larsy - TCS'? What else would we be discussing here, the price of bananas in Chile? And then to say, "don't bother responding, this is a hit and run post!" Really! I'm sorry for complaining, but this is really beginning to irritate me. There are a few threads specific to TCS and I think we all have the right and privledge to air our views here. Can you imagine any other parenting philosophy causing such a stir? I mean, does anyone go bashing APers for putting their two cents in? Is it because people get insulted, thinking that someone is accusing them of NOT taking their child/ren seriously if they don't subscribe to the TCS philosophy?

I just wish people would lighten up. These are support boards, that post was so far from supportive it makes me sick! That was a blatant, unwarranted, unprovoked attack. Maybe I need a break from the boards - these people who can't handle differences of opinion are beginning to crawl under my skin...

Happy Holidays, all, and keep up the debate in my absense!


----------



## larsy

Yes, certainly, parents take steps to keep their children safe. I am puzzled by the incongruity of protecting the physical safety of children and not taking steps to protect them from the psychological harm of coercion.

It is the parent's choice as to how they will help their child get what they want. If a child is crying in a car seat, there is a problem and a solution to be found. Stopping and getting out of the car is one solution. Maybe they can walk home, and everywhere they need to go. Maybe mom can sit next to baby in the car seat and nurse hir (isn't there why breasts get to be long and saggy?







) Maybe a baby in a sling on a dirt road is a reasonable risk. What do people do who ride buses with their babies?

Coercion of baby crying in carseat is one solution, but I don't see it as a good one. YMMV

Seat belts prevent people (of all ages) from getting hurt, in many cases. They also cause injuries and in a few cases (so I'm told) deaths. As do air bags. Also, there is a high percentage of children's car seats that do not get installed and used correctly. Those parents are operating under a false sense of security.

There are a few short (though they can seem very long!) months of babies being very small and busy learning other things more important to them at that point than about why we wear seat belts. At a fairly young age, they are capable of getting the information they need to decide to wear their seat belt for reasons that make sense to them- the demonstration of what happens to the stuffed animal on the seat next to them that goes flying when parent steps on the brakes. Children/babies do not want to be hurt, I'm pretty sure. With creativity and respect, parents can help children understand about seat belts and staying safe in moving vehicles and can avoid coercing about it (if they are convinced of the value of non-coercion ).


----------



## larsy

I would interpret this situation differently.

Can we possibly have a discussion that does not dissect a living breathing, capable of being offended by the gross invasion of hir privacy on a public email list, person?

Coercion is harmful. It interferes with learning and thinking clearly about things- in this case, health and the consequences of not taking the doctor's advice about how to get the desired health risk managed.

A parent could help child- if child wants- to get more information (including consulting lots of experts in the fields of health and nutrition) and to explore ways of getting the desired health in ways that are agreeable to child.

If child does not take parent seriously - perhaps parent has not given trustworthy advice, or has employed coercion around this subject, by child's understanding, in the past- then parent can help child get in touch with people that have good information and perhaps better/different theories than parent does, people that child would like to have as advisors about this particular subject.

i am not convinced that children can coerce parents, that it is not the parent's own coercion and entrenched theories that are the source of coercion in a parent's mind, when in conflict with their child.


----------



## peggy

I guess you were being serious.
I could continue to argue this,as I am so tempted to do, but there really is no point to it.
I am done reading and posting about TCS.

peggy


----------



## Iguanavere

Or was the original post about a small baby? I suppose I could get my 12 week old babies teddy bear and use your example to explain why he has to be in the car seat as we go to the Pediatrician - but to be honest - I think that might be fruitless.

As for the past - yes we all probably were driven around in cars without carseats - many of us were also formula fed, birthed under total anesthesia, given coke in our bottles and the list goes on - does not make it good, healthy or right.

The prevailing wisdom is that the safest place for your child to be in a car, is in an approved car seat, in the back seat, in the middle.

Here some reasonable solutions if your child / baby does not like the car seat, but you need to go somewhere in the car:

1. Let baby get used to car seat in house first.
2. Get a mirror so that baby or you can maintain contact.
3. Sing to baby.
4. Reach around and touch baby.
5. Try a pacifier (this is what eventually worked for us, much to my disappointment - I really wanted to avoid them, but it was his preference.)
6. If baby continues to cry, pull over and try nursing - make sure that you are off the road sufficiently or in a parking lot, preferably.
7. If someone else is driving, try the nursing in the carseat method that Dr. Sears recommends on pg 561 of The Baby Book - the baby and Mom stay buckled.
8. With small babies, reduce your travel time - or travel only at nap / sleep time.
9. If baby persists in crying and you are alone, remain calm, speak softly to baby and high-tail it home.

For the older baby (one that is mobile.)
1. Explain to child that you are going to the car, going to get into carseat, no fussing, baby can hold the keys, then play with toy and when you return home, then she can explore the car. (this works 9 times out of 10 for us.)
2. You could allow the child to explore the car first, but in my experience with a very persistant child, I find it is better to just get in and go, because we would spend hours in the car exploring. Having tried this on several occassions, having spent more than an hour waiting for ds to get into the car seat - I find it is better for us to simply say - we are going, you can play in the car when we come back.
3. I don't like bribes -like "you can have a cookie in the car." Bad idea IMHO.
4. Have special only car toys / books - same as changing table.
5. Have special activities for car - like a CD or counting games.

Yes you can find many alternatives that might "help the medicine go down." Ultimately were safety is concerned, the final word in our house comes down to whatever is not life threatening, morally threatending or harmful.

I would never drive without my child in a properly installed car seat. I would try everything I've listed above and if all failed and I still needed to go, to the car seat it is - accept your fate, child.

I agree that seatbelts et al. should be personal choice, however. I used to babysit a child, whose parents didn't enforce seatbelts or car seats. One day their 4 year old decided to "explore" the door handle as they were driving 40 miles an hour. That child now has a steel plate in his head and suffers from several other ailments.

In my mind - this is a no-brainer. BTW - I really enjoy these TCS discussions - I think it is great to always be looking for a common preference. I just feel that there comes a point of diminishing returns. If you have a persistant or strong-willed child - or a child with any kind of developmental disabilities, things simply are not idealic and TCS then becomes a luxery some simply cannot afford.


----------



## larsy

Just Wondering wrote:

" but the premis of TCS is that because they say all people are "rational" they should all have an equal say in the decision making processes of a family."

In a TCS family, the preferences of all family members are included in finding common preferences about what to have for dinner, what to buy with the resources available, how to come up with further resources if the current available is not enough, where to go on vacation, about tv and computer and video games- anything that the people involved have a preference about.

"That is ridiculous. To take the grid-iron analogy further. If, even though I am a "rational" person, according to you and TCS, then if I (in my ignorant current state) were to attend a coaching meeting, then by TCS's definition, I am entitled to have equal input into the coaching and training programme? Of course not. Because my experience is so bad that any contribution I would have to make, would be irrelevant. I am "rational", supposedly, but have no rational contribution to make."

As TCS is about parent-child relationships, and not about how to conduct a team sport, I don't see how this analogy is useful.







However, this might help:

"Or to use another example, just because a toddler of 15 months is "rational" does that mean they should veto having their nappy changed because its a nice warm fug, and they don't want mommy to put on a cold clean one?"

I wouldn't pretend to know the thought process in the mind of the child refusing the diaper change, but I would take their refusal to have it changed now, seriously.

"You and I both know that to leave that mess there would result in a raw bottom like raw meat, and then she would be screaming her head off in agony. BUT she doesn't know that would be the outcome of leaving the nappy on, so that doesn't come into her thinking does it?"

I don't know that that would be the outcome of leaving the diaper on, as well.

I think this is a faulty theory. Some children, in some cases, might end up with this bad a rash, but it is hardly typical, and can be avoided non-coercively, in any case. A child who is having pain on their bottom would be likely to ask for help in whatever way they can, which could include crying and/or otherwise indicating to their parent the source of hir discomfort- unless child has already learned the lessons of coercion, and is likely to resist efforts of parent to make them do anything, even if their butt is hurting. The irrationality of entrenched theories.

"Therefore she has no "rational" input into that issue IMO. Her decision that she wants the nappy left on is "irrational" given that she has incomplete knowledge of the consequences. "

Following this line of reasoning, a parent's insistence that the diaper be changed right now is irrational, because parent has incomplete knowledge of child's intention and preference, which is every bit as important as the parent's preference- if not moreso, as it is the child's body and child has the autonomous right of control over hir own body.

From child's point of view, it could be quite rational to not want to interrupt whatever child is doing at that precise time, to get a diaper changed. A difference in priorities between parent and child does not irrationality make- it is a conflict where common preferences can be found. Child might be quite happy for parent to change the diaper while child is standing at a spot working on something that child is very interestsed in. Or child might be ready in a few minutes, when s/he has finished with what s/he is doing. Or if child objects to diaper changes on a regular basis, parent could make hir best guess at what the problem might be, and seek to remedy it- warming up the wipes and the diaper, changing child on the floor in front of a cozy fireplace, accomodating child's interests while changing the diaper, having a warm bath, cleaning up and going without a diaper.

Both parent and child would like to avoid a diaper rash, I conjecture. It is possible to avoid the rash and relate to each other non-coercively.


----------



## discovermoma

I agree that adults/parents can not be coerced by children. Ultimately we have a choice as to what we do or don't do, it's the outcome that we don't have much control over. Sometimes these two events get melded together making the parent feel coerced.

Webster's dictionary - coerce: 1. to restrain by force 2. to compel 3. to enforce

If I think my dd needs to eat something and then offer her food which she refuses, was I coerced into her not eating? No, I am the one that offered the food, she did not ask for it. If she had asked for food and then refused to eat it, is that being coerced? No, because she changed her mind about either being hungry or decided she didn't want the food after all. What if she ask for food and I'm really tired and don't feel like getting up to fix her something, but I do because she can't do it herself? I have not been coerced into getting the food, I made a choice to get up and get it for her.

I used food, but this could be about anything a child wants or doesn't want. Unless the child can phsically move me into the kitchen, while I'm struggling, and then force my hands to grab food and manipulate my hands to prepare it there is no coersion going on.

I do think that we can coerce ourselfs into doing something for a child, but this is our fault, not the childs.


----------



## larsy

Just Wondering wrote:

"Autonomy is automatically a right Larsy, you are correct. But it depends what you mean by autonomy. Autonomy, like the word "love" has many meanings. What was being discussed prior to this was "autonomy" in the context of that child's right to make a decision. So in the context of what I wrote,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And children only acquire that autonomy step by step as their logical analysis progresses to a broader rational analysis. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I meant "autonomy" with regard to making decisions for one's self, by oneself, since that was what we were originally talking about. "

Yes, a person's right to be self-directed (didn't I just say that? Is this mike on? <taptap>)

Babies make decision for their selves. They decide they are hungry, uncomfortable, lonely, whatever, and they ask for help. They test out their theories and adjust them according to their experience and the information they are getting.

However, most parents do not listen to thier babies communications in this light of autonomy. If baby cries while getting diaper changed, oh, that's too bad, but it just has to be done, without any thought to the matter of how baby might be uncomfortable, hot, cold, poked by something, or how they could do a diaper change in a way that baby does not communicate distress. Baby has made a decision- I don't like this (for whatever reason, but we can be sure there is one even if we can't know it through communication by words)- and is communicating that fact.

"I was not meaning the "autonomy" that is because we are. That is different."

How is that? Isn't this a human right, one's autonomy? The right to decide for one's self, what is important and interesting and what one wants to do next and how one wants to live one's life? Isn't there a war being fought over this, right now?

<snip>"But I do not accept that inate autonomy is lost through co-ercive parenting, or adverse influences of others. Autonomy is only lost if the person choses to lose it. "

Autonomy is not allowed by coercive parenting, in preventing a person from acting on their autonomy. The autonomous decision 'I want to play with the dog food' is conflicted with 'parent says I can't play with the dog food'. Child can decide to play with dog food anyhow, and bear the brunt of parent's displeasure/punishment, or to avoid the harsh repercussions and not play with the dog food. As children are dependent upon their parent's love and approval for life itself, persistent and systematic coercion around the dog food is likely to foster some faulty theories in child's mind- 'it is wrong to play with dog food' 'there is something wrong with me, because I still want to play with the dog food, even though my beloved parent is telling me not to and it is wrong' 'but I'd better do what parent says, to avoid the consequences of parent's displeasure'.

People lose touch with what they want, when what they want runs up against coercion time and time again. People lose touch with their autonomy, when their autonomy is not respected, time and time again.

That is not to say that humans are not able to survive adversity, because they do, time and time again.







People are able to come up with coping mechanisms to deal with abuse and adversity, but these ways of dealing and the theories around them might not serve well in the future, and they can be very difficult to recognize and change at a later date.

If we are able to avoid coercion with our children, and support their autonomy, isn't that a good thing?


----------



## grisletine

look, i didnt mean to create such a stir. its not like this is a daily occurence.. generally only when i am sick of sitting on the side of the road and weve already turned off the interstate towards home on one of many dirt roads. i would feel like shit if something happened to her which is why she is in the sling and i am buckeld in..
i always sit in back with her as my husband drives.. i try everything to calm her and then we pull over and i nurse her. usually at that point i can put her in the seat and she either sleeps or "talks" to me... but sometimes she cries.i always give her time to collect herself and sometimes this works. i try to schedule around naptimes but as we all know htat doesnt always work.
i just cant let her cry.
i understand everyones concern but i am comfortable with our choice..
i was pretty sure that this was the right thing for us b4 i even mentioned it here.. just wanted to see if tcs would say to "lay down the law"
my real question was about baby gates, which has already been answered.
i didnt intend to contribute to the controversy.. i guess i should have thought about it nad left that part out


----------



## grisletine

i actually understand what the "ht and run" poster is trying to say. ive noticed this concern voiced in other places too.
i think that it is true the main reason tcs philosophy upsets people is because the name itself insinuates it is the only wayto go. however i do nott think it is a misnomer. i personally have just begun calling our parenting philosophy tcs although nothings changed. i think that those who practice tcs just reply with how they would handle such a sittuation, as we all do.
i think we all enjoy discussing theories to try and find flaws, or better ideas. if you dont enjoy it, why participate? and i have never noticed someone who asked the question to say they didnt want the advice.
i really can understand why people get so upset... {feeling criticized when asking for advice} but, imo, the reactions are always much angrier than the posts that inspired them

and i think the point is *not* to "agree to disagree".. but to logically discern together what the best course of action would be.

just my 2 cents


----------



## larsy

Just Wondering wrote:

"IMO the basic premises of TCS are presumptuous."

Perhaps you could explain what it is about bringing children up without coercion, and the ideas of falliblism, critical rationalism, and libertarianism, that you find presumptuous (overstepping the bounds, as of propriety or courtesy)

Perhaps it is in the sense of 'presume' as in 'to suppose to be true without proof'? To my understanding of TCS theory (which is faaaaaar from perfect), we are seeking to refute these ideas, to the purpose of getting closer to the truth, which, being fallible, we will never know for sure when we have hit upon truth. There might always be more information brought to light, and more knowledge to create. This is true of any theory, from evolution to the genesis of the universe, to genetics, to healthy foods...

" The ideology, as I said, is amorphous, because the authors of the site can neither define TCS,"

What part of "Taking Children Seriously is a non-coercive education and parenting theory" is confusing? There are volumes written about this philosophy.

"or tell us whether anything that evolves into future TCS would be right."

quoting from the TCS website FAQ at www.tcs.ac :

*****(begin quote)"Since the TCS journal and list began, a steady trickle of people totally opposed to coercion in education have subscribed, some of whom have contributed to this FAQ. I suppose you could call such people the "hard core" of TCS. But none of them has the authority to tell the others what to think. The important thing is not which ideas have the official right to call themselves TCS, or "non-coercive" or whatever. The important thing is which ideas are true. " ****(end quote)

Back to Just Wondering:

"It totally depends on the individual's definition of situational ethics, which will hugely vary from person to person, place to place, and country to country. "

So, the right way to treat children is dependent upon the time and place and situation? Coercion is sometimes the right thing to do? Human rights are conditional and are not to be allowed in certain places and times? There is a case to be made that, say, terrorism is the right way to go, just as the schoolyard bully might be right in hir actions, and parents are justified to use coercion in some situations? That there isn't a better way to get what people want in life, than forcing their ideas upon other people who have thier own preferences?

I don't pretend to have the solution to the world situation, but I do think that parents and children can live together non-coercively, and that is preferable to living together in unresolved or coercively resolved conflict. And that optimal learning is acheived non-coercively.

From my position here at my computer, with my cold nose and froze toes, I cannot force my ideas upon anyone. I put my ideas out there, for those who are interested. I am profoundly grateful for the ideas I can access through my computer. I learn here every day.

Conflict is a source of growth and learning. Apparently, many people prefer to not discuss theory. If this website has a rule against discussing theory, so be it.

If TCS theory is right, that can be borne out in critical and rational analysis. It seems to me that the biggest bugaboo about TCS theory is the question of whether it is right to coerce or not. People are all over the board about that. Each person has to come to their own understanding about it. A person can believe that it is wrong to coerce their child, and still do it, because they haven't found a better way to deal with a given situation, as yet. But they'll apoligize and keep looking for better solutions. That's life.


----------



## larsy

nothing wrong with controversy!


----------



## larsy

I am using the TCS definiton of 'coerce' which speaks to the psychological state of enacting one idea or impulse while a conflicting impulse is still active in one's mind. Not that the more general definition is not part of this, but coercion can be much more subtle and it is impossible to see or know what is going on in another person's mind, so as parents, I think it is important to keep in mind the less observable indications of coercion being present, and seek to avoid inflicting it.


----------



## jempd

I've been reading this thread with great interest b/c though ds is only 8 months old, it's fascinating to get a glimpse of what lies ahead and how other people are dealing with it.

I have no idea how you practically handle situations where it is impossible to cater more to your child[s autonomy than to the realit o the situation. How do I change his clothes or wash his hands without stepping on his toes?

Mamapie, I'm really glad you brought this up because I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## marymom

according to Webster luxury is
"the enjoyment of the best and most costly things"
so, I am changing my earlier stance - maybe its not a luxury-
altho I think that AP might be a more desireable way to raise my children and might have more benefits, (and I use the term AP loosely- I hardly come under any specific category )
I think that it doesnt "cost" me more
I do think tho- that the anger with which many parent with is not simply a default mechanism born of personal parenting experience but a coping mechanism born of one's societal factors such as prestige stress education etc etc-obviously a combination in complicatingly varied degrees-
I did much better when I didnt have a car and used cloth diapers- I didnt have a "job" that I had to get to, I rarely had social contact outside of the childrens' needs,
then I integrated back into the mainstream of society somewhat-
BLAM
traffic, helmits... cars car seats SCHOOL(gag) etc etc etc
dont we need to train our children to cope with coercion if that is what you call getting a lollypop for doing what the teacher asks?


----------



## larsy

If a kid wants to go to school and is willing to do what the teacher asks, they don't need a lollipop. Do we really want a society of people who do tricks for lollipops? ( i suppose the answer to that might vary, according to which side of the lollipop a person is on)

What if the kid doesn't want to be in school, lollipop or no?


----------



## larsy

Include child in the reality of the situation







'wow, look at your hands, they are dirty, would you like me to help you wash them?' might elicit more cooperation than 'it's time to wash your hands' stated as a foregone conclusion, regardless of the individual's wishes, or just taking kid and washing their hands without talking about it at all.

It is their body, and their right to decide when to wash, when to dress, what to wear, etc. If treated respectfully, children can be happy to do the things that parents want. You might find that child has wonderful ideas for solutions that you never thought of.


----------



## paula_bear

Sadie, I agree w/ larsy, nothing wrong w/ controversy. The discussion re: carseats has been very informative and I for one have learned many useful methods to deal w/ this issue w/out having to resort to coercion. Everyone involved in this "debate" has been very respectful, IMO. We are so trained to avoid conflict of any type (well, I am, anyway) that at first these forums can feel uncomfortable when people banter back and forth over a difference of opinion. But the end result is that we all learn something, a good result, no?

So Sadie, please don't appologize - I for one am grateful that you brought up this subject because I have learned a lot from the ensuing conversations...


----------



## Linda in Arizona

Quote:

i would feel like shit if something happened to her
You could also be up on charges if something happened to her. There have been cases where children who were not buckled in died in car accidents and the parent was tried, convicted, and jailed.

What if you had an accident and she just ended up spending the rest of her life in a wheel chair? How would you explain that to her? Do you think she was happy that you spared her "coersion damage?"

She isn't making a decision. You are deciding for her. You are deciding that her momentary happiness is more important than her living to be an adult and more important that her having use of her whole body.

Before you decide this, why don't you talk it over with people who've seen what happens to babies who aren't buckled in -- emergancy room folks, paremedics, or cops.


----------



## pie

Larsy, with all due respect (bet you hear that alot







), Frequently in my life, no matter how I wrap up the thing that needs to get done, he still gets really upset and refuses to cooperate! I am hoping that he will simply grow out of it a little and realize that he will get more if he just fusses a little less. In fact, in the week or two since I posted the original thread he has been less opposed to getting on his shoes. That might be because of me, but how much of this is just him??? I am so confused! I am sorry, Larsy, but if his shoes need to be on, they need to be on. Period. I don't want to take him for his walk barefoot, KWIM?


----------



## laelsweet

maybe someone could talk a little bit about coercion and self-sacrifice in this context?


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

larcy said
*
But that's just it. Who gets to say what is unsafe and/or irresponsible behavior *for another person*? Aren't individual people capable of evaluating risk for their
self, and deciding which risk is worth taking, and which isn't?
*

Actually, no.

Research in the UK indicates that people are extremely poor at evaluating risk. To get it "right" we generally need the advice of experts.

Quote:

What about the risk of psychological damage from coercion?
Well, the trick I think is to get what you want without coercion,(as per the fantastic suggestions by Iguanavere) but the risk of occasional coercion is probably less significant than constant coercion.

I know you will agree that it is all less damaging than death.









Quote:

What about all of us who grew up before there were seat belts in cars? Somehow, we made it. <whew>
Luck.

The reason that seat belts were introduced was because so many did not. President Johnson, in a speech he gave outlining the bill to introduce seat belts during the Vietnam War noted that on a typical weekend, 3 service men were killed, over 600 killed on America's roads.

But I understand the point larcy is making, and that we have strayed from the original point:

that on an isolated track, the danger is less than on the busy highway.

On the "thin end of the wedge to our civil freedoms" I would like to say that it is our duty to protect those unable to understand the consequence of their actions, and if I am not very much mistaken, judging from larcy's past eloquence, that is the very essence of TCS.









a


----------



## Ms. Mom

Iguanavere, thank you for the wonderful suggestions! This is what I LOVE to see - new ways and suggestions for problum solving!

As for seat belts. In Michigan we have the 'click it or ticket' law - $50 for each offence and the fine gets even stiffer after that. My neighbor was pulled over for having two children in one seatbelt and a baby in her lap. She received $150 in fines!

I had NO sympathy when she called to cry to me. Children need to know that we're here to protect them. This gives them a sence of securit when it comes to the safty and well being of children.

TCS or not, I think putting your childs safty first is most important - read through Iguanavere's ideas, she has some wonderful suggestions.

My mother once said "you had formula and you turned out just fine", my response "just fine, isn't good enough".


----------



## larsy

In a thread titled: 'Can children coerce parents?'

Just Wondering wrote:

"since the whole of this board contains zillions of "case histories" could you please elaborate? "

I have written elsewhere on these boards, as well, about the importance of privacy. Quite probably, the thought has never entered most people's minds, as it is widely accepted in this society, to discuss the intimate details of children's lives in the most public of forums.

This strikes me as especially incongruous in the light of this from the registration agreement of this board:

"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly ... invasive of a personís privacy(sic)... "

Witness how upset people get when the details of their private lives( which they willingly disclosed) are discussed, especially when there are differing views offered. This is quite understandable, imo. One solution is to simply never offer any private details, but then it is hard to get support and information. So, offering hypothetical scenarios is productive on many levels- composing it offers the writer distance from the actual situation, which brings insights in and of itself; it guards against the objectifying of children; it protects privacy.

Just Wondering, again:
"If you are in fact, referring to my son, he does not come here, and since it is the truth, and was used to illustrate a valid point, he would not take offence."

I think valid points can be illustrated even better by hypothetical scenarios, because it does not violate anyone's privacy.

There are instances where children have agreed that it is ok for a parent to write about them on such a forum, where archives are available, and later (weeks, months, years), regretted this public disclosure and felt angry and embarassed about it. Some children also have revealed that they did not want parent to write about them, but could not bring their self to tell parent so.

Even when writing about one's self, it helps to hypotheticalize. As I mentioned above, the distance it gives one from the situation sometimes brings the answers one is seeking, just in the writing of it.

" And if you feel offended by my doing this, then is "autonomy" only breached in his case, or would not it be breached in all cases - in order to be consistent? "

It is not a breach of autonomy, it is a breach of privacy.

"Or does it somehow make it okay to talk about all the other children, so long as they are unable to read?"

This would be despicable, imo. People deserve respect and their privacy, no matter what the age.


----------



## laurajean

Ok, I have gone to the TCS websites and read about it. And, at first I felt TCS is not right for me, but what is the harm if others want to practice it....

But, then the thread on TCS and babies was started. And, people were advocating NOT putting infants in car seats if they must be coerced. So, then I started feeling like TCS could be down right dangerous.

I am truly curious about the studies done to back TCS up. And what is psychological damage due to coercion exactly? Is it listed in the DSM IV?

~Laura


----------



## larsy

First,







, the conclusions being drawn on the 'TCS and babies' thread are, imo, misunderstandings of the points being made, but I will leave that discussion for that thread.

The harm that coercion causes is impairment to creativity, which is the ability to think, learn, and solve problems.

No studies, to my knowledge. It is a philosophy. (Do people do studies on philosophies? if so, what would the prove?) These ideas have been formulated and articulated and criticised and are evolving, all in approximately the last decade.

The problem that TCS seeks to solve is the problem of people hurting each other in family relationships. Instead of devoting effort to hurting and thwarting each other, TCS offers an alternative farmework in which problems can be solved by consent rather than coercion.

Hope this helps!


----------



## larsy

The legislation about car seats and seat belts are excessive and besides the point, imo, but then, I am of strong Libertarian leanings, so that is not suprising.

The real issue is the parent-child relationship and obligation. Of course, a parent is going to do everything they can to keep their child safe and healthy. In my understanding, TCS advocates for consent rather than coercion, in solving the problems around this (and all) issue(s).

Humans make mistakes. Parents with the best intentions unknowingly install their child seats wrong- high percentages of them! 70% is one figure I remember seeing and feeling shocked by and going and checking our car seats immediately. In a big city we occasionally go to, I recall seeing children standing and moving around vehicles- just as we did, as children. I know firsthand about the dangers, I flew out a window in an accident when I was a tot.

I personally don't know anyone who does not use a car seat religiously. Most couple it with coercion, never realizing that they could take the time and effort to show a child so that they can understand about how it is in their best interests to wear a seat belt.

Yes, little babies are not likely to get much from the stuffed animal flying off the seat when the brakes are applied. They are busy learning more pertinent stuff, that will bring them to the point where that demonstration means something. This doesn't mean they are not rational before that point. A person must learn about addition and subtraction and so on, to lay the foundation of understanding and experience in order to do calculus one day. This does not mean that a person is not rational until they can do calculus. On the contrary, people are learning all the time, from the moment they open their eyes upon this world. I think people learn through conjecture and refutation, having theories and criticising them through reason and so, continuing this process in order to know the truth about a matter (or closer to the truth, at least).

With babies, in the time before they are ready to learn from that example, there have been lots of great ideas put forth about helping them be comfortable and have mom and her breast nearby and stopping and taking baby out of the seat when baby is distressed. Parents might, at some point, resort to coercion, because they are not able to find a common preference with the baby.

Wearing a baby in a sling with mother strapped in, on a deserted country road- or the kids riding in the back of the truck (we have a camper shell, but have ridden also in wide open trucks on dirt roads, a parent hanging on to smal children by consent) on that slow driving stretch- is a far cry from riding the freeway in any big city. In case anyone is confused about this, I am not advocating for children or anyone riding unrestrained in most circumstances.

I know of at least one instance where a baby in a sling with mother strapped into the seat of an airplane, kept that baby safe when the airplane dropped several hundred feet suddenly. The mom was very glad that the baby was not nursing at that precise moment!

And what do people do, when they ride the bus with their little babies? It seems to me that a sling is a very good solution for such times. Or do people never take babies on a bus or train or any mass transit?

I agree, Alexander, that people are often poor judges of risk, both ways. Parents are often warning children of unlikely risk in an effort to stop them from doing something (often, something that the parent could easily help minimize risk to almost zero) and I expect that many/most/all parents take some risks that they do not realize are potentially drastic. There was a recent accident in a city near me, where a couple of brothers were riding sleds being pulled behind an SUV, the vehilcle stopped and the kids slammed into it, killing one and injuring the other. I was sick when I hear of this- gawd, those poor people- and wondered what the heck they were thinking of- was it just a misunderstanding of physics, or what?

I live in a remote area that millions of people from all over the world visit every year, taking advantage of the many recreational opportunities, some of it in profound wilderness. There are huge risks everywhere. Every year, a few people die in accidents. The percentage is miniscule, when one considers the potential for disaster. People make mistakes. This year, a seasoned photographer and his companion were in back country working on a project- this guy had been doing this for decades- and they made a mistake and died in a flash flood.

Ok, but that isn't a little baby, who is dependant upon hir parents for survival. Parents are certainly obligated to keep their child as safe as they would keep their self. A person who wants to avoid the harm that coercion can cause, will try to find solutions by consent. As Alexander says, and I agree, that occasional coercion will probably not harm in the way that systematic coercion almost certainly will. Especially when the parent is aware of the coercion and seeks ideas and better theories in light of the failure to find common preferences, and is open and honest about that with family members. But we can not know what is going on in another person's mind, and can never know what sort of coercion will do what sort of harm, so seeking to avoid coercion is a worthy endeavor, imo. YMMV


----------



## laurajean

larsy,

Your explanation leads me to more questions - which is probably what it was meant to do, since TCS is a philosophy.

TCS seems to be too abstract at this point to actually be able to concretely put it into practice. Many philosophers did write detailed descriptions of how to implement their ideas. (Although, I do not think any one here would appreciate Plato's ideas on child rearing...) Has any one written any thing further than the thought? How do you know you are properly practicing TCS?

And, how do we know coercion causes impairment of creativity? There are and have been many brilliant people in our world. Were they not coerced as children?

TCS also seems to imply that family relationships some how hurt each other. I can see that in some families that may happen. But, it seems to be an over generalization. Not all relationships, family or otherwise, hurt.

When a child who is raised by the mores of TCS is in a peer situation, how does he/she handle coercion?

And, what about instincts? Where do they fall into play? What about a mother's instinct to protect her child from imminent harm? Do you suppress your instincts in order to practice TCS?

~Laura


----------



## discovermoma

Our "dirt road" is only 3 1/2 miles long, but it takes almost 15 mintues to cover the distance and it is rare to pass another car, so I don't consider this a risk for not having our dd in a carseat.

Driving down the highway at 70 miles an hour without our dd in a carseat I do consider a risk. During these times I stop the truck to take her out and don't put her back in the carseat until she will go there willingly. I will use several different kinds of distractions (most are already listed above) to keep her happy in the seat. I will sit there on the side of the road until she is ready to go again. For me it is a matter of personal priorities. I am more concerned about dd's emotional state than I am about missing an appointment or getting somewhere sooner than later.

I still can't see that a crying baby is trying to manipulate a parent. They are crying for a reason, maybe it doesn't make sense to me, but it does to them. I do think that, yes, they will eventually stop crying while in the carseat if you leave them there, but that is no different than letting them cry in a crib until they get used to it. I think you lose something with a child that you can never get back and by losing it you never knew what was there. A missed appointment or shopping trip can be rescheduled.

I'm not saying this way is the only way, but it works for me!


----------



## Netty

Let's begin by considering the idea of choice and the responsibilities that personal choice entails. Children cannot choose to be born. They are in the world as a direct result of their parent(s) choice (this is true whether the parent(s) intended to have a child or not). Parents are responsible for helping children out of coercive states because they are responsible for the child's existence in the first place. The child would not be in the particular state of coercion (whatever that may be) if it were not for the parent(s) decision to engage in an act of procreation. No one else is responsible for that child's happiness unless they *choose* to take on that responsibility (such as adoption). Though others (aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.) may decide to take on such a responsibility as well, it is the child's primary caregiver who is ultimately responsible for helping hir learn and grow and thrive in ways that do not involve coercion.

The TCS definition of coercion is as follows: "The psychological state of enacting one theory or impulse while a conflicting theory or impulse is still active in one's mind." Hence, the act of coercing another person is the act of *causing* someone to be in a state of coercion or not helping someone *out* of a state of coercion (for which one is responsible -- and, as argued above, parents or caregivers are *always* responsible for their children's coercive states as a direct result of their choices to take on that responsibility).

The relationship between child and caregiver/parent is one of powerlessness and power. The child is dependent on the adult for hir primary concerns (food, shelter, freedom, love) as well as any secondary concerns arising out of these. Any act of coercion on the part of a child's caregiver is a direct threat to a child's primary concerns or secondary concerns. Coercion is always, therefore, an abuse of power.

A child can in no way coerce hir parent precisely because a child can never be held responsible for hir parent(s)' existence. This does not mean that a child may not choose to help hir parent out of a coercive state (and many non-coerced children actually *want* to do this!); but it is not the child's responsibility to do so and it is never the child's fault when a parent is in such a state (even when the state of coercion results from an act of the child's).

For example, let's say a child wants to go to the zoo. The parent does not want to go to the zoo. But, because the parent is responsible for the child, s/he goes to the zoo against hir will. Has this parent been coerced? I say not. Firstly, s/he has made a decision to take the child. If s/he is unhappy with that decision, then it is hir responsibility to find or create a common preference (for the reasons outlined above). Hir state of coercion is self-inflicted. S/he does not *have* to take hir child to the zoo. S/he simply has to help hir child out of a state of coercion. How might s/he do this? S/he might offer some other activity that the child would prefer. S/he might find someone else to take hir child to the zoo. S/he might find a way to enjoy (and therefore prefer) a trip to the zoo. If this parent chooses coercion of the child, then this parent is abusing hir power and abrogating hir responsibility. S/he is also failing to help hir child learn how to avoid self-coercion in the future.

I can think of no example wherein a child could be responsible for a parent's state of coercion. If anyone could offer me one, I'd be extremely interested in learning from it.

Hope this helps 

Netty


----------



## Netty

****Anyone who knows anything about the composition of faeces, its acidity and a bit of high-school science could work that out. Apart from that, a friend of ours discovered it by actual experience. They had a car crash, and while the parents were being attended to the baby was in her car-seat watching, and not complaining at the time - but later when someone got round to changing her nappy, her bottom was an absolute mess, and took a few days to return to normal. ****

A child who does not want hir diaper changed should be taken just as seriously as an adult who does not want to be force-fed or stripped in public or fondled. Just because the adult may have "a good reason" for changing the diaper, the child suffers and has no idea of that reason (s/he only has hir own reasons until or unless a parent can offer others in whatever way is possible). If the parent's reason for changing the diaper is because of a fear of diaper rash, there are many non-coercive ways of preventing diaper rash. And, indeed, there are children who *do not* get a rash even if left in a diaper for a long period of time. I agree that it is irresponsible for a parent to leave a child to get a rash. I also contend, however, that it is *more* irresponsible to change a diaper against a child's will. If a parent cannot find/create any other solution, then leaving the child in the diaper *may* result in a state of coercion (having a rash when s/he would prefer not to have a rash), but changing the diaper against the child's will *is,* without a doubt, an act of coercion.

****then if a child refuses to eat (as I saw in another thread) will not go to sleep, refuses to allow their teeth to be cleaned, hair crushed, dirty hands washed, or be dressed, you will allow them that "right" without coercive intervention? ****

Firstly, a TCS parent does not "allow" or "disallow" anything. To do so is to imply that the parent has a right to control the child's autonomy. Certainly parents have that power. But TCS advocates do not believe that power equals right. If a child does not want to eat, then why not assume that the child is simply not hungry? If the child has not eaten in awhile (and the parent is concerned), why not find something that the child would like to eat? I can think of no reason why a child would starve hirself if a) s/he were hungry and b) s/he had food available that s/he enjoyed. Can you? If a child doesn't want hir teeth cleaned, consider why that may be the case. Also, there are many ways of preventing tooth decay besides brushing. And some children are not prone to decay even when their dental hygiene is less than exemplary. A responsible parent would strive to keep a child's teeth clean in a non-coercive way. An irresponsible parent would leave the teeth to rot (neglectful) or force the child to clean them (coercive). I won't go into your other examples as I hope that you can get the gist of the solutions I'm suggesting in lieu of coercion.

***To change a diaper with faeces in it, standing, is quite ridiculous, since the child's bottom will need to be washed. That is virtually impossible to do properly standing.***

Is it? Do you clean your faeces by lying down? Can you not reach all your genital parts with a cloth when you are standing? Why could a parent not do so with a child?

***If you don't know the difference between inate [sic] autonomy, and decisional autonomy, what you are doing here attempting to debate this issue? ***

I'm not at all clear on how you are using these terms. Autonomy is "the right or condition of self-government" or "freedom of will". I suppose that "innate autonomy" would be self-government or freedom which is inborn or inherent. I would contend that autonomy (whether innate or decisional) is every individual's *right* to govern hirself and that all individuals strive for autonomous existence. Infants and children, however, cannot govern themselves without the support and assistance of a caregiver. They are *dependent* on others in retaining or excercising their autonomy. Anyone who chooses to interfere with, rather than support, a child's autonomy is guilty of an abuse of power equal to the abuse of power enacted by someone who forces an adult into doing something against hir will. I would say, however, that the abuse of power in the relationship between parent and child is far more dangerous and harmful than an abuse of power between two adults.

****My mother had NO IMPACT on my inate [sic] autonomy but total influence on my decisional autonomy *. The .... two... are.... completely.... different. ****

Could you clarify how these concepts differ and their relevance to the discussion? Your mother (or your caregiver) had absolute influence on your ability to exercise your autonomy. She either helped you or hindered you. If she hindered you, she interfered with your ability to self-govern. If she helped you, she found common preferences rather than resorting to coercion when faced with conflicts.

****SOME people might....., most people with an inate backbone don't ever lose their inate autonomy, and what is more, they immediate take back control of their decision autonomy when they are able. ****

What is an "innate backbone"? The "innate" ability to stand up for oneself? How does a child develop this "innate" ability in the face of coercion? And if autonomy is hindered, then how can an individual be said to retain their "innate" autonomy? Do you think that black slaves had "innate autonomy" and therefore need not have been freed from slavery? Do you think that women had "innate autonomy" and therefore need not have been empowered by changes in societal structures? Why is it that a child's autonomy can be hindered in this way and that such a hindrance is not only tolerated but actually *encouraged* and *applauded* in forums such as this?

****I did say that avoiding coercion actually has nothing to do with TCS, but everything to do with sensible parenting.****

Avoiding coercion has everything to do with TCS. *That* is what TCS ("Taking Children Serioulsy") *means*. If you are arguing that "sensible parenting" is non-coercive parenting, then you and I are in full agreement. If you are a non-coercive parent, then you are a TCS parent (unless you are non-coercive in a neglectful manner, which has nothing to do with TCS). It doesn't matter whether you have ever heard of TCS or not. But if you advocate coercion--for whatever reason--you are not a non-coercive parent and you are not a TCS parent. Since you argue, above, that an infant's diaper should be changed against hir will, then I don't see how you can claim to be a non-coercive or "sensible" (to use your term) parent.

***Go and look up the word amorphous, Larsy. It does not mean confusing. ****

Amorphous: "Having no determinate shape or structure; unorganized; shapeless" (OED)

TCS is a philosophical theory based in critical rationalism. It's terms are clearly defined at the website glossary. It is open to criticism, of course, because it is also based on the premise of human fallibility. TCS is not a closed system. To claim so would be to advocate absolutism. The very premise of TCS is non-absolutist and non-authoritarian. If there is a better parenting theory than TCS, I would love to hear it. I have read many parenting theories and none of them is as convincing to me as is TCS. I have not yet encountered any criticism of TCS theory that holds up under critical rationalism. But, because I strive to be the best possible parent to my children, I continue looking to improve my theories. I keep my theory open to criticism and gratefully welcome it. After all, isn't that why we are all here?

****I entered this debate, because I considered your, and other TCS-protagonist posts to actually be potentially mentally and emotionally "coercive". In the same way that Jehovah Witnesses, or the Mormons can be when they stand and expound on your doorstep. I felt, having studied TCS for some time, that I had something relevant to offer to the discussion of an amorphous ideology. ****

When a Jehovah Witness comes to your door, do not open it. Similarly, when a TCS advocate writes a post, do not read it. But if you are open to criticism and learning, you just might want to listen to the Jehavah Witnesses (after all, they can't *force* you to join) and you just might read some TCS posts (after all, they can't *force* you to raise your children non-coercively). There is no coercion in argument and debate. This is how knowledge grows and theories are improved. But if you want to keep your theories intact, no one can force you to change them. You are an autonomous human being. I do not feel the least bit coerced by your arguments. Why would you feel coerced by mine?

Netty*


----------



## Jish

Is it not responsible parenting to help our children learn about their responsibility to others. We live on this planet in cooperation, not isolation. I see nothing wrong with pointing out to my child that there are other people trying to walk down the aisle in the grocery store, and that he should step aside to let them by. By doing that I now have a son who says "excuse me" if he needs to get by, and apologizes if he is blocking someone's way. Although my primary responsibility is to my family, I have a responsibility to respect others also. By letting my child walk down the center of the aisle I am not only disrespecting others, but I am missing a great opportunity to teach my child about the needs and wants of others, and how to respect them. If you feel that your entire responsibility lies with your child and only your child, and that you owe no respect or thought to others, I hope you don't live in my neighborhood.


----------



## discovermoma

I think the definition of "coerce" is different for each person or situation and depending on wether the person feels coerced. What might be coercion for one person might not be coercion for another. I personally don't think my dd could ever coerce me into doing something no matter how subtle she is.

The example of being told that "Daddy wants you" is not coercion (by my definition). The goal was to get mom out of the room, the means used to do this was a lie. Same as if you wanted him out of the room and told him his dad wanted him, you did not coerce him out of the room, you lied to him to get him out of the room. But, you felt that you were coerced so who am I to tell someone else how they should feel or not feel about a situation!?!


----------



## paula_bear

I agree w/ Just Wondering, in that consistency from the beginning is key to heading off many car seat "battles." With both children, I did not put the car into motion until they were securely fastened in the appropriate restraint. They never expected anything less... Yes, many times I had to pull over on the New Jersey Turnpike to nurse or comfort, but I had no choice. If a 2.5 hour trip took twice that, so be it, we all made it home safely, eventually!

I also agree that the parent must investigate possible reasons for the child's discomfort or unhappiness. Make sure to put up sun visors - the sun in a child's eyes in excruciatingly painful, and they have no way to protect themselves. I used to keep a lightweight hat w/ a big brim in the car so that solved that problem, as well as sunglasses for older children (they just love wearing them.)

Also, with regards to temperature, it infuriates me when I see how many people over-dress their little ones. After the car heats up in wintertime, remove hats, mittens, even jackets to help children be more comfortable - it is well worth the time and effort.

And many car speakers are louder in the back - it put a bit more sound in the front so that my kids don't get blasted by the radio, although my seven year old complains that s/he would like it louder! An infant may not like the music too loud, I always turned it down to "background" level...


----------



## discovermoma

There is another option:

3. Don't go!

As part of our AP/NP practice, we don't use caregivers and we don't let her cry when there is something that can be done to prevent it, so #3 is my only option. I'm fine with that option, but I know not everybody is. Just like I'm not fine with option #1 or #2, but others are.


----------



## pie

Just Wondering, I am nearly in tears that you took so much time to try and help me out. I really try to think that all of Jackson's behavioral issues are simply normal and a part of who he is: he is so sweet, and so bright, and so very funny. He is so imaginative and compassionate and it is so startling how much he is his own person, and I thank my lucky stars constantly that he needs me and loves me and that I have known the joys of motherhood. However, there are a few little things about him that concern me very much, i.e. the hearing/listening and absolutely hating to havve to be dressed/washed etc. You know what is so strange is that sometimes he's fine and relaxed and goes along with it: but at those times he has this strange, sleepy, far away look in his eyes. I need to let go of the denial and make sure he is ok. I mean, he is starting to repeat everything I say, etc. so maybe he is just very moody: I am very moody, so much so that my mom and dad had me evaluated regularly through out my childhood, and I was so much in my own world that I was tested for epilepsy. Having children is at once joyous and heartwrenching, you know? You all know, I am sure of that. I am so glad to have found these boards and my new home, too







because I don't know how I coped before. Thank you Just Wondering, for the lovely suggestions. I need to strive every day to give my child peace. Thank you... I really am crying now and need to go.... Dena


----------



## hugosmoma

Yikes!
I'd forgotten the first rule of fire safety: stop, drop and roll. Rather I ran hyterically and impassioned. Therefore, I am deleting the reply I posted a few days ago (the inappropiate, sarcastic one) and would like to apologize to everyone who was subjected to reading it. Eventhough I have been annoyed (sometimes overly so) with the dynamic of the TCS discussions, my own addition was hypocritical at best, an attack at its worst. We at the Mothering boards come together with the same basic premise, to parent consciously, whether that means TCS or AP or whatever, and I had forgotten to celebrate that. No matter what the discussion, there exists that effort to maintain this integrity. I'm thankful for that. So, let me ask (dispite my own behavior) for us to support the mothers as well as their children in these discussions. Afterall, "If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy." (quoted in jest, please take with a grain of salt)

I love you momas, each and everyone of you!

Again, I am sorry for the negative engery and harsh words,
Peace and good will,
Stephanie


----------



## lunarmomma

I have been following all this (silently), and just want to thank you Just Wondering for giving voice to sanity.
Peace to us all.


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

Just Wondering said:

Dear Alexander:

You say

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Research in the UK indicates that people are extremely poor at evaluating risk. To get it "right" we generally need the advice of experts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that statement, why then, would you assume that a baby, or a toddler, can make an accurate risk assessment for themselves?
I don't!









Quote:

The "expert" according to you, may be the parent. But the parent may not have made an accurate risk assessment either.
Such as not insisting on car-seat on a busy highway!

Quote:

The reality is to me, that given the experience of the baby and toddler, the
"expertise" is firmly on the parent's side, regardless of how 'little' expertise
they have. So to allow a child to decide whether or not they wish to be in a
seat is irrational.
Yeah, but why do you think I do not agree with this?







:

The difficulty I think is that many/most parents saturate their parenting with yelling and ranting, coercion and threats. (A few wake up and see themselves.







) A child raised under these circumstances is less likely to co-operate about things we _really_ would like them to co-operate about.

Non coercion after a history like that is very difficult!

a


----------



## Netty

****I disagree. If a parent has tanke the child to the zoo against their will because they have been deluded by an ideology that because the child didn't ask to be born, they owe it to the child, ...then that parent has been co-erced. ****

By whom has that parent been coerced? How is the parent being *forced* to enact one theory or impulse while a conflicting theory or impulse is still active in hir mind? (btw, hir is a gender-neutral pronoun replacing him/her). Even if, as you say, the parent is "deluded," then s/he is acting according to hir own will. S/he has decided to take the child to the zoo. No one has forced hir to do so.

***Not just by the child (unintentionally - the "tool" of the coercion), but by whatever ideology that stated that a parent should do it,****

The parent does not have to do it. The parent has the experience, knowledge, and resources to find or create an alternative solution that both s/he and hir child will be happy with. That is the point I was making. If the parent *does* choose to do it--against hir will--then *s/he* is the agent of coercion (self-sacrifice).

***for no other reason that the child didn't ask to be born(the source of the coercion) And if the child did the constant nag, nag, nag, drip drip drip - wear away the sock syndrome, then that is direct coercion. And under those circumstances to take the child to the zoo is just setting up the child for major future problems***

If the child has to resort to any of those strategies, then that child is obviously being coerced to begin with and is probably not used to getting what s/he wants simply by asking. How would the child be set up for future problems by being taken to the zoo? If you are referring to the mistake of self-coercion, then I agree. This is a poor model for problem-solving and could affect the child's future ability to solve problems in better ways.

****Any ideology that creates a mind climate where someone goes against their self-interest out of guilt, is not self-inflicted.***

What ideology are you referring to? TCS does not advocate that parents do things out of guilt. TCS advocates that parents act according to their responsibilities. The ideology you seem to be offering is one that creates a mind climate where someone (the child) *is forced* to go against their self-interest by someone who claims to love hir.

****It is brainwashing, imposed from outside, or even delusional, as various cults demonstrate - i.e. Jim Jones****

Brainwashing is a very systematic and controlled form of coercion. In order to brainwash someone, the "brainwasher" must gain power over them in some form. Most brainwashers strive to disorient their victims through various forms of manipulation and deprivation. I have no power over anyone in this forum. The only people I have real power over are my children. I choose not to abuse that power. I also choose not to self-sacrifice. I find/create common preferences when faced with a conflict. Is AP a cult? Do you breastfeed your children out of guilt or because you are convinced that it is your responsibility to give your child the best nurtrition possible. Do you choose "gentle discipline" because you have been brainswashed by anti-spanking advocates or because you have been convinced that spanking is harmful and cruel?

****That a parent doesn't want to take the child [to the zoo]puts the child into a state of coercion? Oh come now! How do you figure that out? the child intitiated the dilemma in the first place, now the parent has created coercion? ****

The state of coercion is a psychological state where one is acting on one theory or impulse while a conflicting theory or impulse is still active in one's mind. The child has an active theory in hir mind (s/he wants to go to the zoo). S/he is enacting another theory or impulse (staying home, shopping, or whatever it is the parent is forcing the child to do). The child is, therefore, in a state of coercion. The parent did not force the child to want to go to the zoo, but the parent is preventing the child from enacting hir theory or impulse. Rather than helping hir child out of a state of coercion, s/he is abrogating hir responsibility and choosing, instead, to hinder hir child. A responsible parent would *help* the child by finding/creating a common preference. The child might *prefer* to get icecream or watch a movie or go to the library. If the parent offers this alternative and the child freelly chooses* it, then the child has been helped out of the state of coercion (of course, if the child is pressured into this choice by the parent, then it is not a choice freely made and is coercive). The conflict has been resolved, not by coercion or self-sacrifice, but by the process of finding or creating a common preference.

****But surely the child is still coerced according to your definition, since anything else is not the stated preferred activity......and therefore the parent coerced the child into changing her/her mind****

No, the child is not coerced if s/he *prefers* the alternative. The parent would only be coercing the child into changing hir mind if s/he put some kind of overt or covert pressure on hir. For example, if s/he were to get angry at the child and yell or sulk, that would be coercive. In order to avoid such a reaction, the child might agree to the parent's offer.

****quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S/he might find a way to enjoy (and therefore prefer) a trip to the zoo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but you just said the parent didn't want to go. Obviously this is one pathetic parent, who is tossed around by the winds of different persuasions, and truly doesn't know his or her mind.... ***

Have you never not wanted to go somewhere but then changed your mind because someone pointed out something that you had overlooked or hadn't considered. For example, perhaps the parent realizes that while s/he's at the zoo, s/he can do some sketches that are due for hir art class. Or perhaps s/he will reconsider hir first idea because hir child informs hir that hir good friend is going to be there that day. A person *can* change hir mind, can't she? Does changing one's mind imply that one does not know one's own mind? I think, conversely, that changing one's mind is a sign of opennness, flexibility, and consideration.

Since the rest of your post consists of meta-discussion and personal attacks and does not seem to contain any actual argument, I will refrain from commenting on it.

Netty


----------



## Snickerdoodle

First of all I want to say that this is a fabulous discussion. I've really gotten a lot out of it.

I have a 9mo old dd and after learing about TCS decided to put it into practice (or at least try) to see how it fit into our lifestyle and her personality. I ran across one small problem: I don't know how to explain things to her.

Let me put it into context with an example.

I had to make an appointment (I won't go into details but let's just say the the consequences would be dire if I didn't make it). I asked her if she wanted to go for a ride with Mommy. In return I got a blank stare. Okay, I thought, this isn't exactly brimming with enthusiasm but it works. I put her in and as I started to buckle her up she began to fuss. I interpreted this as her not wanting to be there. I lifted her out and the fussing stopped. I checked for pokey things in the seat, checked her clothes, even warmed the seat with a hot-water bottle. I explained to her that Mommy really had to make this appointment and what would happen if we didn't. It was no use, she still fussed in the carseat.

I came to this conclusion: I had no idea how to communicate with her to determine what her needs were and how we could come to an agreement. In the end, I strapped her in, played with her until she settled, and made the appointment (albeit a little late).

My question is this: how does one apply TCS values to children this young?

Thanks for any input!

-----

You know what, I just saw a discussion for TCS and babies. I'll be over there... No need to reply to my post.


----------



## laelsweet

thanks paula-bear!
i think it is time for sitting down on soft carpeting with breakable objects
dc is starting to get into redecorating the tree : )


----------



## pie

Thank you. Let me think. i will pm you soon, but he does have a fantastic sense of humor, tries to make us laugh, and most definately understands body language. On the other hand, his poops are quite funky and he REFUSES to eat almost any fruits or vegetables. I don't know. I guess I should bring it up to his pediatrician. After all, we are fortunate enough to have Dr. Sears and sons as ou ped., and I am certain they would listen intently. Thank you.


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*...We live on this planet in cooperation, not isolation. I see nothing wrong with pointing out to my child that there are other people trying to walk down the aisle in the grocery store, and that he should step aside to let them by. By doing that I now have a son who says "excuse me" if he needs to get by, and apologizes if he is blocking someone's way. Although my primary responsibility is to my family, I have a responsibility to respect others also. By letting my child walk down the center of the aisle I am not only disrespecting others, but I am missing a great opportunity to teach my child about the needs and wants of others, and how to respect them. If you feel that your entire responsibility lies with your child and only your child, and that you owe no respect or thought to others, I hope you don't live in my neighborhood.*
What I was trying to say earlier is that it is a faulty assumption to think that we know what the other person wants. If the person in the store is not bothered by the toddler slowly walking down the aisle exploring, why should we interrupt the toddler? It will soon become apparent to us by the facial expression and body language of the shopper if intervention on our part is needed.

If you were wheeling yourself down the aisle of a grocery store, how would you like it if someone came up out of nowhere and pushed your wheelchair to the side so that another person (who didn't express the desire to necessarily do so) could pass? Would you not feel violated? And what about the other customer? Wouldn't they feel badly that your rights were not considered on their behalf?

I know on occasion I have appologized for my children or redirected their behavior because I *feared* what someone else would think of me if I didn't. It turned out they weren't bothering anyone and it was my own behavior that was wrong. Many people enjoy watching babies and have the patience to let them explore undisturbed, even if it costs them a few extra moments of their time.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't teach our children to be respectful of others, I just don't see why we can't model that by according them the same respect and autonomy!


----------



## MeMeMama

Although I use alot of TCS in my parenting, I always insist on a car seat. I always pull over in a safe spot if DD is crying, and sooth her and try to find out if there is another reason for her crying than "I don't want to be in a car seat". But it is difficult to leave them at home with another caregiver when you are already out









However...

The point has been raised that since government has legislated car safety standards and the seem necessary and life-saving, we must obey.

Sound an awful lot like the mainstream belief about vaccinations.

I do not vaccinate my child, yet I do not question the "law" on car safety issues even though some people *have* been killed by car safety devices.

I guess my risk/benefit analysis just came out as "no way am I taking that risk" on vaccines, and "I'll take the risk" on carseats.

Very interesting debate we have going here! Thanks...

Cindi


----------



## larsy

Good points, MeMeMama.

To my way of understanding, the legislation is besides the point. But if you have a population that is extrinsically motivated- that do not make decisions based upon their own best interests, but rather on the basis of what outside authority tells them- it seems that such laws would be necessary to motivate them to use seat belt restraints. IMO, that is how our society and conventional parenting is set up, to create people who are responsive to extrinsic authority.

This might be good for those in authority, but not always so great for the masses. When the law is for something good- that is, imo, something that supports people's best interests- it is no big deal, but when it is a bad law... well, that is a subject for another discussion.









When the motivation to use seat belts and car seats comes from inside- intrinsic motivation- there is no coercion involved. People do not want to hurt their selves or their children in car accidents. Car accidents do happen in situations where those of us driving have no control, and car accidents are often quite serious. It makes sense- intrinsically- to take reasonable precautions. It seems to me that statistics show that more injury is avoided by using restraints than are caused by them, so most people find that information convincing enough to want to use restraints in a moving motor vehicle.

Until a child has built up an experience base to the point where they are interested in what happens when the stuffed animal next to them on the seat goes flying when the brakes are applied, parents do what they can to make baby comfortable and happy to be in their car seat, or take them out of it and not travel, or make them ride in it in distress. The population of parents using these boards, tending toward the AP frame of mind with their little babies, sound like they are doing all that they can think of to help their babies not ride in distress. I find this heartening and hope that this attitude can spread.

When babies and then toddlers express distress at riding in the car seat, parents can figure out what the problem is and help the child be more comfortable and, as time goes on, to understand why the car seat is a desirable place to ride in a moving vehicle.

Respecting a child's desire to be comfortable and happy while they are in the car seat, is every bit as important as respecting the parent's desire for everyone to be belted in before the vehicle moves. That is what finding common preferences is about. AP parents seem to want to find common preferences with their babies- good practice for continuing to find common preferences with them as they become more able to communicate their ideas- they will be doing so before you know it!


----------



## larsy

ooh, Paula, you said a mouthful!

This part:
"I know on occasion I have appologized for my children or redirected their behavior because I *feared* what someone else would think of me if I didn't. It turned out they weren't bothering anyone and it was my own behavior that was wrong. Many people enjoy watching babies and have the patience to let them explore undisturbed, even if it costs them a few extra moments of their time. "

This is certainly an entrenched theory for me, this fear of what others think. As much have I have worked to dismantle this one, it hangs in there. You are so right about assuming that one knows what the other person is thinking (and are likely to be wrong about it), about children being a nuisance- slow toddler, too loud, touching things, jumping around, whatever- and then a parent (because of the coercion they are feeling in that situation) tends to perpetuate some coercion upon their child/ren, responding to parent's own feeling of coercion. Yuk!

I just went throught this the other day... <sigh> I hate it and really would like to feel good about, say, going to homeschooling functions with my kids, rather than having this heavy feeling in my head and knots in the pit of my stomach and watching my kids for behavior that is totally kid behavior but that I learned long ago was not acceptable in public gatherings. Ack. I talk about what I think are expectations of behavior before we go, I give reminders while we are there when I feel pushed by the coercion in my mind (not that they are doing anything morally wrong, in my estimation, I feel like I am totally a victim of my entrenched theories at these times). I realize as I write this that I would like to talk with them about how this is my problem, that I am trying to work out, and I don't want to pass it on to them. <sigh> Another one of those areas, like food... argghh, entrenched theories really suck.

I think this is the sort of entrenched theory we are in danger of setting up for our children, if we push the 'what will other people think' meme upon them. While it is important to share a parent's theories with their chidlren, about the ways of relating to the other people in the world, I think it is imperative that a parent questions their own theories and not just pass on partially true but entrenched theories. I say partially true, because my current theory is that there is some value in the meme- we do need relationships with other people in this world- and why not do all we can to make them good relationships? But the responsibility for relationship must be taken into consideration as well- a parent's greatest responsibility is to their child, the relationship between sibs is different than the parent-child relationship, relationship to strangers is different, extended family, friends. aquaintances.

"I'm not saying that we shouldn't teach our children to be respectful of others, I just don't see why we can't model that by according them the same respect and autonomy! "

Teaching often just doesn't work. When a parent sets out to 'teach' a lesson, child could be learning something totally different from what parent thinks they are teaching. All of life is about learning, and unless it is something that someone specifically asks to learn about, teaching is a waste of time and energy, imo. Learning happens all the time. Sometimes, we are thrilled to actually be engaged with a child when a lightbulb comes on for them, and it is such fun! I am guessing that this happens as often if not more often for the child in the learning environment of the world, just living life doing what is interesting to them, than it does for children in contrived learning situations, because of the coercion factor (coercion gets in the way of learning).

Oh, geez, but I'm wandering off topic again. Please forgive me.







Other than the reference to teaching, I agree with this last statement from Paula. I think that is exactly what a person would learn, by being treated with respect, is treat others so. Children are often disrespected, and then berated for disrespecting others. There are better ways, methinks.


----------



## peacemama

Forgive me if anything I say is redundant, because I didn't have the time to thoroughly read every reply.









Larsy, you've certainly established yourself as the TCS spokesperson on this site







, and I usually find your thoughts to be quite interesting and worthy of consideration, even though I am not completely in agreement with TCS. However, I really think this is going to far. Other than stopping the car to comfort the baby until she seems happier with the carseat, I think that all the other "solutions" suggested here are dangerous, irresponsible, and just downright wrong.

Yes, we all have the right to make our own decisions about our safety. If I choose not to wear a seatbelt, that is my problem. Of course, as an intelligent person, I always wear it. However, choosing to drive, even on a dirt road, with a baby in a sling is not making a decision about our OWN safety. That baby has no choice. A baby depends on her parents to keep her safe. And btw, it has been proven that most car accidents take place less than ten miles from home, at speeds under 30 miles per hour. Even a small collision would slam that baby right into the steering wheel.

A demonstration with a teddy bear might work on my three-year-old, but a baby cannot come to a rational conclusion about safety based on such a demonstration. And I wouldn't completely trust my three year old to make such a decision, either. She's quite bright, but unless she's ever witnessed a car accident, does she really have any frame of reference to accurately judge just how dangerous it is to ride without a seatbelt? One of the reasons children have so many preventable accidents in our society is because parents mistakenly hold children responsible for their own safety, when they are truly too young to assess the safety of a situation. A mother doesn't hold her child's hand at a crowded parade, and the child wanders off when her back is turned. When she finds him, she scolds him for not staying close to her, as though it is his job to stay close rather than her responsibility not to let him out of her sight. This is a dangerous mistake, in my opinion.

To say that life has risks, yes, of course it does. But to say, "We all grew up fine without car seats," as a reason to justify not using them on occasion is just ridiculous. That seems to sound an awful lot like parents who justify spanking their children by saying, "I was spanked and I turned out fine." My mother smoked while pregnant with me, formula fed me, used a playpen excessively and occasionally smacked me around. I turned out to be a reasonably well-adjusted adult, so does that mean I should do the same?

You talk about the emotional risks of coercion being just as serious as the physical risks of not using a carseat. That's a personal opinion, I suppose, but I think I'd rather have a safe baby who is occasionally unhappy in a carseat than an injured or dead baby whose emotional health is intact if those were my only two choices.

That said, I would never wrestle a screaming baby into her carseat and just let her scream. But driving without her safely buckled in is just not an option. Taking extra time, maybe nursing before getting in the car, having one adult sit in the back to keep the baby company if another adult is available - these are all things that seem reasonable to me. But choosing to put a baby's safety in jeopardy in the name of non-coercion is simply irresponsible parenting.


----------



## larsy

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what a 'hypothetical situation' would be.

Let's say a parent has a question about children riding in car seats. It's not necessary to drag one's own child into the discussion. A parent can pose the question hypothetically, using language that is not personal. " Suppose a baby fusses in the car seat. What could a parent do to make the car seat more acceptable to the baby? Say, a parent has an appointment that they need to get to."

Others can offer their ideas about how to help baby be happy in the car seat (again, without going into personal detail about their child). The possibility of rescheduling the appointment, of having another helper who has a good relationship with the baby being available to help, could be part of this discussion, to help people realize and evaluate their theories The more ideas, the more input, the more information to work with to find good solutions and to help articulate theory (which is the basis for action, whether the theories are at the level of consciousness or not).

It is not only the person who actually asks the question, who gets information from the discussion. Hypothetical discussion is more inclusive, imo. People draw on their real life experience and discuss their theories about it, without violating the privacy of other people (including and especially children).

Talk all you want about yourself. Reveal your deepest darkest secrets, if that is what you want. You are entitled to talk about yourself. But are you entitled to talk about other people's private thoughts/actions/bowel movements, on an archived public forum? Is this morally right?

I realize that there is no requirement on this forum to use hypothetical language, and that these ideas might seem off the wall to many people. Just throwing it out, for those who might want to consider these ideas.


----------



## larsy

Laurajean wrote:

"Your explanation leads me to more questions - which is probably what it was meant to do, since TCS is a philosophy. "

I guess philosophies do tend to bring up questions about things that might be uncomfortable to think about. I know that TCS has done this for me. But I still subscribe to the theory of 'question everything'.









"TCS seems to be too abstract at this point to actually be able to concretely put it into practice."

I think this is true for many people when they first come upon TCS. Others find that they are already doing much of what TCS talks about, and find the articulated theory to support what they had not previously put into words but were doing in action (at least, partially). Everyone has to start from where they are at this moment, and that is as individual as, well, the individual.









" Many philosophers did write detailed descriptions of how to implement their ideas. (Although, I do not think any one here would appreciate Plato's ideas on child rearing...) Has any one written any thing further than the thought? How do you know you are properly practicing TCS? "

The TCS website (parts of which are being translated into increasingly more languages) has lots of information. Discussion about the theory and how to implement TCS on a practical level have been going on for years on the TCS email lists and chat rooms and in private conversations and the TCS paper journal and where TCS speakers present the philosophy at various conventions and gathering around the world. The archives from the TCS lists are treasure troves of information, for those with questions. There are discussions about TCS in other places on the internet as well, like here.

"And, how do we know coercion causes impairment of creativity? There are and have been many brilliant people in our world. Were they not coerced as children? "

Undoubtedly. Brilliant people can also have entrenched theories that interfere with parts of their lives. I would guess that we all have areas of brilliance, and areas where we get stuck and are unable to find good solutions, make decisions, think clearly about. Such impairment to creativity is perhaps accepted as normal, since everyone has those impairments.

How do we know? Through critical rationalism. I think we are able to make conjectures about this problem of the impairment of creativity, and to criticize and refute these theories and gather more information and experience and come to better understanding about it. Each person must do this for their self, I think. The thinking and writing that has been done by those on TCS sites has gotten to a certain point in creating new knowledge about the truth of this matter, about how coercion impairs creativity. It is open to further refutation. I guess you would have to read and think and determine for yourself if you agree with the theory.

"TCS also seems to imply that family relationships some how hurt each other. I can see that in some families that may happen. But, it seems to be an over generalization. Not all relationships, family or otherwise, hurt. "

Everywhere I go, I see evidence of people being hurt in family relationships. I have experienced this myself, and I daresay that everyone here has experienced this as well. Sure, the entire relationship is (usually) not hurtful, but why put energy into hurting or thwarting another, when we can create solutions that do not hurt anyone? There is plenty of hurt in life that we have no control over; why not learn how to inflict less hurt, instead of more?

"When a child who is raised by the mores of TCS is in a peer situation, how does he/she handle coercion? "

The responsibilities in peer relationships are different than the responsibilites in the parent-child relationship. There are many TCS thinkers who are also mulling over the aspects of autonomy respecting relationships other than those in the family, on a yahoogroups list of that name (ARR).

It seems to me that TCS kids know how to look for common preferences in the face of conflict. Looking for solutions that everyone can be happy with, to find the win-win solution, is a useful skill in human relationship, don't you agree? Although, if up against other people who do not want to find a common preference, a TCS kid might find it hard to find the solution everyone would be happy with. In that case, any person would be right in acting in their own best interest, imo. They can go along with the group, they can go do something on their own, they can continue to argue their point-- whatever they deem to be in their own best interest at that time and place.

When a young TCS kid comes up upon someone who is not interested in helping hir get what s/he wants, who stands on authority or who will not consider changing their preference, this child will no doubt experience some coercion. A TCS parent would likely be handy to help child to get what s/he wants out of the situation, and avoid the coercion, in ways that are acceptable to everyone involved. And, kids can be quite creative in avoiding coercion- the trick is, parents cannot know ahead of time which situation is going to be coercive for child, or not, so seeking to avoid systematic coercion is a worthwhile endeavor, imo.

"And, what about instincts? Where do they fall into play? What about a mother's instinct to protect her child from imminent harm? Do you suppress your instincts in order to practice TCS? "

Nope. I think it is possible to evaluate instinctual response in the light of reason and to act in one's best interests. Instinct might be very useful in terms of survival, but humans are far more than a bundle of instinct. I think we learn and think and at times, when appropriate, we can over-ride instinct, in our own best interests.

Thanks for the discussion!


----------



## berglar

I have never posted on the TCS threads before, because frankly, I'm afraid to. It is my opinion that if every single word posted on these boards is torn apart, (which seems to me happens at an alarming rate) you all would have a hey-day with mine! I have one question, though...

Do any of you know any adults who have been raised in accordance to the TCS ideas? I would be interested in hearing how well-adjusted these adults are, and if they suffer any psychological damage from any type of coercion they might have encountered after leaving the TCS home. If any one knows adults who have been 'taken seriously' as children, do any of them have children of their own? And how do they parent?

I'm really curious about this, because to me the number one thing that would convince me about any type of parenting would be long-term results/consequences.


----------



## larsy

Peacemama wrote:

"However, choosing to drive, even on a dirt road, with a baby in a sling is not making a decision about our OWN safety. That baby has no choice. A baby depends on her parents to keep her safe."

And depends on parents to help hir when s/he is in distress. Safety can be accomplished in non-coercive ways, is the point, not that children should be subjected to unreasonable danger. And it seems that people disagree about what is reasonable and unreasonable risk. So, who gets to say?

"And btw, it has been proven that most car accidents take place less than ten miles from home, at speeds under 30 miles per hour. Even a small collision would slam that baby right into the steering wheel. "

Hmmm, well, I wouldn't hold a baby if I were driving, in a sling or out of a sling. Yes, parents keep babies safe. Many adults do not wear seat belts on dirt roads, and so would not expect their kids to either. Maybe this is a mindset peculiar to the American West, rural areas. And as I've mentioned before, I know of at least one instance where a baby in a sling on a belted-in mama was safe in a potentially dangerous situation (previous post on this thread).

The 'we grew up fine not wearing seat belts' is perhaps a poor defense, but the fact of the matter is that we did manage to grow up, at least those of us that didn't get killed in accidents. Some of us got hurt in accidents, me included. But that was the stage of knowldege at that time. I would have prefered to not fly out a car window when I was 2. Parents would prefer that their children do not die in car accidents. We have created new knowledge around this situation. We saw the problem of people getting killed in automobile accidents, and found a reasonable solution. It doesn't solve the problem all the time, but much of the time it does. We continue to look for better solutions to the problem. Someday the whole durn car might explode into airbags at impact, if that is what is found to be most effective (though no one might be able to afford to buy a car anymore... that would certainly take care of the problem







)

In the same way, a certain percentage of society has created new knowledge around the issues of spanking, and breastfeeding, and smoking during pregnancy, and responding to babies' needs, and hopefully this knowledge will grow and spread throughout the population, and even better solutions will be found as people create more knowledge around these issues. I think that TCs is part of this new knowledge about better ways to treat people in family relationships.

I will be redundant here, and say again for those who are confused about this, I am not advocating that people do not wear restraints in moving vehicles. (but what do parents do when they ride busses with thier babies and chidlren? No one got any experience in this issue? And what about school busses?)

Peacemama wrote:

"And I wouldn't completely trust my three year old to make such a decision, either. She's quite bright, but unless she's ever witnessed a car accident, does she really have any frame of reference to accurately judge just how dangerous it is to ride without a seatbelt? "

There is plenty of information around to share with small children about the dangers of motor vehicles having accidents, without having to expose them to the actual grisley scene of a car accident. There is video footage of crash dummies in tests that makes fascinating viewing for all ages







There is the feeling we get when we are riding in the car, and then the driver applies the brakes suddenly- feel how the unseen force pushes you forward into the seat belt? And see how the stuffed animal goes flying into the seat ahead of it?

A parent can apply their creativity to help a child understand (once the kid is interested in understanding). A parent is not obligated to drive a car with their child out of their car seat, against their better judgement. But they are obligated to help their child get what they want in life.

Peacemama, again:

"I'd rather have a safe baby who is occasionally unhappy in a carseat than an injured or dead baby whose emotional health is intact if those were my only two choices. "

Good thing that we are not limited to those two choices.









"But choosing to put a baby's safety in jeopardy in the name of non-coercion is simply irresponsible parenting."

And certainly not something that I or TCS theory would encourage.

If absolutely no risk was ever acceptable to put one's baby in, the baby would never come out of a hermetically sealed chamber, it seems to me. Riding in a car, even in a restraint, is a risk. We calculate risk in everything we do.

Where and how do we draw the line? I disagree with the parents I see in the city whose kids are walking around in the car, as we are driving in city traffic. Others disagree with a parent who would pull over and take their child out of the seat and nurse/change/comfort until they are ready to get back into the seat happily (spoiling the child). Many disagree with parents who go with their kid fussing in the car seat, and many parents who disagree with this do it anyhow, on occasion, in a state of coercion about it, their own selves. And some disagree about a parent strapped in with their baby in a sling, driving slow on a deserted dirt road.

I will defend the right of each individual to make the decision for their self and their child. And my heart goes out to all people who lose their children to accidents, preventable or otherwise, because there but for the grace of god go I. We are unable to foresee and prevent all risk, no matter how much we weigh consequences and access risk. We can take reasonable precautions- which, as we see here, differs from person to person- and do the best we can.

And there are parents who are criminally negligent, there is no question about that. But it is a minority, and I would be suprised to find anyone here who could be considered so.


----------



## larsy

Responding to Berglar's question (which I shan't quote, according to hir wishes







),

TCS as an articulated theory has been around for the past decade or so, so we are still in the first generation of the philosophy.

From the discussion I have been reading for the last five years or so, and my own experience, it seems that people's lives are vastly improved by TCS theories. This includes discussion with people of all ages, some of whom are under the age of majority and living in non-TCS homes. I know of people who have grown up with a somewhat TCS-like upbringing, though it was before the theory was articulated as it has been in this decade, and are now having children of their own and running up against the reality of real life children as opposed to just agreeing with the theory, as they strive to put TCS into practice.







And many, many people have grown up with your normal coercive upbringing to some degree and TCS theory strikes a chord of truth with them and they incorporate TCS theory into their lives.

My conjecture is that upon leaving the TCS home, a child who has been taken seriously in the way of this theory, will be able to see the alternatives to allowing their selves to be put in a state of coercion, and find those solutions that they can be happy with. They know how to find more information and support for the things they want to do, how to define what it is they want, and to find ways to do them without hurting others along the way.

Take TCS kids who want to go to school. School is a coercive institution. Parents can help their children to know what to expect in school, and help them find ways around the things they find coercive, and to help them get what they want out of the school experience. They can avoid the risk of psychological damge from the coercion they encounter outside of their TCS home, because they see alternatives, they can use their creativity to avoid coercion, and they know they have other resources to help them avoid coercion.

Seeing as there is no perfectly non-coercive parent or family, given our fallibility as humans and that we are just learning about this theory and contributing to its evolution and the furthering of knowledge, how could we possibly ascertain what long'term results and consequences are due to TCS, and what is due to other factors? What would this tell us? People are complex. There are no guarantees, no matter what philosophy one subscribes to, are there?

If we are living a moral and respectful life with our children in this moment, and the next, how is it that the 'long-term results' would be an over-riding concern, a reason to use coercion in this moment? It is solving the problems we have right here, right now, in non-coercive ways that will determine how we are able to solve the problems of the long-term.

Children are not products, to be treated a certain way growing up, in order to get this kind of adult when they are grown. Life is a process that happens in the present. While it might be true that if we 'fail to plan, plan to fail', and reasonable forethought to the needs of tomorrow will help determine the activities of today, this does not mean that coercion must be part of this. I have yet to be convinced that coercion is a desirable in the parent-child relationship.

You would find this discussion in the TCS list archives, if you cared to pursue it.


----------



## laelsweet

thanks for throwing it out here larsy

i do feel uncomfortable about previously divulging private things about my family! (mind you, mostly lost in the old boards) at the time i didn't consider that there may be other ways to talk about very personal things and get good information back

i certainly feel more comfortable posting on the internet since reading and beginning to adopt less personal language

i think there are many ways to write within that, so i'm experimenting


----------



## laelsweet

just wondering: especially since it seems evident to me that there are a number of people who find the tcs threads valuable, i wonder if you might be willing to restrain your remarks to refutation of the theory, rather than using insults? i find it much easier to consider your perspective when you write in a respectful manner. if these threads were not interesting to people on the boards, they would simply fizzle out.


----------



## Daisy

Check out www.continuum-concept.org


----------



## larsy

Hardly.

Anyone who would like to explore that possibility, please subscribe to the TCS list and read the recent archives about that very subject. www.TCS.ac


----------



## paula_bear

Here's a new scenario on the line of showing respect toward others. In a conversation w/ a childless girlfriend of mine, she mentioned this story. A childless woman was dining w/ her friend and child at a family restaurant. The child began putting french fries in her water glass. The childless woman became very uncomfortable with this and could not understand why her friend did not intervene.

What would the TCS approach to this be?

In my own dealings with children, our table manners at home are somewhat lax, although we discourage deliberate wasting of food such as throwing on the floor, etc, because it is inconsiderate to others (ME) who must clean it up. However we have taken our children out to eat from the earliest age and we encourage a more formal approach to table manners in public. Our children usually behave well enough at the restaurant so as not to cause us any embarrasment. I'm not sure how I would handle the above scenario as my children have yet to try something like that in public!


----------



## paula_bear

Hello all, I can't seem to refrain from subscibing to the TCS threads! With regards to children and how they "turn out," I really believe much of that is up to them! All of us here are doing everything we can to be conscious, gentle, loving parents, regardless of philosophy. However, given that we ARE human (read IMPERFECT), undoubtably we will do SOMETHING (intended or not) that will cause harm to our child(ren). If our child(ren) choose not to forgive us, but to dwell on that and use it as an excuse for their misery, well shame on them!

I say this, because I blamed my parents for a long time, until it caused me so much pain that I finally could see that if I didn't forgive them, it would kill me. Once I made that decision, I was able to progress and move forward and take responsibility for my life. It was very liberating. I haven't looked back. So, I don't think we should think we have complete control over the "outcome" of our children, not that it matters, as larsy mentioned. Enjoy and live in the moment.

I'm wondering at what age would one discuss TCS philosophy and the definition of coercion, common preference (CP), etc. Would this not prepare the child for dealing w/ the coercion experienced "out there" in society? And, BTW, does one keep one's children secluded from "society" until such an age where they understand coercion and have the resources with which to defend themselves? NO, we encourage our child(ren) to participate in society from the get go, and we protect them from coercive situations until they are able to defend themselves. So, we are preparing them to deal w/ society from day one.


----------



## larsy

I see that as a non-issue. If the child was not going to eat the food anyhow, what difference does it make? It will be thrown out anyhow. It's science, it's keeping busy in a way that is not infringing upon anyone else's autonomy. We often do science experiments while waiting for food, and we only go to the kind of restaurants where such a thing would hopefully not offend anyone's social expectations







not that I think that we are responsible for other people's thoughts or reactions, because I don't. Everyone is responsible for their own thoughts and theories.


----------



## larsy

Just Wondering, if you have complaints or comments about the TCS website or TCS List, the listowner asks that such complaints and/or comments be sent to her. You can find her address on the website at www.TCS.ac


----------



## paula_bear

Just wondering, I think much of the disagreement here is arising because you are sometimes using the TCS definitions of terms (such as coercion) and at other times you apply your own definitions. For example, what you call coercion in the instance of the child telling his mother, "Daddy wants you," I would call lying as well as manipulation. Please explain how the TCS definition of coercion applies to that situation.

I have found much of your commentary to be well thought out, logical, rational, thought-provoking, etc. I have enjoyed reading your responses, although they tend to get a bit lengthy at times, LOL. However, I found your last post to be a little out of line and way too emotional. I could barely get to your logic through the emotion in your response.

I hope you continue to debate here, you bring up many valid and interesting points, but I would like to see you resort back to your formerly respectful self. Thanks.


----------



## paula_bear

Dear just wondering,

No, I'm glad you chose not to say nothing. If this is the way you see the situation, then I value your need to express your point of view. I can certainly see how your level of frustration has built up over time.

I'm still uncertain that you are applying TCS definition of coercion correctly.

quote by larsy:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the TCS definiton of 'coerce' which speaks to the psychological state of enacting one idea or impulse while a conflicting impulse is still active in one's mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just wondering said:
"I am sure the parents action would have been considered by TCS to have been a parent thwarting or coercing a child. Just as, to me, I was "coerced" into leaving the room - he said one thing, while another was in his mind..... Even if TCS believes that under no circumstances can a child coerce a parent. IMO, ... wrong."

You're saying that the child said one thing while another was on his mind. But coercion would have been him enacting his impulse on you ("Dad wants you.") while another was still active in your mind. (Whatever activity in which you were presently engaged.) I guess this still could have been coercion, but I still don't label it as such. I would call it manipulation.

Glad to see you haven't given up on posting!

Kind Regards,
Paula


----------



## larsy

Yes, this is why I recommend that people who are interested in finding out more about TCS read the website. As it says at the glossary, the philosophy of TCS tends to use words in a more general sense, as it is extending and unifying concepts.

I understand this reaction to the definitions given there- I had a similar reaction, though the term I used was 'ambiguous'. It was maybe six months to a year before I was able to grasp how the philosophy hung together. I think people need to sort this out in their own way.

It's the concepts behind the words that it is important to grasp, imo. A person can call it 'Christmas pudding' if they like, as long as the concept is clear in their mind







[och, I can hear JW now- 'might as well call it pudding <grumblegrumble>







]

Though that would make it difficult to communicate about TCS ideas, wouldn't it, if we were all calling the concepts by different terms. Hence, the glossary... not to mention the many discussions on the TCS list about how to define this or that word. Because words and the concepts they convey right down to the nuances are very important, and when a discussion gets deep into theory, it is important to pinpoint exactly what is being talked about with these sometimes unwieldy words. Believe it or not, defining the words used in philosophical explorations helps to further knowledge on the subject.

For those who do not want to get deep into the theory, but want practical advice... there is plenty of that available on TCS lists' archives and elsewhere, and plenty of places to discuss it currently. I- and many others- have found that understanding the theory behind action goes a long way toward finding non-coercive solutions rather than resorting to coercion, in tough situations as well as the everyday stuff, as well as helping in dismantling entrenched theories and in re-evaluating all sorts of theories along the way.

But understanding TCS philosophy is an individual journey. The website and the various discussions give a person many tools to use, but the understanding comes in each mind, by a unique path. Many people don't want to go there. Many people do. Take your pick, and blessings upon you in your explorations


----------



## Netty

Your are correct, "Just Wondering," when you say that the TCS philosophy defines many terms differently than the dictionary defines them. But, as you may know, many philosophies and theories do this. It is done in an effort to clarify how the term is being used in the particular context of the philosophy. Often, it offers a new way of defining a term or of considering the etymology of the term. The word "deconstruction" is still not in many dictionaries. Does this mean that the term is invalid? Does this mean that Jacques Derrida (who coined the term) is full of baloney? I don't think so. Many people use the term "deconstruction" in ways quite different from Derrida's original intention. But as long as the terms are clarified within an argument, then the theory is made sense of accordingly. The term "tenor" and "vehicle" mean entirely different things in common usage as opposed to literary usage. Does this imply that the literary terms "tenor" and "vehicle" are invalid? No. This is how language evolves. I think it is far more "amorphous" to *not* define the way in which one is using terms. TCS theory is quite thorough with regard to its glossary of terms.

TCS defines the term "theory" as generally as it does because this term is, indeed, a slippery one. Any utterance, any action, any inaction, any thought, is born of a theory of one kind or another. It does not matter whether this theory is articulated or not. TCS strives to *articulate* theories and examine them in the light of critical rationalism. You take exception to how TCS defines the term "theory"; but let me ask you this: Could you offer me something that is not a theory? Could you utter something that is not borne out of a theory that you have? I do not think it is possible. This is why TCS defines theory as generally as possible.

You question how "a state of mind" can be termed a "theory." In order to articulate or even consider one's state of mind, one invariably constructs a theory in doing so. You did in your example. You offered the *theory* that your state of mind resulted from a lack of sleep. That is a *theory.* And you will act according to that theory (for example, you might decide to get more rest or go back to bed or not attempt to read anything that would demand too much attention). Do you see how you are, therefore, acting on a theory? We are always acting on theories. We call them by many names. But for the purposes of TCS theory, they are all theories which are open to the conjecture and refutation of critical rationalism.

Hope that clarfies things for you.

Netty


----------



## larsy

Just Wondering asked:

"Tell me Larsy, why is it that you have to subcribe to a list in order to view the information? It would seem that such a concept - "we won't allow you to view information UNLESS you subscribe" is very un TCS - somewhat coercive, don't you think? "

Hmm, well, it is one way to conduct a discussion on the internet. Anyone can subscribe and there is no cost. I'm told that in England, where TCS originated, such web-based discussion can be prohibitively expensive because they can't get free local calls, so this is a solution to the expense factor

"After all, I can view anything I like here, and not have to register. I only have to register if I want to contribute to the discussion. "

Yes, and I am happy to hear that this slash-dot syle discussion board (like mothering.com) is what Sarah wants to do on the new TCS website- also, once the software gets written, completely public discussions (like on usenet).

There is no conspiracy of coercion around TCS







Trying to find better ways to increase the discussion. Thanks for the input.









Hope this clears up any confusion about that.

Happy Holly-days


----------



## larsy

... about this thread and my theories, and I want to thank all who have contributed here. I am examining my theories and appreciate the discussion. Learning all the time









I've been talking to some people, and find that I have been assuming that going off-road is not under the same jurisdiction as on (county and state maintained) roads. I very well could be mistaken about that. One person I've talked to recently thought the law was in effect if the vehicle is in motion. I don't know the letter of the law and how this varies from state to state to country.

But at any rate, the laws of physics are in play. Restraints in moving vehicles help to keep people safe. It was the car seat question that brought me to TCS in the first place (along with the dental question...). I couldn't stand driving with a crying baby, either- both of us in a state coercion, not a pretty picture. I was happy to get great ideas about how to drive with a happy baby, much like the great ideas that Iguanavere and others have given here.

And absolutely, the 'we grew up without seat belts' defense is a lousy one, and thanks for the criticism about this.







My fallibility shows up all over the place.


----------



## paula_bear

Glad to hear TCS is looking into changing to a forum-type environment. I woke up the other morning w/ 47 emails to sift thru! More than 2/3 were TCS related.

Plus, I really like being able to go back and follow the thread from post to post, or to join in at any time. Some of the TCS discussions do not interest me at all.


----------



## larsy

Naw, JW, I don't agree with the continuum concept.







but I do re-evaluate my theories


----------



## paula_bear

Thanks, larsy, for showing humility in your last post and proving that people trying to practice TCS *are* willing to ammend their theories when presented with a valid arguement. I have already made some changes in my own theories in the few weeks I have been studying TCS.

Well, I have to redecorate my Christmas tree (long story) and put out the presents - just got the kids to bed!

Merry Christmas to all,
and to all, a good night!

Peace and Love to all,
Paula


----------



## Netty

****After all, if TCS actually clearly clarified what it meant, so that there was no confusion, we would not be in this situation right now, and attempting to find (impossible) common ground.****

If there are any terms that you do not understand or would like clarified in any posts I have written or may write in the future, please feel free to ask me. I'm happy to clarify how I am using any terms that may be unclear to you or anyone else reading this forum.

Netty


----------



## Netty

****Far from being a theory, in my case ( and most other people's) that is a proven fact. It is not "knowledge without reference to experience".

It is the proven outcome of an action. i.e. if I do not get enought sleep, I will have a fuzzy state of mind.

Proven fact. ****

I do not believe that we, as fallible human beings, can ever know absolute truth. All we can do is strive for better and better theories. You say that it is a "proven fact" that a lack of sleep will result in "a fuzzy state of mind." Considering the information we have regarding sleep deprivation and mental performance, I would agree that this is a good theory. And I would most likely act on that theory. But it is not a proven fact in the sense of an absolute truth. People used to think that it was a "fact" that the sun moved around the earth. That was a theory. Now we have an even better theory that the earth orbits around the sun. But even that theory could be falsified in light of new information. And the theory that sleep deprivation leads to a fuzzy state of mind could also be falsified in light of new information. We cannot know, beforehand, what that new information could be. But we are gathering new information all the time and changing our theories accordingly (consider, for example, how quantum physics and chaos theory have allowed scientists to reconsider and improve on Einstein's theory of relativity). We act according to the best theories we have as fallible human beings. We do not know what is absolutely true. And this is why TCS theory defines *any* human conjecture as a theory.

Netty


----------



## mamaglee

Thank you for bringing this up! Something I have loved about TCS (particularly the email group) is the idea that any theory can be challenged and many are! The folks on the TCS email group and TCS supporters who are posting here are looking to better their theories. They are constantly searching for better ways to interact with their children specifically (and spouses or others peripherally). They want you to test their theories. And they want to test yours.

Speaking for myself now, I keep reading. I am a parenting book junkie and a parenting group junkie because I want more insights. I want you to tell me if my theory is wrong so that I can make the necessary changes.

TCS has been under intense scrutiny from the wisest minds I have found on the web for quite some time, and it holds its own.

For me, TCS principles feel better than other parenting ideas. I feel freer and happier as a result. But if you ever find a better theory ...

Mamaglee


----------



## mamaglee

Larsy, I want to go to homeschooling group with you! A TCS unschooling group would be such fun! Think of the respect...and the parents in the trees.

Mamaglee (Stellarmama once upon a time)


----------



## Leonor

Quote:

_Originally posted by Heavenly_
*We were going outside today. It's snowing. my 11 month old hates getting his snowsuit on no matter what I do to try and make it fun. He screamed. I put the snow suit on anyways. IMO that is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. Letting my 11 month old go out in just a track suit is negligent and I will never change my opinion on that.*
Would you change your opinion if I told you about a news story I've watched on TV about a group of Russians who got out wearing bathing suits, rolled in the snow and then went swimming in a river (it's -10ºC)?


----------



## Leonor

Just Wondering wrote:

Quote:

Nicest bit of twaddle I've heard for a long time, Leonor. All 11 month olds, were they? No, actually they were adults...and was the item you saw, like the one we saw, and show you how short a time that was for? How many seconds do you think? And did they also show you all of them rushing straight into the hot natural springs nearby, afterwards? And coming out from their dressing room, if you could call it that, later, well dressed --- in their equivalent of --- snowsuits????
No, they didn't show the latter part.

I just posted that story because I found it curious some people think that it's healthy and fun to dive in a freezing river and it shows some people don't fear cold and have different temperature tolerances.

I have also seen many shows of models being photographed in swim suits and summer clothes in the snow, having fun falling in the snow. And yes, after that they wear their snowsuits/fur coats again. I don't think that shows it's ok to force snowsuits into 11 month olds.

Quote:

Heavenly, on the other hand, is going to spend a fair bit of time out there, with an 11 month old, who isn't an adult. Who isn't that mobile. Who can't run around, and move fast to keep up their core temperature. And a baby cannot take that kind of cold anyway, because their internal temperature control is quite different. They could go unconscious quite quickly.
All those are good reasons for a parent be helpful and don't force a snowsuit in a baby. Parent might be comfortable thinking the baby is warm and safe inside a snowsuit, but this might not be true for the baby.

Even if it's true a baby goes unconscious in one second of exposure to cold temperatures (at least it's not true for all babies), a naked baby would be quite warm inside parent's coat, for example.

And if their internal temperature control is quite different from adults perhaps using the same 'heating' methods adults use, like wearing snowsuits, does not work the same way.


----------



## Netty

***Do you breathe in and out, each day, without fail? True or false? ***

So far, I have been breathing in and out every day. Based on that information, I *theorize* that I will breathe in and out later today, and tomorrow, and so on. But I would be wrong to assume, based on the information and experience I have, that I will continue to breathe indefinitely. Of course, I will base my action on the assumption (i.e. theory) that I will continue breathing, and I think that the theory that I will continue to breathe is a good one. But it is a fallible theory all the same.

****Did planes fly into the WTC? True or False?****

Yes, as far as I know (though I am basing this on the information I've been given as I was not there myself). Again, I would base future speculations concerning terrorism or airplanes or tall towers on the information I already have about that event. But I verify that information with others, do I not? If I, in isolation, were to see that event and then ask someone beside me if s/he saw it, what would my conclusion be if s/he said she didn't? And what if no one else claimed to see what I saw? I would have to re-evaluate my theory. All "facts" are information we use to form theories. Sometimes those "facts" change and we, then, re-evaluate our theories. We are fallible. We cannot know absolute truth.

****Is George W Bush the president of the USA? True or False. ***

Again, based on the information I have, I would say "yes." But that information *could* be wrong. I will not live as though it were wrong. But I will always be open to the idea that it could be. Have you seen the movie "Dave"? In that movie, someone pretends to be the president and everyone believes that he is the actual president. But they later learn that their theory was false. Again, we don't live as though our information is false. We count on the information we have to form our theories. When we get new information, we change out theories accordingly. This is the process of critical rationalism.

When the TCS website claims that TCS is "the approach that offers a solution to the problem of conventional coercive child-rearing," they are basing that claim on the information we have so far concerning parenting. But the TCS website (as you have already pointed out) also claims that the theory is open to criticism. None of us claim to know the truth. We are simply offering a theory and opening that theory up to criticism. If you--or anyone else--could offer a better theory that offers a solution to the problem of conventional coercive child-rearing, I'd be interested in learning about it. I say this with all sincerity, btw. I have no desire to belittle your theories. I am only holding them up to rational criticism and inviting you to do the same with the ones I offer. So far, your "criticism" has consisted of refuting TCS theory without reference to any actual argument of your own. Your *opinion* that TCS is "baloney" is, perhaps, valid. But I would need to be convinced by argument.

Netty


----------



## Leonor

Just Wondering wrote:

Quote:


I do. I also know myself intimately. I know the exact minute that I ovulate. I know that I am pregnant within 6 hours of conception. And in the pregnancies that I miscarried I knew from the start that the pregnancies were "wrong". My sister and I both know what sex babies we are carrying, and I also know the colour of the eyes. My sister was only tripped up once, when she couldn't make up her mind, and it turned out she had a twins - a girl and a boy. So no wonder.

I do not "guess" with my children. I know. For instance. My son plays cricket. The morning of a game, if he is home, I can pretty well predict if he is going to do well. I just "know". It has become the standing joke in this family that if I take my camera with me and go and watch, you can guarantee Ian will get a century, or several wickets. It is not a guessing. It is a "knowing". But I don't know HOW I know.

It's a pity you don't know how you know, because that way no-one can learn that wonderful ability from you. The parenting you're so sure is right and that you've been doing is based on knowledge nobody else can get at.

I just don't understand why you bash TCS so much. Some mothers just aren't blessed with god like instincts and that's why they follow the rational path.

Leonor


----------



## larsy

BTW, one TCS article about the parenting of John Walker Lindh is available at http://www.tcs.ac/Articles/KSGatewayReligions.html

Enjoy!


----------



## Leonor

Dear Just Wondering

Please don't be sorry for me









I wonder how people possessing blessed instincts teach each other those instincts without knowing how? I really want to know because I sure could use them! It's a kind of magic? Why can't I get it too? You said it was because I had coercive parents? But didn't you say you had coercive parents too? Aren't you a coercive parent? I don't get it.

And in case you haven't noticed you're the one putting what other people say to shreds and resort to insulting people to make your point.


----------



## Daisy

I cannot even believe some of these nonsensical arguments. Good for you for sticking with it, Just Wondering. It seems as if every thread turns into a TCS discussion whether the original question had anything to do with it or not. There are many other forms of gentle discipline. Maybe people could attempt to proselytize less. You'd think we were talking religion in the Spirituality forum, except proselytizing isn't allowed there. (hmmmm...)

Leaving a child in a diaper filled with poop is incredibly irresponsible. What if the only way to get the child to agree to changing the diaper was to let "hir" (do you always write "hir" or is it only on these boards?) paint the walls with poop? What if that was the *only* way to have the child's agreement? What would a follower of TCS do then?


----------



## Daisy

This forum is saturated with TCS talk, even when the original poster didn't have a question related to TCS. I have read most of the posts about TCS philosophy, and have seen enough. I would like to see discussion of other concepts allowed, without being taken over or buried by TCS discussion. It has become disruptive, and reminds me of a religious argument. I think it's great that some of you who want to debate have started separate threads, instead of talking over existing ones. Hopefully that can be done more from now on. I would like to know that I am free to post a comment or question without having to add a disclaimer stating that I do not need to hear any TCS debate. Maybe the 'philosophical' discussions should move into the Spirituality forum, or perhaps the Activism forum, because these arguments have morphed to encompass an entire lifestyle, not just gentle discipline.

Flame away.


----------



## Daisy

I hope those who have been upset by all of this come back and make their voices heard, instead of only letting you speak on their behalf. (Even though I admire the job you are doing, JW!)


----------



## Pallas

I don't at all understand the hostility I'm seeing here and on other threads. So what if Larsy responds to a lot of posts? So what if her suggestions aren't what you would advise? SO FRIGGING WHAT? I haven't heard HER resorting to nastiness or insults. In fact, she (and the more recent imports) have responded to the anti-TCS contingent with far more grace than I would have been able to muster. I've seen little in the way of proselitizing -- I see many people asking specific situational questions, and I see Larsy trying to answer them as best she can, even when imo the questions are little more than thinly veiled attacks. She still answers respectfully, as if all queries are equally sincere. Should she ignore the questions? Should she not be allowed to respond?

I don't happen to swallow the whole TCS philosophy. I don't think it's workable. However, many of the suggestions have been VERY useful to me, and have gotten me to examine when authority is really necessary and when I'm just imposing my will for no good reason.

I also don't understand the need to make snide remarks about the "new" tcs'ers. Haven't we descended on mainstream forums when someone from here was being attacked? I know we have, I've seen it done. So what? They're here, they're gentle parents, and they may be able to clarify questions in a different manner. Relax, nobody's threatening you.

If you don't like the TCS suggestions, scroll on by.

Separate forums, THHHBBT! I'd like a separate forum for bitchy people, but I'm afraid I'd get kicked over there myself at this point.









Namaste,

Pallas


----------



## Pallas

I actually posted about this in another thread, but I'll hit the high points ...

Why is this such a big deal? So tcs suggestions don't work for you, so move on. I read all sorts of suggestions that don't work for me, from all sorts of sources. So what?

I keep seeing people ASKING QUESTIONS of the tcs fans. This keeps the topic alive. I understand that YOU don't think it works, but obviously there's some interest in it. If you can't take what works and leave the rest, then why not just ignore the whole thing?

I suppose the level of hostility just seems completely out of proportion to the "offense". I felt the same when the Christians were being chastised for being, well, Christian. I'm not Christian. Sometimes a Christian has a great suggestion. Sometimes I scroll by. Sometimes TCS is helpful. Sometimes I scroll by. I can't imagine being arrogant enough to say that they shouldn't post, or should only post in their designated area.

Yeesh. Unlax, already.


----------



## Daisy

What does "unlax" mean?







: Does it mean "relax already?" And would you like to be more specific and just go ahead and call me arrogant? I may be. So are the people taking over threads and turning every comment and question into a TCS discussion, whether the original poster wants that or not.

Some people were left feeling hurt and attacked. Explanation enough?


----------



## Daisy

Yeap, you just might have to join me over there.


----------



## peggy

Thank you Daisy! I have tried to say this in every thread in as gentle way as possible. I finally gave up and stopped reading many of the questions posed once the TCS people began debating every post. We've all asked nicely that these responses stick to the original posters question and that other points of view be heard with out being picked apart, but this only seems to fuel them to start more and more threads. No one is getting Gentle Discipline advice here any more. I am sick of it!
There is web site and support group for TCS why does it need to be discussed and debated endlessly here?

peggy


----------



## flminivanmama

It's difficult to scroll on by when the posts are so darn long


----------



## flminivanmama

Quote:

_Originally posted by grisletine_
*we liveout on a dirt road so with her in the sling and me buckled i dont feel too worried..*
ummm - you should.

Unless your daughter's life is less important to you than her comfort.... ???


----------



## jtsmom

I have tried to stay away from the tcs stuff. I started a thread a while ago about how much do you encourage your children. The point of the thread was to ask how much other mommies do it. I tend to not limit my ds at all and encourage him to do things, learn things that most kids his age are not exposed to, because they are assumed to be too young. Anyway, it turned around so that people thought I was trying to ask advice, which I was not, and I was refered to the tcs website. I was trying to do something else. And the tone was kind of like "ask the expert". I got fed up and just gave up. I have seen the same thing happen on other threads. I don't think it is so much that there is anything wrong with tcs, however I find the tone sort of irritating. As someone else said, excuse me, I *do* take my children seriously







:

I don't remember any of this talk on the old boards.

jtsmom


----------



## flminivanmama

Quote:

_Originally posted by discovermoma_
*I wanted to add some other thoughts on the carseat issue. We have added additional padding to our toddler seat in the space directly where her back rest. For some reason our carseat didn't have any there.*
when you add padding there you change what the carseat and seatbelts were designed to do in the case of a crash - there is a precise amount of padding for compression in an accident... but again - you seem to be more concerned with your child's comfort than safety....

Quote:

*We live off a dirt road, it is another 3 1/2 miles to our house after we turn off the highway. We allow our dd to be out of the carseat on this road. Also, don't require the carseat while she is riding around the ranch in the truck.*
I really can't think of anything nice to say here or anything that wouldn't be apersonal attack... but I just hope you think about how you are taking your child's life in your hands each time you do that.


----------



## flminivanmama

Quote:

_Originally posted by larsy_
*But that's just it. Who gets to say what is unsafe and/or irresponsible behavior *for another person*? Aren't individual people capable of evaluating risk for their self, and deciding which risk is worth taking, and which isn't?*
but that's just it - you are deciding FOR your child! I bet if your infant COULD talk and reason and understand they would NEVER choose to die in a car accident over not! And yet each parent that interprets their child's cries as"Take me out of the carseat" IS making that choice FOR their child!


----------



## Pallas

yes, that's exactly what it means! (good guess!) I shouldn't use family jargon in a public forum, but you know how it is -- sometimes words/phrases have been in use in your family for so long that you forget it's not a real word/phrase!

I don't see tcs'ers taking over, except in that there have been many questions asked of them and threads started about how pushy they are. They're not to blame for those threads -- they didn't start them. People post about problems, other people answer from their own experience, tcs or otherwise. I'm fairly sure that when questioners say "I'm not interested in a tcs answer" that they don't get one. (I haven't actually checked to see that this is true, it's just my impression.)

And I fail to see why ANYONE would be hurt or attacked by a suggestion that they don't find useful. The only people I"ve seen attacked have been the tcs'ers, who have generally responded with respectful disagreement. Please, try to look at it from another point of view:

Say that we're on a mainstream parenting board. I post a question about sleep deprivation, saying that I'm having a terrible time at night. You, who practice AP, suggest that I consider bringing my baby into my bed, citing Sears and others and your own good experience with the family bed. Perhaps you add a link to an AP site in case I'd like more info.

Should I feel hurt or attacked? Should I insult you and demand that you leave the forum? Or should I take your suggestion or not, and leave it at that?

I like having new parenting techniques brought up, even when I don't choose to employ them. It doesn't threaten the way I do things, it stretches my mind and allows me to revisit my old assumptions. Geez, it's not like someone's coming to the Gentle Discipline forum and saying "Spanking is the only way! God wants you to spank! Spankspankspank!" Even I would admit that's out of line.









The only reason tcs seems to have taken over the boards at the moment is that some people, primarily jw, have made it their crusade to belittle and attack the people who suggest it. And I don't understand THAT at all, because I've always found jw to be logical, tactful, and respectful before, even when dealing with touchy subjects. She's the last person I'd expect this kind of venom from -- but maybe I'm just not "hearing" the tone of voice she's intending to project.

I s'pose I'm just leery of ANY censorship, when it's so easy to just scroll on by. People who are ignored go away. People who aren't ignored obviously serve a purpose.

Namaste,

Pallas

edited to add: I do understand being a miffed at the implication that the rest of us don't take our children seriously. I've heard the same complaint from parents who don't like "Attachment Parenting", which implies that they aren't attached to their kids. I take my kid very seriously, even though I don't consider myself to be remotely close to a tcs parent.


----------



## paula_bear

Daisy said:

Quote:

It seems as if every thread turns into a TCS discussion whether the original question had anything to do with it or not.
Did you not notice that the title of this thread just so happens to be "Larsy - TCS?" If you find the TCS conversations so objectionable, why come here in the first place? Who is doing the prostelizing here? Would you mind explaining what you meant by the following statement?

Quote:

You'd think we were talking religion in the Spirituality forum, except proselytizing isn't allowed there. (hmmmm...)
I only heard of TCS a few weeks ago. The concept of dealing with one's children without resorting to coercion fascinates me. I have tried to learn more about it. Do I claim to practice TCS to the letter of the philosophy? No, and I don't know if I necessarily want to. But I DO want to hear about how others manage to apply it. I want to take what works for me and apply it to the best of my ability. If something doesn't feel right to me on an instinctual level, I have enough confidence in my instincts to just leave it. I don't feel it necessary to beat the messenger to death, or to convert them to my way of thinking.

This has turned into an "us" vs. "them" situation, which I find difficult because I don't relate to either side. However, I feel more for the TCS side as they have handled themselves with much more dignity and have shown more even-handedness and respect for the "other side." TCS is not a cult, they are not out there telling people, "You must do what we do, or you are doing it ALL WRONG!" (wouldn't that be coercion?)

I have to go put DD to bed now, it's been a long day. I have a lot more to say, but I'll leave it at that.

Good night, hope everyone enjoyed the holiday.


----------



## Wildflower

I'm really enjoying the tcs perspectives. I'd really love them to continue. Censorship sucks. Diversity, in any case, rocks. Or is at least something that needs to be tolerated. Hopefully, appreciated. Can't folks mentally discard/ignore what doesn't resonate with them? My impression of the tcs posters is that they've been quite respectful.


----------



## lunarmomma

I personally would like the tcs posters to modify themselves, in that not every question posted here not be given a tcs answer. If people want that then let them ask for it. I agree with daisy that tcs has railroaded this forum.
I find the basic premise of it to be simple common sense, past that I think it appears arrogant and does not seem to honor nor include the intuitive nature that we as mamas possess innately. All of us.
One cannot parent solely from a method, or a theory. If so, they are in their head, not their heart. That is where the buck stops with me.
I appreciate the time and energy that JW has undertaken to try and refute some of the more extreme tenets of this "philosophy" that seem to leave off common sense and scurries for what and how to "do the right thing".
It disregards one's own gut and sets them following someone else's way that is not their own.
If we need some help fine, I agree we can always use some help.
But it is the arrogance of the presentation that this is the only right way and ultimately belittles the parent that is trying so hard to do better. She will only ever fall short.
I do respect my childs wants and needs and have done since day one. But I'll be damned if I am going to miss a plane because my son doesn't want to wait in line for boarding, or whatever. I am not going to sit there and talk to him (who is still fairly nonverbal) and try to discern when he might be ready to board the plane. Sorry but that concept just takes it a bit too far. It is unrealistic for me to stop my life completely to create a little emperor. Sometimes this kind of negotiation that tcs is recommends is just plain absurd. And puleeeez, what is this ultra PC "hir" thing?
There, I've been holding that in for awhile, just wanted to add my two cents.
Call me coersive or whatever you like.
Whew. I feel much better.







:


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by Wildflower_
*I'm really enjoying the tcs perspectives. I'd really love them to continue. Censorship sucks. Diversity, in any case, rocks. Or is at least something that needs to be tolerated. Hopefully, appreciated. Can't folks mentally discard/ignore what doesn't resonate with them? My impression of the tcs posters is that they've been quite respectful.*
Thanks, wildflower, my sentiments exactly.

I have been reading mostly TCS posts these days in an effort to learn more about it. I have the motto, "Take what you like, and leave the rest." I also don't go into threads which I *KNOW* I disagree with for the simple reason of arguing with people who are trying to have a supportive discussion in an attempt to learn something. That is not only counter-productive, it is rude, and not in line with the nature of these boards, which were created as a forum whereby people could support each other.


----------



## Erin Pavlina

Cynthia and the moderators are discussing a solution now. A solution is in the works. Hang in there everyone!


----------



## Pumpernickle

Carseat is a must. No "if" "ands" or "buts" about it!!


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by Daisy_
*This forum is saturated with TCS talk, even when the original poster didn't have a question related to TCS.... I would like to see discussion of other concepts allowed, without being taken over or buried by TCS discussion. It has become disruptive, and reminds me of a religious argument. I think it's great that some of you who want to debate have started separate threads, instead of talking over existing ones.... Maybe the 'philosophical' discussions should move into the Spirituality forum, or perhaps the Activism forum, because these arguments have morphed to encompass an entire lifestyle, not just gentle discipline.

Flame away.







*
I haven't visited many threads not specifically talking about TCS these days, but I will check them out to see if your assertion is correct. What if every thread had a strong AP/NP advocate come in with his/her two cents? Would this create such an emotional uproar? Probably not, as most people visiting this forum practice that style of parenting, or at least parts of it.

There have been numerous TCS threads started, and without exception, someone opposed to TCS comes in and picks apart people's opinions, often times in a disrespectful and sometimes downright insulting manner. Please, ladies, before you type those words, ask yourself if you would appreciate being addressed in that manner!!!

Many people have expressed that they feel proponents of TCS come at them with an attitude of superiority. I just don't see it. I think many are turned off by the name, "Taking Children Seriously," because they feel that it implies that they do not take their children seriously. Just because you don't like the name, do you have to come in and attack the theories and the people behind them? Again, suppose I didn't "believe in" attachment parenting, but felt that I WAS, in fact, attached to my child. How would people react if I went on a crusade, needlessly attacking not only AP philosophy, but the people who expressed interest in it? It would not go over well, I assure you, and I would have a moderator on my butt within no time.

I can't believe that in the last part of your post, you insinuate that those who support, are interested in, or want to learn more about TCS should not be included in this forum. And where do you get off saying that these discussions are not about gentle discipline. Does not one's philosophy have bearing on the way one disciplines? If I believe in authoritarianism, will I not discipline in that manner?

I thank those who have persisted in trying to answer my questions, and those of others like me, despite all that is going on. I think they have exhibited an enormous amount of class and self-restraint, as they have not resorted to counter-attack, but have steadfastly, gently, and patiently made an attempt to explain themselves.

Sorry to post a long one here, but I really needed to express myself. Thank you to those of you who chose to read my post in its entirety.

Peace to all, please let us try to coexist in harmony!

Paula Bear


----------



## larsy

flminivanmama wrote:

"but that's just it - you are deciding FOR your child! I bet if your infant COULD talk and reason and understand they would NEVER choose to die in a car accident over not!"

Right, agreed, never been any question about that. Children want to live, parents want them to live.

" And yet each parent that interprets their child's cries as"Take me out of the carseat" IS making that choice FOR their child!"

And that is why they stop the car when the baby is in distress.


----------



## Alexander

This car seat question is going round in circles now.

We've thrashed it to death!









shall we talk about, er, something else?

a


----------



## paula_bear

Well said, Alexander. This discussion is getting tiresome. I think everyone is in agreement that carseats are a must. Even larsy (a long time ago) revised her opinion in favor of carseats at all times.

We try what we can, and if all methods to find a CP fail, and we must go, baby goes into carseat. Although they experience coercion, hopefully they live to complain about it, LOL.


----------



## paula_bear

Just Wondering - the link you specified at the beginning of your post is "No Longer Available." Please re-direct us so we can try to figure out what you're talking about. I say that meaning no disrespect - we need that info in order to understand your arguement. Thanks.


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by Just Wondering_
*...I think you mean force a baby into a snowsuit. I would never force a snowsuit IN a baby... but if necessary, my baby would be put into a snowsuit, like it or not. Not that I have ever had to do it.....*
Just Wondering, is it really necessary or productive to give grammar lessons here? To quote the user conduct rules, "Please exercise cultural...awareness..." Is it not likely that someone from Portugal may not have the same command over the English language as you have demonstrated?

It seems you have no patience for anyone who expresses an interest in TCS. You completely ignored Leonor's point, and instead focused on her misuse of the word "in," which has so many different uses in English as to be very difficult to translate with complete accuracy. You knew what she meant...

The meat of her statement was disregarded - there are other effective ways to keep an 11 month old warm besides forcing him or her INTO a snowsuit.

Sorry, but as someone interested in learning more about TCS, I find your lengthy attacks of people who have come here for the same purpose to be quite tiresome.


----------



## Cindi

Quote:

_Originally posted by lunarmomma_
*I personally would like the tcs posters to modify themselves, in that not every question posted here not be given a tcs answer. If people want that then let them ask for it. I agree with daisy that tcs has railroaded this forum.
I find the basic premise of it to be simple common sense, past that I think it appears arrogant and does not seem to honor nor include the intuitive nature that we as mamas possess innately. All of us.
One cannot parent solely from a method, or a theory. If so, they are in their head, not their heart. That is where the buck stops with me.
I appreciate the time and energy that JW has undertaken to try and refute some of the more extreme tenets of this "philosophy" that seem to leave off common sense and scurries for what and how to "do the right thing".
It disregards one's own gut and sets them following someone else's way that is not their own.
If we need some help fine, I agree we can always use some help.
But it is the arrogance of the presentation that this is the only right way and ultimately belittles the parent that is trying so hard to do better. She will only ever fall short.
I do respect my childs wants and needs and have done since day one. But I'll be damned if I am going to miss a plane because my son doesn't want to wait in line for boarding, or whatever. I am not going to sit there and talk to him (who is still fairly nonverbal) and try to discern when he might be ready to board the plane. Sorry but that concept just takes it a bit too far. It is unrealistic for me to stop my life completely to create a little emperor. Sometimes this kind of negotiation that tcs is recommends is just plain absurd. And puleeeez, what is this ultra PC "hir" thing?
There, I've been holding that in for awhile, just wanted to add my two cents.
Call me coersive or whatever you like.
Whew. I feel much better.







:*
Right on! I just wanted to thank you for heart-be-in-it "I'll be damned if I'm going to miss a plane" perspective. I don't know anything about TCM (tried to figure it out just now) but I'm generally pretty suspicious of philosophical prescriptions. You are awesome momma.


----------



## Ms. Mom

Before the boards went down several posters would put 'non tcs response' in the subject line (or something like that).

I think the people on our boards weather tcs or not are respectfull enough to honor such a request.

This isn't a solid solution, but it could help thoes who are looking for a parenting approach that isn't tcs while the administrators work out a gentle plan that works for everyone.

Please feel free to pm or email me any time to discuss ideas or concerns. I care deeply about this forum and would like it to be a comfortable place to share ideas for everyone.

[email protected]


----------



## flminivanmama

I know up above I said one should just scroll on by but that was before I read the "TCS for Babies" thread which apparently advocates taking your child's life into your own hands whether they would chose that or not. I couldn't even sleep last night - I had nightmares about parents driving in cars without their kids in carseats...
I just can't in any good conscience listen to parents advocating driving with their kids in a sling no matter how short the distance or how unpaved the road. I don't care how loud your kid is crying. They may be asking for something when they are crying and you may feel it is your job to give them what they ask for but I can guarentee one thing they are NOT asking for is for their parents, who they trust their whole lives with, to take a chance so great with their lives.


----------



## larsy

If you were to substitute the subject matter of 'drugs' in Kevin's article, rather than religion, would it still be illogical?

This is one article that grew out of a discussion about the parenting of this individual. It is a rather complex critique of many ant-TCS ideas, but this is a commentary on coercion damage for anyone interested in the concept (this is a thread by that title, right?)

JW, how do you know that I am not part of the USA police force?


----------



## flminivanmama

Quote:

_Originally posted by paula_bear_
*








Well said, Alexander. This discussion is getting tiresome. I think everyone is in agreement that carseats are a must. Even larsy (a long time ago) revised her opinion in favor of carseats at all times.*
yes I see that - I hadn't read to the end of the thread (too long) so I was responding to each post in turn. I was only able to finish the thread this morning...

Quote:

*We try what we can, and if all methods to find a CP fail, and we must go, baby goes into carseat. Although they experience coercion, hopefully they live to complain about it, LOL.*
Amen!


----------



## larsy

To go totally meta-discussion here- my last comment in the above post is a joke- just kidding around, ya know? No reason to go into the logic of the knowing or not knowing of the way I spend my time.


----------



## larsy

This might be a big part of our misunderstandings here. I am convinced that the truth (right, or the closest we can get to it) of ideas can be known by conjecture and refutation, regardless of the source of the information. Great information can come from the darnedest sources, and poor information can come from expert sources. Each person is responsible for what they do with the information they get, and how they verify it, and critique it, and do further research and discussion and so on.

If a person is to take the information from any particular source as credible based solely upon that person's credentials or age or religious persuasion, they are at risk for missing useful information from sources that they don't credit as worthy, as well as getting bum information from sources that are taken at their word because of their expert status.

This is my experience and opinion, ymmv.

As to the joking thing, JW, the smileys might be your first clue!







Working within the limitations of the medium.

As to the logical argument: it sounds like the identical argument against drugs I've been hearing all my life.


----------



## Pallas

I had the impression that they rethought that decision -- that carseat use was no longer an issue. In any case (straightening Devil's Advocate Beret), is forbidding tcs discussion a reasonable response? Quite frankly, if someone is making life-threatening decisions I don't want them to be silent about it. I want it brought up, so other people can say "That's a life-threatening decision! You should rethink this!"

I think that there's an important distinction to be made here, and that it keeps getting blurred. There's a HUGE leap from saying that tcs is silly, unreasonable, or irritating and saying that it should be a verboten topic, that it may not be mentioned in response to a post. HUGE. Argue with them. Post about them. Ignore them. Dialogue with them. There are so many options that don't involve censorship!

We on this board are awfully quick to decide that something or someone doesn't fit, and to silence them whether Officially or by repeated attacks. Odd, since most of us have experienced the same kind of treatment from mainstreamers at one time or another. Maybe it's human nature, to need a Them so we can be an Us. Human nature or not, it's not terribly attractive.

Namaste,

Pallas


----------



## larsy

<musing> I wonder what they did before snowsuits were invented?


----------



## k'smami

Sounds like a lot of you want to silence opinions you don't agree with. What are you all trying to accomplish in this thread? Do you want all of us to just leave? Well then be explicit and say it! These odd questions that reek of disapproval at answers are sounding pretty passive aggressive to me. Don't want to see so many TCS topics? Start new ones.


----------



## flminivanmama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Pallas_
I had the impression that they rethought that decision -- that carseat use was no longer an issue. In any case (straightening Devil's Advocate Beret), is forbidding tcs discussion a reasonable response? Quite frankly, if someone is making life-threatening decisions I don't want them to be silent about it. I want it brought up, so other people can say "That's a life-threatening decision! You should rethink this!"
yes you are right - I hadn't read that whole thread before I responded to this. I had started it but it was too long and I went to bed before I could finish it - then this morning I answered this before I read the end of that one... thankfully the opinion did seem to change so perhaps posting the whole topic was good - if it stopped even one person from taking their child's life into their hands just b/c they thought that's "what the child would want"

Quote:

I think that there's an important distinction to be made here, and that it keeps getting blurred. There's a HUGE leap from saying that tcs is silly, unreasonable, or irritating and saying that it should be a verboten topic, that it may not be mentioned in response to a post. HUGE. Argue with them. Post about them. Ignore them. Dialogue with them. There are so many options that don't involve censorship!
I hate cencorship and my normalresponse it "just scroll on by" but....

Quote:

We on this board are awfully quick to decide that something or someone doesn't fit, and to silence them whether Officially or by repeated attacks. Odd, since most of us have experienced the same kind of treatment from mainstreamers at one time or another. Maybe it's human nature, to need a Them so we can be an Us. Human nature or not, it's not terribly attractive.
....I hate that everything on this board turns into a fight!! This whole TCS thing is just indicitive of an underlying problem...


----------



## larsy

jbcjmom asked, on a previous thread where it got lost:

"When you say you hope we are all aiming for truth, what "truth" is it that you are talking about."

I think of truth as objective (if possibly unknowable- sorta like the will of God? in Christian theology), and I think of knowledge creation to be aiming for truth in any particular matter, and rational discourse is a truth-seeking venture.







And I think that my theories about truth can get better, so ideas are welcome.

" I was not aware that their was any great "truth" that is the focus of parenting. It seems like a pretty abstract goal."

It is an abstract goal. Is it too great a goal to strive for?

I dunno, somehow I got the idea that we are striving for truth, in looking for better ways to do things, including parenting. When I look at a problem, besides 'question everything', I think about what I believe to be true about the idea or situation. The parts I have doubts about or realize that I have been going on unexamined assumption, I continue to gather information about and discuss and question, trying to get closer to the truth.

I am not saying that there is some big truth about parenting that we are going to arrive at, and all answers will be know. I don't think we can say that about anything. There will always be more information that could lead to further discoveries that are closer to the truth.

" There are many things in this world that we can not prove with fact or logic. I am curious what "truth" you are striving for and how you hope to prove it when you find it."

I recently read a claim that there is no proof, except in mathematics.









How one sees the truth is a personal thing. I don't think this makes truth relative, though. When I think of truth, I think of the elephant that the blind men are examining. I think we do well to keep in mind fallibility, that we might have a hold of the elephant's trunk, while another has its tail, and while we are both sure of the truth of what we have in our hands, there is more to the truth. Further exploration and information will bring us closer to the truth about the elephant, and about the universe (or should I say multiverse?) we live in.

"It seems to me that no one yet has been able to prove that their is a correct way to parent based on fact. It is always a matter of opinion."

I agree.

<snip>
"Please explain this "truth" that keeps coming up, and how you intend to find and prove it. Just curious. "

Hope this helps. I am curious about what others think about truth.

"PS: Is Larsy your real name? I like it!"

It is a diminuitive of one of my given names, some IRL friends still call me that.


----------



## larsy

so it seems that when it makes sense to people- who do not, after all, want to succumb to the elements- they do what needs to be done to stay alive and do what they want to do. And it can be done by consent.


----------



## Pallas

Quote:

The only people who don't seem to get my message, are the people who consider themselves the most rational around, and therefore the holders of the only approach... their perceived "truth". Or who are going that way.
*raises hand*

(a) I'm not sure if I'm one of the "you people" referred to. Btw, that's not a phrase I'm fond of, things tend to go downhill quickly after it gets bandied about.

I'm not tcs, nor do I think I've got a monopoly on truth, but I certainly don't "get your message", or rather, I don't get why it needs to be hostile. I've seen you post reams of intelligent, respectful discussion. Yet this topic continually degenerates into sniping and insults.

(b) Larsy posted a great response to the whole "truth" question. Don't know if it's tcs doctrine or just her personal feelings, but I like the explanation. And, it's polite.

(c) It's mighty arrogant to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with you falls into this distasteful category. Of course, it does save you the trouble of having to consider your own behavior as a factor.

Well, that was pretty snipey, too. Damn. You be the pot, I'll be the kettle!

edited to add: I agree wholeheartedly about the use of smilies. Their use doesn't generally bother me, in fact sometimes tone CAN be clarified with them. However, sometimes a person will post the nastiest, bitchiest thing possible and then put a smiley on the end of it, as if that magically negates all ill will. Like when a rl person says, "I always thought SAHMs were just too dumb to get a job! Just kidding!" Oh, okay. Kidding. Well then.


----------



## k'smami

I like "hir" because you don't have the "him/her" monster (as my English Professor refferred to it and it allows you to keep things on a hypothetical basis.

I mean, what's the big deal with it? It's like using SO instead of Dh or Dw.


----------



## k'smami

This is interesting. I didn't know Ms. was offensive either. I even insist upon it for myself or don't use any at all.

I answered your post at ApUtopia. I really only have time for posting when I'm at work and since it was the holidays I was at home.


----------



## Alexander

Generally, mata-threads can be unhealthy places to exist in advocacy groups. This is probably why they are not favoured (so I hear from this thread) on the TCS discussion board.

What we have here is a meta-thread, (a thread in which the thread(s) are discussed).

Probably this is a very good idea if it keeps the bickering about what we discuss off the boards.

So long as it does not become a place and an excuse to "slag others off". That is what PM is for










There is another thread A place for TCS where similar thoughts are being spread out and looked at.

I hope we are not even close to moving / splitting TCS from anywhere, but I would suggest more moderators, or dar I say it, an editor to produce a "digest"?

a


----------



## flminivanmama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Alexander_
*So long as it does not become a place and an excuse to "slag others off". That is what PM is for







*
LOL!!!


----------



## Netty

Beth asked:

****Is it not responsible parenting to help our children learn about their responsibility to others. We live on this planet in cooperation, not isolation. I see nothing wrong with pointing out to my child that there are other people trying to walk down the aisle in the grocery store, and that he should step aside to let them by.****

I think that the best way of learning about common courtesy and respect for others is by being respected oneself. TCS families seek common preferences, which means that they find solutions to problems that do not interfere with one another's autonomy. This helps *everyone* in the family learn creativity and consideration by seeking better ways of solving problems than resorting to coercion of oneself or another.

****By doing that I now have a son who says "excuse me" if he needs to get by, and apologizes if he is blocking someone's way. ****

Telling someone to do something is one way of providing information. I, personally, do not think that it is the best way because some people resent being told what to do and others simply follow along without any sense of *why* they are saying or doing certain things. TCS parents give children the information they think they will need to be happy. It makes sense that a person who is considerate of others--without compromising hir own autonomy--will have the best chance of happiness. I pass that information on to my children by suggestion and by action. But I wouldn't force my children to be considerate of others if they didn't want to. For me, that is a contradiction, similar to grabbing something from a child in order to teach them not to grab. If I felt that my children were being inconsiderate, I would certainly apologize if someone were hurt by it, and I would do all I could to rectify the situation. But I would do this on my own behalf and not on behalf of my children.

****Although my primary responsibility is to my family, I have a responsibility to respect others also. By letting my child walk down the center of the aisle I am not only disrespecting others, but I am missing a great opportunity to teach my child about the needs and wants of others, and how to respect them.****

Yes. But, again, there are many ways of respecting others (including your child!). Would you tell the stranger what to do? Would you pull a stranger out of the way of someone else? If your child is getting in someone's way, you might find a way of moving hir or--if old enough to understand--suggesting that s/he move aside to let others through, without resorting to coercive measures. And you could alway apologize to the person if you feel an apology is warranted. And you can also thank them for their patience if they happen to be patient. Again, I think that children *learn* from their environment and not from what they are *told* they should or shouldn't do.

*** If you feel that your entire responsibility lies with your child and only your child, and that you owe no respect or thought to others, I hope you don't live in my neighborhood.***

I don't feel responsible for other people's happiness. But I *do* want others to be happy. I like to live in a happy world and I do all I can to create one for myself and those I encounter wherever I happen to be. Children, ime, want to live in a happy world too, and they will often do what they can to create that happy world when it makes sense for them to do so. If I lived in your neighbourhood, it would also be *my* neighbourhood, and I would strive to create a happy one in which to live 

Netty


----------



## Holistic Momma

Okay, I'm confused! Is the kid still out in the middle of the aisle blocking everyone or not?! I would like to see some SPECIFICS here by the TCS folks. How are we to learn TCS if you do not provide SPECIFICS?









Just exactly what is a TCS parent supposed to do in this situation? I assume the parent would say, "Honey, would you like to please move out of this nice young lady's way?"

And then when the child says, "No mom, I would prefer not to". Hmmmm dilemma...

Is TCS saying that the child's right to walk down the middle of the aisle is more important than the paying consumer's right to access all aisles?

I would love to hear the specifics on how to solve this problem, not pretty words on theory or coercion.


----------



## Jish

I don't believe that I ever stated that I picked my child up to get him out of the way in the aisle. I simply stated that I point out to my developmentally self centered child (as are all children of his age) that he is blocking the way of others and suggest that he move. Amazingly, do you know what typically happens? He does not realize that he was in the way, and he gladly moves AND apologizes, because he realizes that the person he was blocking likely has someplace to be and he respects their needs. He was not walking down the middle of the aisle to be annoying, he simply didn't know he was in the middle blocking traffic. He is more than happy to walk down the side and make room for others when he realizes that he has been holding up traffic.

Do unto others what you would have done unto you. Love your neighbor as yourself. In this Christmas season do these statments sound familiar to anyone?


----------



## Netty

Holistic Mama wrote:

****Okay, I'm confused! Is the kid still out in the middle of the aisle blocking everyone or not?! I would like to see some SPECIFICS here by the TCS folks. How are we to learn TCS if you do not provide SPECIFICS? ****

Okay. Let's assume that the child is in the middle of the aisle, blocking everyone's way. I'd like to add, first, that not many aisles are so small as to not accomodate more than one person; but let's assume that this one *is* very narrow.

****Just exactly what is a TCS parent supposed to do in this situation? I assume the parent would say, "Honey, would you like to please move out of this nice young lady's way?" ****

I don't mean to evade the question, so please bear with me as I go through my response. Firstly, I would not assume that the person wanting by were a "nice young lady" because I would have no idea of this person's personality. If my child were old enough to understand, I would simply say, "Johnny, you're in this woman's way" in order to provide him with information (in my experience, this is enough and the child would move out of the way). Or I might say, "Johnny, could you move over a bit to let this woman by?".....and so on.

***And then when the child says, "No mom, I would prefer not to". Hmmmm dilemma... ****

Yes, that's a dilemma. But it really isn't *my* dilemmna; it's that other person's dilemma. Again, I would do all I could to help both of them, but I would not coerce my child in order to make way for a stranger. My child is not a piece of my baggage, which I can move from place to place at my (or someone else's will). If my child didn't want to move, I would either respect their wishes and let my child and the other person work it out, or--if my child were too young for this--I would try to find a good *reason*(by the child's lights) for him to move. "Oh, Johnny! Look at that stuffed elephant over there!" or "Johnny, shall we go get some ice-cream now?" or "Johnny, would you like a piggy back ride?" and so on.

****Is TCS saying that the child's right to walk down the middle of the aisle is more important than the paying consumer's right to access all aisles? ****

I would say that they are of equal importance to each person. And each person has an equal right to be in that aisle. But since my child is unable to exercise that right (because many people don't recognize it, or because many people expect me to disrespect my child's rights in lieu of theirs), I would advocate for my child and do what I could to keep my child happy. If, for example, my child were blocking the aisle because s/he wanted to look at something, I might suggest that s/he take the item somewhere else to examine it and I would carry that item to an appropriate place for hir (if s/he agreed, of course). I might ask the person who is being blocked if s/he would mind waiting for a moment and be sure to thank hir for hir thoughtfulness and consideration. And on our way out, I might also complain to the management that their aisles are too narrow for people to browse at a leisurely pace. As for "paying customers," my child is as much a paying customer as anyone else. I am my child's advocate, and I help my child look at items s/he might like to buy. Just because I am the one who passes the money to the cashier (and, in fact, children are capable of doing this too ), that does not mean that my child is not a paying customer.

****I would love to hear the specifics on how to solve this problem, not pretty words on theory or coercion.****

I hope I've answered specifically enough. If not, let me know and I'll think through my response more thoroughly.

Netty


----------



## Jish

Before we jump on those who are posting negatively about TCS on this "Larcy -- TCS" thread, please go back to the first post and note that it was not a proTCS post. This was obviously not started as a thread to discuss the wonderful world of TCS by Just Wondering, so please don't criticize those who question the theory of TCS here.

My mind has not been changed one bit and I will continue to practice what I think is right for my family which is a bit more AP than TCS, but there are those times that I am frustrated and my children are reacting more to my behavior, not misbehaving for the sake of misbehaving. Just skimming through reminds me that sometimes I need to just relax, and everything will fall into place.

I am pretty sure that we are all more alike that different in our parenting styles. Why do we feel it is necessary to focus more on the differences? Just curious.


----------



## Jish

I personally would simply like to say Thank You to JW. I have found myself very frustrated by the overabundance of TCS threads and answers. We are on a similar wavelength, but you have obviously taken more time to respond than have I. What frustrates me the most is that I looked through some of the older threads the other day and when people were searching for advice and guidance for real problems that occurred in their lives, few people if anyone responded. I hate to think that everyone would rather argue than try to help each other out.

I agree that a TCS forum would be in order.


----------



## Jish

Larsy,

Your above post directing me to that website was disgusting. I can now see that we have nothing in common. I will pray for your soul whether you want it or not.


----------



## peggy

Dear Netty,
With all due respect, isn't offering the child ice cream just a more sneaky form of coercion? You are older and more clever therefore you can still get him to do what you want, you're just doing it with out a "fuss".

peggy


----------



## Holistic Momma

Netty, thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. First of all, I would like to say that you are so lucky!







So lucky to live in a town that does not have stores with aisles that are only two basket-widths apart. So this means that yes, all it takes is one little child walking on the SIDE of the basket to prevent a basket-pushing consumer's access. Aisle width is a huge pet peeve of mine.

That was a good suggestion you offered about trying to engage the child in something that would necessitate him moving. I'm not sure of its practicality, but it is certainly worth a try. At least as long as we're not talking about blocking the aisle for several minutes whilst we find something that lil Johnny would prefer to do rather than stand in the aisle.

But here's another scenario. What if the child is feeling contrary and feels like exercising his power and continues to refuse to be dissuaded from his resolute stance in the middle of the aisle? I think we are all well aware that sometimes children can be quite willful. So we must be prepared for how to respond when a child is refusing simply for the sake of refusing and for the fun of irritating his parents.









Here is something you said that I'm a little confused by:

QUOTE
If my child didn't want to move, I would either respect their wishes and let my child and the other person work it out
END QUOTE

So are you saying that you would then allow and actually want the other adult to dialogue with your child about why they don't want to move? As you say, "work it out themselves". If I were the adult whose path were being deliberately blocked, I would be very uncomfortable with this. I would not know what you might want me to say. Or even whether it was okay to speak directly to your child. I hope that should this situation arise, you advise the other adult that he is welcome to speak to your child about this issue.

Here is one more thing that baffles me:

QUOTE
But it really isn't *my* dilemmna; it's that other person's dilemma.
END QUOTE

I think this is where we must part ways. Agree to disagree. Society has rules that all adults must conform to. I believe it is a parent's responsibility to teach their child these rules. One of these "rules" is that aisles are for two-way traffic; therefore, we should not walk down the middle. Raise your hands people if you've ever come across ADULTS who have yet to learn that rule.







I sure have and I don't hesitate to politely ask them to move over so I can pass. But when it is a child, I like to wait for the parent to discover the situation and they ask their child to move.

I think the TCS concept is lovely and something that probably most parents innately know to do and practice to various degrees. However, as is usual with human nature, we take a good thing to the extreme. I believe that is what has happened here.


----------



## Netty

****I cannot even believe some of these nonsensical arguments.****

Again, I'm happy to clarify anything that has not made sense to you (or anyone else reading this forum).

<snip>

****Leaving a child in a diaper filled with poop is incredibly irresponsible. *****

It is one possible solution to the problem, among many others offered. If this solution is not acceptable to either the child or the parent, then the parent can continue searching for better solutions. Of course, there is also the option of not putting diapers on babies at all if a baby continually objects to having it changed.

***What if the only way to get the child to agree to changing the diaper was to let "hir" (do you always write "hir" or is it only on these boards?) ****

I always write "hir" as a way of offering a gender-neutral term of reference. It is a recognized gender-neutral pronoun.

****paint the walls with poop? What if that was the *only* way to have the child's agreement? What would a follower of TCS do then?****

Have a poop painting party?? <grin>....Actually, I would find a better solution. And if I were really adamant about not having poop on the walls, I would work *that much harder* at finding a better solution. But I would do everything in my power to avoid coercion. Poopy walls can be cleaned up. My child's happiness and self-respect are more important than my walls.

Netty


----------



## k'smami

Ice cream is only coercive if the child is only given access to it when the parent wants the child to do something. If the child is given icecream on various occasions that have nothing to do with getting the child to do something, then the parents and child can feel safe knowing that there was no bribery/coercion involved.

Of course this is my opinion. If a parent thinks that offering the icecream would be coercive then by all means don't offer it and try to find a common preference.


----------



## Lucy

I personally am sick of tcs.

I keep hoping the curiousity will die down, and there will be a more even balance of threads.

I do feel that tcs people feel their way is the only right way, and the rest of us are wrong if we do not strive toward it, and are probably harming our children with our parenting.

One ? This forum is gentle discipline, right? So why is tcs even discussed here, since my understanding is that they don't agree with the whole concept of discipline.


----------



## Lucy

Haha! This happenned to us today at Sams club. We were in the toy aisle and dd sat down in the middle of the aisle and started palying with a toy guitar that was on display. Immediately a lady with a huge cart (warehouse sized) came up behind her, and of course she couldn't get by. She said "excuse me please" to dd. DD didn't respond, so I told dd she was in the lady's way. No response from dd. I said , "you are blocking this lady's way, can you move to the side?" No response, and btw I was down on dd's level. At this point, I picked up dd, who immidiately threw a tantrum bc she was being forced to move. Well guess what, welcome to the human race! St we have to accomodate others! DD would not like it if someone was blocking her way, so she needs to show others the same consideration. To say that it would be the lady's responsibility to work it out with my 4 yr old is ridiculous! She is my responsibility! I am trying to raise her to be considerate of others needs, not to let herself be ruled by her id! Wouldnt life at the market be fun if we all adopted this self-servicing philosophy! NOt!

DD's Preference was clearly to remain seated in the aisle blocking all unsuspecting shoppers lol!


----------



## Daisy

So setting it up to have poopy floors and walls is a viable option?







: What if the other members of the household have a problem with that? What about the germs?! Obviously, accidents happen. But intentionally setting it up as an option... I just don't get it. Don't bother answering, I am bowing out of this one.


----------



## peacemama

Forgive me if I repeat anything, as I didn't have the time to read all the replies!

I don't think Daisy meant to say that she doesn't want people to express their opinions, or that people should not discuss TCS here. It seems that some posters really jumped on her for that! I think she may have just meant to say (and forgive me for explaining you, daisy, but your post hit home with me, too!) that it is starting to seem like every thread in this forum turns into a TCS debate. What seems to happen, at least from my perspective, is that someone innocently asks for advice, and then a member who strongly believes in TCS gives not only advice from a TCS framework (which would be fine, IMO; I have no desire to silence any particular viewpoint), but an entire lesson on TCS theory in general. It is getting kind of tiresome, I must admit, even though I've found myself tangled up in these debates myself on occasion. It seems that almost any discipline question is being used as a segue to a lecture on TCS. Like I said, advice from the TCS perspective - great, we all want different viewpoints, but does every bit of advice have to come with a sermon? If a mom asked for alternatives to spanking, I would give her plenty, but I would hold back on the lecture about why spanking is wrong, because she does not need to feel like I'm preaching to her. I figure if someone wants to know my whole philosophy, they'll ask. Just my two cents!


----------



## Daisy

Larsy, what is your take on that article you posted the link to? It was pretty outrageous.


----------



## Daisy

Thank you, Peacemama... you are right about what I meant.


----------



## larsy

I call the truth as I see it, day by day.. Same with right and wrong. IMO, IME, my current theory...

How do you (general you, please anyone feel free to answer) ascertain the truth? Is truth absolute? Knowable? Changeable? Relative? Or doesn't it matter? Or what?

Thanks for thoughts.


----------



## Netty

Just Wondering,

I do not know the truth. You do not know the truth. Nobody on these discussion boards knows the truth. We only arrive at some concept of "truth" through the process of critical rationalism (conjecture and refutation of theories). And we know that the ideas of truth we arrive at are always open to further conjecture and refutation. Again, this is because we do not know absolute truth. What we do know, however, is what we want (or, at least we do when we are very young and before we are told what we *should* want and forced to do things we *don't* want). As human beings, we should all have the right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity. When I want something, I do what I can to get it without harming anyone else. I think that is a good thing. I respect that other people have their own ideas of what is true or not true, and their own needs and desires; therefore, I do all I can to avoid letting my needs interfere with theirs or to make them do anything they do not want to do. When I speak of "people," I also include children. Unfortunately, few people do include children as having equal rights with adults. And I *especially* include the children I am responsible for bringing into existence. *Because* I do not know "the truth," I realize that I do not have any right to enforce my idea of the truth on anyone else. That includes children. And it even includes my own children. My children are my responsibility, but they are not my possession and they are not people whose needs and desires are less important than mine simply because they have less experience, knowledge, and power than I do. So, since I realize I am a fallible human being, I consider my children's theories *as equally valid as my own.* I realize that I may actually learn something from their theories. I may try to convince them of my theory (if I think it is better or more helpful for them), but I do not force my ideas on them or force them to enact ideas that do not make sense to them (in whatever way they are able to make sense of the world).

Coercive parents, however, *do* think--under certain circumstances (which differ according to each individual parent, which is quite telling in itself)-- that their ideas have more validity than their children's and that their needs and desires supersede their children's needs and desires. This is where TCS and coercive parenting methods differ. Where a coercive parent would *justify* coercion, a TCS parent would seek a common preference. When a coercive parent coerces hir child, s/he simply assumes that s/he had no other choice and that it was for the child's own good. When a TCS parent coerces hir child, s/he apologizes and admits hir failure at finding/creating a better solution. S/he doesn't beat hirself up about it, but s/he strives to ensure that s/he will not have to coerce hir child the next time a similar situation comes up. She learns from hir experience and strives to do better. Where a coercive parent *rationalizes* coercion, a TCS parent uses rationality to seek better solutions.

I have never--nor would I ever--claim to be infallible. But I also don't feel the need to say that I could be wrong everytime I offer my theories or possible solutions to problems. I assume that the reader of my post realizes my fallibility as well as hir own. And, together, we might strive to improve our theories. Or we might decide to protect our theory from criticism by not posting or not responsing to a post. That is perfectly valid and everyone's right as a contributer to any discussion.

Netty


----------



## Pallas

I *think* (don't know for a fact) that it's a parody of any number of anti-drug essays. Not being a big fan of organized religion, and believing that the PTB have a helluva sense of humor, I found it somewhat amusing. However, I can imagine a devoutly religious person being horribly offended!

The difficult thing about parodies is that, if well done, they run the risk of being taken seriously. If done poorly, well, what's the point?

And I would hope that larsy wouldn't mind being prayed for. It's not like you're throwing hardcover bibles at her head, you know. Praying is one of those wondrous activities that, at its absolute worst, does nothing. At its best, it brings peace to the pray-er and the prayed-for. How can anyone complain about that?

Namaste,

Pallas


----------



## k'smami

I think the reason this happens in many cases is because someone gives TCS advice and then a poster jumps in and says, "Well I don't think my child should be the boss..." or some other general mis-interpretation of what TCS is and then a TCS poster feels compelled to argue against the statement. I mean would it be right to let incorrect general statements stand? How will those who actually want to understand TCS know that those statements are not what TCS stands for, without someone refuting them? So perhaps not only should TCS people consider posting information without turning it into a theory debate but those who don't follow TCS should consider refraining from making general statements about TCS that don't in effect represent the theory or be open to recieving refutations on those statements.


----------



## Daisy

Quote:

_Originally posted by k'smami_
*...those who don't follow TCS should consider refraining from making general statements about TCS that don't in effect represent the theory or be open to recieving refutations on those statements.*
Good point.


----------



## Daisy

Quote:

_Originally posted by Netty_
*Coercive parents, however, *do* think--under certain circumstances (which differ according to each individual parent, which is quite telling in itself)-- that their ideas have more validity than their children's and that their needs and desires supersede their children's needs and desires. This is where TCS and coercive parenting methods differ. Where a coercive parent would *justify* coercion, a TCS parent would seek a common preference. When a coercive parent coerces hir child, s/he simply assumes that s/he had no other choice and that it was for the child's own good. When a TCS parent coerces hir child, s/he apologizes and admits hir failure at finding/creating a better solution. S/he doesn't beat hirself up about it, but s/he strives to ensure that s/he will not have to coerce hir child the next time a similar situation comes up. She learns from hir experience and strives to do better. Where a coercive parent *rationalizes* coercion, a TCS parent uses rationality to seek better solutions.*

Netty,
Do you understand why the tone of your post might be offensive? Implying that any parent who is not a TCS parent is "a coercive parent," implying that those "coercive" parents have to "justify" and "rationalize" instead of coming up with better solutions--- do you see how judgmental that sounds? This is why I likened these discussions to religious debate, because it just sounds so self-righteous to me.


----------



## Netty

"Just Wondering" wrote (in a thread entitled "Ways to Answer a question -- NOT!"):

****I suggest that you subscribe to their list[the TCS list]. It is interesting, and will give you a far better idea of the practicalities of TCS, and what people think. And you will find that despite their ideas, many parents of TCS have problems distressingly familiar to AP parents. And sometimes, TCS doesn't work for them either.****

Of course TCS parents have problems just like other parents. We simply have a different way of *approaching* problems or *defining* problems than non-TCS parents. TCS is an educational theory, it is not a parenting method that "works" or "doesn't work." It's quite easy to find solutions that "work" to get the child to do what the parent wants. Just force them to. The child won't get in the bath? Well, simply putting them in and scrubbing them clean will "work," but it won't "work" in the sense of avoiding coercion, will it? If having a solution "work" were all that mattered, there would be little need for debate. But TCS parents object to all forms of coercion and strive to avoid it whenever possible. So TCS parents might look at the problem differently to begin with. Why does my child not want a bath? Is a bath really that important right now? What theories am I acting on that may be entrenched or illogical? and so on....That is the only difference, it seems to me, between TCS and non-TCS parents. If we are to say that TCS "works," it does so in the sense that all involved parties (parents *and* children) are happy with the solutions to problems. I just don't understand why anyone would be against that. Can you clarify why you are?

Netty


----------



## Jish

Truth has never been something that was a goal in my life (please don't read this that lying is okay, we are all talking about a greater 'truth' here.) The important things in my life are things such as raising my children to be loving, caring, respectful (the list is not all inclusive







)people. I strive to be a good wife and partner to my husband. I want to make a positive difference in the lives of those I meet. I want to make the world a better place than it was when I arrived.

My upbringing wasn't so bad, even though my parents had issues of their own that often affected my brother and I. I personally feel that our parents and our grandparents often get a bum rap when it comes to our opinion of their child rearing. Most of us turned our to be loving, caring people, otherwise their wouldn't be so much passion on these boards.

Larsy, please feel free to continue your search for the truth. I however am going to enjoy each day as it comes and do my best to raise my children to be wonderful adults. My truth comes from a higher power.


----------



## Jish

Just a note,

As for the cross issue. Catholics wear a crucifix, I should know, I'm wearing mine now.

Thanks again JW for a great post.

I can't imagine living without the reward of an afterlife in heaven, and without God to guide me in everything including parenting.


----------



## larsy

Scrutiny of a poster's style or the way they use language or their attributes is what meta-discussion is. It scrutinizes everything except the actual issue under discussion.

Suppose Netty's passage read like this:

"Some parents, however, *do* think--under certain circumstances-- that their ideas have more validity than their children's and that their needs and desires supersede their children's needs and desires. This is where some parenting methods differ. Where some parents would *justify* coercion, other parents would seek a common preference. When the first type of parent coerces hir child, s/he assumes that s/he had no other choice and that it was for the child's own good. When the second type parent coerces hir child, s/he apologizes and admits hir failure at finding/creating a better solution. S/he doesn't beat hirself up about it, but s/he strives to ensure that s/he will not have to coerce hir child the next time a similar situation comes up. She learns from hir experience and strives to do better. Where the first type of parent *rationalizes* coercion, the second type parent uses rationality to seek better solutions. "

Is there any truth at all in this passage?


----------



## Netty

***Do you understand why the tone of your post might be offensive? Implying that any parent who is not a TCS parent is "a coercive parent," ****

I'm sorry if my tone is offensive. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone. If someone is a non-coercive parent (excepting neglectful, of course), then s/he *is* a TCS parent, in my opinion, even if s/he has never heard of TCS (just as someone who paints like Picasso would be considered a cubist even if s/he had never heard of that term). I have no argument with parents who strive to avoid coercion. I am arguing with those who claim that sometimes they *have* to coerce their children and that it is *good* for the children to be coerced sometimes (such as being forced into a carseat, having a diaper changed against hir will, or physically moved against hir will, etc.).

****implying that those "coercive" parents have to "justify" and "rationalize" instead of coming up with better solutions--- do you see how judgmental that sounds? ****

Again, I'm sorry if this seems offensive. Of course, I *am* judging those who use coercion. I think it's wrong and I am explaining my reasons for thinking so. On these discussion boards, some parents have been advocating and justifying coercion. I think coercion can be avoided and I'd like to help those who would like to avoid coercing their children. And I'm willing to answer questions and challenges from people who either object to TCS theory or seek further clarification.

****This is why I likened these discussions to religious debate, because it just sounds so self-righteous to me.****

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think I was right. I'm defending a theory that I strongly believe to be the best parenting theory I've encountered. I'm trying not to meta-discuss or skirt the issues or personally attack anyone here. I think that some people read that as being "self-righteous" or "arrogant" and I wish that weren't so. I have admitted, and will always admit, to being fallible. And I hold my theories open to criticism and strive to respond to any questions being asked of me or about the theory I advocate. I believe that children have rights equal to those of all human beings (personal autonomy). I realize that many others say that they believe this too. But then they also say that it is okay to coerce children under certain circumstances. This seems to be a contradiction to me. But TCS theory is nothing like a religion. We don't ask you to simply "have faith" that what we say is true. We welcome criticism and strive to learn from it. I'm not saying that others here do not do the same and I don't think I've accused anyone of that. I'm just answering questions to the best of my ability. I'm sincerely sorry if that seems offensive.

Netty


----------



## Pallas

Quote:

when you catagorise people as either TCS or non-TCS. and infer by that that non-TCS parents are therefore some illogical inferior ignorant species.
What's the difference between this and referring to people as AP, CC, mainstream, non-AP, DP (Detachment Parenting, an unfortunate phrase that was being used for a mercifully short while)?

Just because you infer it doesn't mean someone else implied it.


----------



## Jish

I'm not JW, but may I give my opinion? I simply don't feel that my 'entrenched' ideas are all necessarily bad, or that coersion is always a horrible thing. I also don't feel that it is necessary for us all to be happy all of the time. There are many valuable lessons to be learned through unhappiness and suffering. It is simply not possible to be happy all of the time, and if you (not you personally) are, you are wired wrong. We will all encounter times of sadness, anger, frustration, etc. I want my children to live in the real world that sometimes includes happiness, negotiation, and cooperation. I also want them to know that there are times when life is not fair, that sometimes even their friends will hurt their feelings and make them sad, that they need to be respectful to those around them, especially adults.

I want them to know that I always love them, but part of that love means that there will be times that they won't like me for the decisions that I make concerning them and the family as a whole. I want them to put the wants, needs and feelings of others above their own. My children are a wonderful gift given by God and it is my job to raise them in my faith. My sons were both baptized in their first weeks of life and I take the responsibility of raising my children in the Catholic faith very seriously. I am responsible not only for their bodies, but for their souls. I believe in things like the Ten Commandments, and the Golden Rule. I have a hard time combining the theory of TCS with my Catholic faith.

I would love to go back to the days when children addressed adults as Mr. and Mrs., to the days when children respected their parents simply because they were their parents. IMO there is such a lack of respect in our (my) country today, not just between children and adults, but between adults also. I see encouraging children to negotiate every tiny issue as a way to perpetuate this lack of respect to the next generation, not as a way to correct it. I know you won't agree with this and that is fine. Just wait, the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again some day soon.

I do take my children seriously. Their wants and needs are my number one priority, just like yours are for you. Please don't forget that, and please don't belittle, criticize, or roll your eyes when I give my opinions. They are, after all, just as important as yours (again, not personal,) not more and not less.


----------



## Netty

I'm sorry. I was not referring to any particular thread when I posted the bath scenario as an example of coercion that "works". I was simply offering it as an example. I don't think I've read the post you refer to.

****We are not against non-coercion in most things. ****

"Most things"? My point is that TCS parents are against coercion in *all* things. Non-tcs parents are not. Isn't that a fair statement? Why is it that you justify coercion on one hand but claim to be against coercion on the other? Of course we all make mistakes. I'm not claiming--nor ever have--that TCS parents never coerce their children or themselves. I am not arguing against parents who say something like, "I can't seem to find a way to avoid coercing my child in X situation. Any suggestions?" I'm arguing against parents who advocate coercion as a good or inevitable solution to problems.

****The scenarios you put up, are, in general, ludicrous to ap and cc parents. ****

I'd need more specific examples to comment on this.

Netty


----------



## larsy

have you seen Gentle Spirit Magazine? http://www.gentlespirit.com/index2x.htm


----------



## Daisy

How is this thread related to Gentle Discipline? This is why I said maybe there was a more appropriate place for these discussions of philosophy and general lifestyle. *I did not say these discussions shouldn't take place, just that there may be a more appropriate place to do so.*


----------



## Daisy

Also true.


----------



## Daisy

I went to that website but most of it was inaccessible to me because I don't have a subscription to the magazine. What specifically did you want to share from that website?


----------



## Netty

I'm not sure, but this URL might get you to the NCP-parenting folder at the GentleSpirit magazine's forum:

http://www.gentlespirit.com/cgi-bin/...orum=Protected

If not, go to the main page, click on "forum" and then scroll down to the folder entitled "NCP Parenting." As a Christian, you might find the discussion there--and in other folders--interesting and supportive of the Christian veiwpoint with respect to TCS/NCP parenting.

Netty


----------



## Daisy

I'm Pagan, so I guess you meant that link to be for someone specific?


----------



## k'smami

First of all, I apologize if what I'm about to discuss has already been said in previous posts but since I have a lot of catching up to do, I'll be just posting as I read the responses from when I last left the debate. (It's been a busy week for me and since I only really have the time to be on the computer at work, the holidays put a damper on my posting.)

Quote:



_Originally posted by Just Wondering _
*
Dear Larsy,

You make a statement

If babies were quite rational from birth, then they would be able to work out that when mother disappears from sight temporarily, she hasn't abandonned them for ever. But babies are not rational from birth, for the simple reason that as you say, they have not had the experience to analyse the daily workings around them and what is the normal order of things. *


I looked up rational in the dictionary (American Heritage- third edition) and found this:

1. Having or excercising the ability to reason
2. Of sound mind; sane
3. Consistent with or based on reason.

Which led me to reason:

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction
2. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurence.
3. The capacity for logical, rational and analytic thought
4. A normal mental state; sanity

Given these definitions I would argue that babies are indeed rational. Because I think that 1. They have the ability to reason once given information (with young infants information=experience imo- meaning that a baby once having had the experience that mother always comes back will be able to work out that the mother has not abandoned them forever.) 2. I believe they are consistent with or based on reason. (IMO babies cry or whatever for a reason i.e. they are cold, wet, tired overstimulated etc..., their distress is rational.)

Quote:



*Reading your comments on coerciveneess is not flattering to the average person, is it? From your perspective, all adults seem to appear to be coercive, and to have caused children a lot of problems.*


Is this what is so offensive? Is this what has been eluding me? (And I'm not being facetious, I'm totally serious.) If this is the case I would have to ask at what point are people required to apologize for their beleifs? For example, there are people who find the concept of Hell offensive but don't take offense when someone answers a religious question based on their belief (and their assertion of it as fact) that there is a Hell. Why does someone have to apologize for believing that coercion damages rational thinking, and that many people are doing this?

re: 15 month old and "Daddy wants you"

Quote:



*For a very bright child, this did not indicate rational thinking. *


Actually, I think it does. A child in this situation knows that s/he has to wait before s/he could do something (as per the scenario you illustrated) and didn't want to. (This is understandable because s/he may have the patience of a toddler.) Also, the first time s/he told the mother about Daddy needing her, the mother left. He was thinking rationally, if it worked the first time, why not the second? S/he soon discovered that it doesn't always work so s/he will probably not use that tactic again or may require a few more tries in order to understand.

Quote:



*Now I do not mean these next two paragraphs as an insult towards you, but as discussion of a basic premis from TCS, which is that we are (all) rational. I'm not sure why it would take TCS to wake up any parent to the fact that those three things are arbitrary. AP parents and even many non AP parents figured those out eons ago. *


You know, a lot of the parents I see around here haven't. In any case those are three things (which I believe are simply examples) of many arbitrary rules that parents have for thier children.

Quote:



*If the basic premis is that a child is rational, and adults are more so, then I wonder why a "rational" adult could not work out that screaming, yelling and spanking is irrational without reading about TCS?*


They probably could (I'm one of them







) but the bottom line is they might come up with is using a different method of coercion to get the child to do what they want. This could be due to any number of things- their own entrenched theories of parents having the ultimate right to control, society's assertion that parents who try to find common preferences are negligent or lax, etc...

Quote:



*As I understand it, a philosophy is something that can be defined, which by TCS's own definition, there can be no definition of TCS, and neither can we define whether it is correct or not.*


I looked up philosphy and this is what I found:
1a. A speculative inquiry concerning the source and nature of human knowledge.
1b. A system of ideas based on such thinking
2. The sciences and liberal arts, except medicine, law and theology
3. The system of motivating values, concepts or priciples of an inidvidual, group or culture.
4. A basic theory concerning a particular subject

In my opinion TCS fits this definition based on 1a,1b and 4.

Quote:



*But in saying that, there are children for whom logic is a redundant concept. For them then, knowing that running on the road could kill him, and if he still wishes to do that, the result would be experiencing consequences with a fatal end, and that is not TCS. I had one of those... so I simply child-proofed the back yard. Absolute coercion, and I don't care much...it kept him alive, until he got to an age when the concept made sense.*


My statement that if the argument is rational, it should stand on its own without coercision was in reference to morality or behavoir where most adults have a choice and where most children are denied the right of choosing. That is how I took your original question.

In my opinion, the issue is not that the child wants to run into the road and to let him or not. The issue is what the child wants to learn from running out there. Maybe the parent can show the child what happens to something when it is run over by a car and be convinced. However, when it comes to life-threatening instances parents must weigh the issue of what are suitable precautions. Now if a child wanted to run out into a busy street for no discernable rational reason and no death wish... then not having a gate could be construed as coercive IMO since the parent would be leaving the child to the consequences of death. Now I'm assuming that this toddle didn't have a death wish because IMO if this were the case, there would be many other instances of the child _choosing_ to risk his or her (just for you JW







) life after being given all of the appropriate information and after the parent tried to find alternatives for the knowledge the child is trying to gain.

Quote:



*Regarding my comments about the swearing, you said you would not take offence, so here goes. Here (in this country) most of the people I know who swear prolifically in front of their children, also drink to excess, smack their children, many also smoke - many also have extra-marital relationship, use recreational drugs etc etc. And what's more, they hate it when their children swear, which has me totally baffled. So I was speaking from my experience base, which is not what I want from my children.*


So now you know about gentle parents who swear and don't fit this description, is that assumption still fair in regards to using it against TCS?

Quote:



*we hope that they will take the best of what they see from us, and reject whatever they don't like. But they have to have an experiential base upon which to decide what suits them.*



All right, tell me when this starts getting annoying but this sounds like TCS too.









Quote:



*As to the people on the TCS website. My comment was based on the fact that if these people who wrote the website felt that it was alright for small children to swear, then I had serious doubts about the "rightness" of all their other definitions upon which their discussion of what they consider TCS is based on. But I guess that is covered by the fact that they admit that TCS cannot be defined, and neither can its "rightness"*


Hmmm... I'l have to re-read the article on swearing but what I gathered is not that it is "alright for children to swear" (which in my case, I really have no issue with) but that parents should not use coercion to make children stop.

Quote:



*How do you find a common preference about a car-seat? There was only one type when my kids were little, and that was it! There is no compromise between no clothes and clothes. It is either one or the other. Merc Benz - no issue. Designer jeans, no issue. So in my family they were dealt with this way. "you don't want to be in the car-seat? Fine. You stay home with a babysitter (usually my husband, or vice-versa, me) , and I/DH go alone." "You don't want to wear clothes? Fine. You stay home." "You want a Merc? Fine - win a lottery. Here is the money we have saved over 6 years for your first car (did this with both, and they knew it) - if you want beyond this, the answer is in your court. Same with designer jeans. Here is your clothes budget for the year. You want designer jeans? Fine. But if you ALSO want that super good pair of cross trainers you need for cricket you might not be able to afford it.  If you ruin your feet, you ruin your career. Your choice."*


I think the car-seat issue has been discussed to everyone's satisfaction, but if the child does not want in, then perhaps s/he prefers to be left with someone else, nothing wrong with that imo. I'm not going to dissect this point by point because you have the idea. If the children agree with this then a common preference is found. If they disagree and the parent actively encourages the child to try to think of other ideas in the hopes of finding a common preference, then it sounds like TCS to me.

Quote:



*My maxim for myself was, and always has been, as you know "If it doesn't feel right, don't do it." and for the children "children learn best by making decisions, and experiencing the consequences of those decisions" Which does not seem to me to be TCS, in either case.*


Well it depends. If that is your maxim for your own actions then I don't think it matters whether it's TCS or not but I guess the question is: What happens if it feels right to your children but not to you? That, in my opinion would determine whether it is TCS or not. And it does not mean that I'm advocating that the child run around the neighborhood naked. I mean that instead of slapping clothes on the kid in the interest of saving time, the parent could try to find a common preference first.

Quote:



*The "consequences" issue, since I believe consequences are the most valuable teacher...and the possibility that when these children get into the real world which is "he who pays the spondoolicks, calls the tune" they may not be able to adapt to a situation in which they may have minimal input into HOW or WHY they do something. *


I think that children learn from consequencesif the consequences are not parentally imposed to teach the child a "lesson". For instance, to bring up the toy out the window scenario, a child has thrown a beloved toy out the window and it breaks. The child has learned from this mistake what happens when you throw toys out the window and is upset at the loss and asks that the parents replace the toy. A parent my decide that the broken toy is a natural consequence of throwing the toy out the window and as such not replacing the toy is a natural consequence as well, even though the parent can easliy do so. I think that this is where TCS is implying that children don't need "natural consequences" to learn. At least, this is the way that I've understood TCS.

Quote:



*As a by-line, doesn't it strike you as odd, that most of what you learned at school was totally irrelevant? And most of what you needed, beyond the ability to read, write, do maths, compute and analyse was gotten everywhere else BUT school? Different topic... sorry...*


I'm actually quite upset at all of the hours I was forced to waste learning stuff I don't need to know and it seems like the poorer you are, the less important the stuff they teach is. But I too digress...

Quote:



*And finally, your moniker:

Commonly called "consequences" is it not? But is it TCS?*


In my opinion, yes.


----------



## Holistic Momma

Oh Daisy, you are such a character! Heeheehee


----------



## k'smami

I see what you're saying about the word "mis-interpretation". How about a generalized statement dismissing the theory using wording that was not explicity said by anyone? Such as "the child is the boss of the house". KWIM? What word could be used to mean that?


----------



## hugosmoma

Just want to add my voice to the roll call...
Maybe the momas posting with tcs information/theory could keep it to the tcs threads and refrain from bringing it to threads where it is unasked for. I mean, it is clear that many momas wish not to participate in tcs dicussions nor have threads began on non-tcs subjects end with a tcs debate. So why the continuing problem? I agree with the self-modification suggestion. How 'bout keeping the peace by keeping tcs theory to spefically designated threads? Wouldn't this work exceptionally well for those who *are* interesting in learning more about tcs? This way those threads can be more efficient by focusing on the specifics of tcs rather than the offensive/defensive serve which is being played out now.

I'm wondering what other lurking momas are thinking..


----------



## Netty

Sorry, I'm not really sure for whom the original URL was posted. I was just clarifying *why* it may have been posted and the forum which discusses TCS for anyone who is interested in checking it out. I support all forms of religion and/or non-religion (as long as they're non-coercive ;-))

Netty


----------



## k'smami

Confining TCS posting to a separate "corner" i.e. thread or forum is a way of censoring opinions IMO. There may be someone not reading a TCS thread/forum who may actually be glad that a TCS response was posted on a thread where a parent didn't specifically ask for TCS advice.


----------



## jtsmom

I just realized what it is that is rubbing me the wrong way about this tcs stuff. Forgive me if I am lagging behind, I am very tired.

The ones who are tcsers (or whatever) seem to be coming from a very intellectual place, as opposed to most of the posts that mamas are writing about real life experiences, coming from the heart. I haven't seen ( and I haven't looked to hard) any posts from tcsers about their own families. It is like they are only expousing some textbook stuff. Am I missing it? No wonder it feels like they are playing ask the experts. Why is it that I don't see anything but tcs stuff from these people?

jtsmom


----------



## Britishmum

Netty, you say that "Coercive parents, however, *do* think--under certain circumstances (which differ according to each individual parent, which is quite telling in itself)-- that their ideas have more validity than their children's and that their needs and desires supersede their children's needs and desires."

Many of the people that you label 'coercive parents' make decisions based on their belief that they have greater knowledge and experience than a young child. That does not mean that they believe that their needs and desires supersede their children's needs and desires. It means that they do not necessarily subscribe to the premis that all coercion is psychologically harmful.

To make this sort of statement and label non-tcs parents in one sweeping statement as 'coercive parents', is failing to understand that people have sensible and legitimate concerns about tcs, and that people are here because they are interested in gentle discipline.


----------



## Mommy2Max

good point!


----------



## Britishmum

It seems that by the time I posted my message above, others had said the same thing. If only dd would take less time to go to sleep I would get my posts up quicker ;-)

Netty, you have clarified a little how you feel about the non-tcs people, and what your 'argument' is with them.

You said "I have no argument with parents who strive to avoid coercion. I am arguing with those who claim that sometimes they *have* to coerce their children and that it is *good* for the children to be coerced sometimes (such as being forced into a carseat, having a diaper changed against hir will, or physically moved against hir will, etc.)."

It was these issues that persuaded me to re-register on these boards. Statements such as yours above about forcing children into car seats seem to me to be frankly irresponsible.

I know that there is little point in trying to discuss individual hypothetical situations with tcs-ers. The discussions go around in circles and no adequate answer is given, possibly because the tcs site itself completely fails to address these issues.

I have no 'argument' with anyone, least of all about whether or not their child wears nappies. But I do think that we should all take care about what we say about issues where children's health and safety come into question. These seem to be the issues where many 'non-tcs-ers' feel that coercion is sometimes necessary.

There are many new or uncertain mums who visit these boards for advice and ideas. They might not read through a lengthy discussion to see statements clarified or retracted. We all need to take responsibility that any advice we give does not make them feel that they should take risks with their babies in order to measure up to any parenting ideology.


----------



## Dr.Worm

This is for Larsy and anyone else who believes in TCS...what would you do in the following situations since you don't believe in coercion?
1)You take your four-year-old to the Grand Canyon and they start to run over to the edge...do you try to stop him?
2)Your 10-month-old wants to stick her finger in a light socket? Do you let her?
3) Your three-year-old watches Daddy jump off a diving board into 12 ft. deep water and wants to do it too..do you let her?

I gotta understand this whole non-coercive thing so please let me know what you would do in those situations. How far does this letting the child decide stuff go for you?


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by Just Wondering_
*Before the board went down, some people used to post no TCS please at the top of the thread. Is that not right? I see nothing wrong with that. Though I can immagine TCS people feeling slighted.
*
I have no issue with that. I just don't like the idea of making it a blanket rule so that every time TCS advice appears someone gets reprimanded for not confining their posts to their forum.

re: Little Emperor

That's a good one but I was asking for a replacement for "mis-representation" that was semantically correct to the point I was trying to say.


----------



## k'smami

I can't speak for others here but I most certainly "speak from the heart" and do share real life experiences and sometimes I share the life experiences of others who I've read about. Of course I do this by hypotheticalizing. Why? Because I want to respect my son's privacy when it comes to disciplinary manners and I don't want him to be potentially embarrased later and in regard to other's experiences that I hypotheticalize, I am respecting those people's right to privacy. I understand that not everyone feels the need to do this but after giving it much thought, I do. I guess I'm hoping that the point I'm trying to make when I post is the same one I would have made had I given personal details. I explain this so that you know where I'm coming from. Another plus for being hypothetical is that it detaches you from the situation so that when people criticize you, you are less likely to get offened. A real plus for me







, even though it doesn't always work.

I don't really post about other topics because I just don't have the time now that there are so many TCS threads LOL! But a lot of the old timers will tell you that I was avery active member before the boards went down.


----------



## Leonor

Quote:

_Originally posted by Lucy_
Haha! This happenned to us today at Sams club. We were in the toy aisle and dd sat down in the middle of the aisle and started palying with a toy guitar that was on display. Immediately a lady with a huge cart (warehouse sized) came up behind her, and of course she couldn't get by. She said "excuse me please" to dd. DD didn't respond, so I told dd she was in the lady's way. No response from dd. I said , "you are blocking this lady's way, can you move to the side?" No response, and btw I was down on dd's level. At this point, I picked up dd, who immidiately threw a tantrum bc she was being forced to move.
Wouldn't you throw a tantrum if someone moved you out of the way like that? Do you think it's ok to treat adults like that? Why do you think it's ok to treat children like that?

The child didn't move because she was very interested in that toy. Also the lady wasn't complaining wasn't she? It could have been tried to ask the child if she wouldn't mind to take toy somewhere else where she could explore it without bothering anyone.

Many times I cross with people that block aisles but as they are browsing through items on display I usually wait or go some other way.

Why not ask the lady if she didn't mind to wait or go some other way? A nice lady would not say "No, take your horrible brat out of the way!"

Quote:

To say that it would be the lady's responsibility to work it out with my 4 yr old is ridiculous!
I don't think it's ok to wait for the problem to be solved bettween child and a stranger, because adults usually believe children can be move out people's ways. I had strangers picking up my child out of the way because I was trying to solve the problem with child only or too embarassed to talk with the adult.

Quote:

She is my responsibility! I am trying to raise her to be considerate of others needs, not to let herself be ruled by her id!
It's because parents are responsible to their children they should be helping them, considerate of their needs, and not be ruled by their ids.

Quote:

DD's Preference was clearly to remain seated in the aisle blocking all unsuspecting shoppers lol!
No, I believe her preference was probably sitting in the aisle because she wanted to play with that toy badly. A need that was forgotten.


----------



## simonee

I wonder why so many posters feel so defensive when dealing with the tcs perspective. The last few posts gave the impression that many people are not really interested in advice that they hadn't already thought of themselves, and that they only want to hear that they're doing a great job as it is. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for those posters to label their threads "support only," instead of negatively (NO tcs)?

I don't understand the sometimes hostile attitude toward the tcs advocates and the common perception that the tcs-ers sit in a ivory tower being all superior and arrogant. I've gotten the opposite impression in the few months that I've read things here: the tcs-ers on these boards really believe in the tcs philosophy/theory, and they feel that it helps them so much that they want to spread it. OK, it may appear proselytizing at times, but don't the other approaches have the same problem? I, for one, have learned a lot from the tcs posts. The advocates strive for consistency, which I find very important in childrearing, and they tend to be honest and proud. Maybe some posters would feel more sympathetic if everybody came here with an overtly humble attitude, but haven't women been too humble for long enough?

In my opinion, tcs works like a switch. It's either on or off. You either strive to take your child/ren seriously under all circumstances, or you take them only seriously when their opinion agrees with yours. I don't know which is better, though I am definitely developing preferences for my own situation. Nevertheless, I do believe that tcs-ers take their children more seriously (because all the time, not just when it agrees with your ideas) than non-tcs-ers. Not that non-tcs-ers don't take their children seriously, but many of the comments against tcs have the "little emperor" tone that turns taking your children seriously under all circumstances into a sarcastic joke.

Same with ap - non-ap-ers are attached to their kids, too, of course. But (on average) probably less so than ap-ers, simply because they don't spend as much time as close together.

OK ladies and gents, flame ahead


----------



## Holistic Momma

Hmmm, that was a very interesting perspective. I'm just glad that staunch TCSers are in the minority. Heavens, I keep imagining what if everyone allowed themselves to be ruled by their child's whim. None of us would ever get to walk an aisle to its end. We'd be constantly turning around only to find the next aisle with a child who can't be bothered to clear a path. Heeheehee

Here's something else I found interesting:

QUOTE
A nice lady would not say "No, take your horrible brat out of the way!"
END QUOTE

She may not SAY it, but you can bet your bottom dollar she is sure THINKING it!


----------



## Alexander

Quote:

_Originally posted by simonee_
*

I don't understand the sometimes hostile attitude toward the tcs advocates and the common perception that the tcs-ers sit in a ivory tower being all superior and arrogant. I've gotten the opposite impression in the few months that I've read things here: the tcs-ers on these boards really believe in the tcs philosophy/theory, and they feel that it helps them so much that they want to spread it.

*
Simonee. I agree.

I am involved in non-coersive learning, and have encountered many of the pravailing problems found in these threads.

Much of the problem lies in the deep cultural assuptions we have regarding our own cultral base. In my area of non-coersive learning, teachers of the "victorian" model, find the idea that children can learn well, (even better) without them, and with a different structure around them, VERY difficult to accept.

And that is the problem.

They see the situation as being simply the old school model, without them (the teachers),

instead of

a new school structure that does not need them.

The TCS (of which I know almost nothing) arguements tend to stem from incomplete understanding, which TCS people try to explain.

I find myself (in Non-coersive learning) explaining to people, rather than "converting" them. But there is alot to grasp, and unless the recipient is willing to hang in there to see how the loose ends are tied, they leave confused and angry.

Nobody forces us to read what comes onto the screen for heavens sake!

Move on!

a


----------



## peggy

I agree we should all move on! Nothing is being accomplished with this endless debating. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times! No one wants to "censor" the TCS people. They don't need their own forum. There is room for many parenting theories right here in Gentle Discipline.
Can't we all simply answer a gentle discipline question from our own perspective, without having to pick apart another members answer.
If I post that I think redirection would work in a particular circumstance and some one posts after me that they would use a time out, I don't feel the need to come back and tell them that time outs are wrong and damaging. That redirection is the ONLY WAY. That is all I am asking of the TCS people and everyone else for that matter.
What I find interesting is that many of us who disagree with TCS really do feel that yes, a common preference should be found when ever possible. That respect for children is a given. As I see it , where we disagree is "how far we should go" and posting style.
Gentle Discipline is one of my favorite forums. It would be great if we could get back to supporting each other.

peggy


----------



## larsy

I was thinking about support, and it seems that there are at least a couple of different kinds, in this context.

One, is people looking for support for the way they are doing things, looking for others to validate their experience and reassure them that this is how things are.

Another, is people looking for support for the way they would like to do things, but perhaps are having a hard time getting there, and are asking for help in figuring out what they are doing that is counter-productive and how they might change that.

So, it depends upon which kind of support a person wants, as to what they want from a thread. Is it possible to specify what sort of support one wants, in this way?

Mothering.com is a place for support and information for natural family living (what exactly is natural? does this differ from person to person?). Maybe this is exactly what we are all doing, just from different perspectives.


----------



## peggy

That is exactly what I am saying.


----------



## larsy

Holistic Mama ( I am a big fan of holism)

Imagining and joking around are great ways to explore ideas. There is a kernel of truth in jokes, imo, so I'm wondering if you really believe that this is how it would be? if lots of people (knowingly or unknowingly) subscribed to the ideas in TCS philosophy?

You wrote:

" Heavens, I keep imagining what if everyone allowed themselves to be ruled by their child's whim. None of us would ever get to walk an aisle to its end. We'd be constantly turning around only to find the next aisle with a child who can't be bothered to clear a path. Heeheehee "

Also, quoting Holistic Mama:

"QUOTE
A nice lady would not say "No, take your horrible brat out of the way!"
END QUOTE

She may not SAY it, but you can bet your bottom dollar she is sure THINKING it! "

Is this something to support? To feel like one must cater to? That's not a 'nice' (an amorphous term if ever there was one) lady- it is a lady putting herself in a state of coercion. It's mighty easy to find solutions in this situation that do not involve coercing anyone, except when coercion is accepted and expected on everyone's part. Which is the case of most of society, it seems.
Children are expected to be second class citizens, the ones expected to 'give' in a situation where there is conflict- much like women have been (and continue to be, in parts of the world)second class citizens in the recent past- many of us remember this firsthand experience well!

The 'niceness' meme is definately one to question, imo. YMMV


----------



## larsy

Dr Worm asked, on another thread,

"This is for Larsy and anyone else who believes in TCS...what would you do in the following situations since you don't believe in coercion?"

Just to be clear, TCS philosophy is about non-coercion in the parent-child relationship. Coercion can be appropriate in other relationships and situations.

"1)You take your four-year-old to the Grand Canyon and they start to run over to the edge...do you try to stop him? "

Yes. In fact, I take great precautions with children at the Grand Canyon, and for periods of time might avoid the edge of the Grand Canyon altogether.

"2)Your 10-month-old wants to stick her finger in a light socket? Do you let her? "

That would not be in my best interests or hirs. I'd work to find a common preference. A surge supressor strip that is not connected to a socket, if child wanted to explore sockets. If child were interested in what is behind the socket plate, I'd show hir how it is important to turn off the electricity at the main, and then it is safe to take of the plate and see all the wires etc behind the plate. My experience is that they learn what they want from these explorations, and go on to other things, so that I would not be required to be switching off the electricity constantly.

Now, having been homeschooling for lo, these many years, I might have a different perspective on helping children learn. This is what we do all the time, exploring things that people are interested in, children and adults. It seems quite a natural thing to do. YMMV

"3) Your three-year-old watches Daddy jump off a diving board into 12 ft. deep water and wants to do it too..do you let her? "

If it is a low diving board and the child has a life-jacket and a parent is in the water waiting for hir to jump in, that might be quite doable.

"I gotta understand this whole non-coercive thing so please let me know what you would do in those situations. How far does this letting the child decide stuff go for you?"

I don't think in terms of 'letting' children do things. I think in terms of 'helping' them do things. This includes helping them to stay safe while they explore what they are interested in, and helping them do things in ways that it does not infringe upon other people's rights, and helping them know what is socially acceptable behavior so that they can know how to act appropriately in different situations. I think children want to do what is right, and need the information and experience to be able to figure out what is right in any situation. Just like adults do.

I personally have run up upon many of my entrenched theories, in my years of helping my children get what they want in life. Happens all the time. If I realize that I am not a good resource for the kids because of my entrenchments, I help them another trustworthy source of information and support , perhaps find someone who is interested/passionate about whatever they want, who can help them do whatever safely and give them good information and so on. I am glad to talk with them about my problem, and they are often able to help me work through my concerns and shed new light upon my blocks.

In the moment, when something is happening fast, and I am scared of some harm coming to them, say, they are often willing to stop and consider the consequences of the action with me, and we find a common preference. Sometimes I have to do some quick risk assessment and figure if my objection comes from what I was told when I was a kid or from my lack of experience or confidence, and swallow my fear and watch them do something that they are perfectly able to do. I struggle with my theories, get more information, try not to pass on my entrenchments (with varying success, I'm sure) and keep looking for common preferences.

Hope this helps.


----------



## larsy

Dr Worm, I've started a new thread about this, 'handling situations non-coercively'


----------



## k'smami

Just wanted to add that this is in line with my thinking.


----------



## Lucy

Leonor:

Wouldn't I throw a tantrum if someone moved me out of the way like that?

NO

Why is it ok to treat my child like that?

Like WHAT? Do you mean asking her 2 or 3 times nicely to move out of the way of the lady behind us? Do you mean, gently making her aware that she was blocking the aisle? Or do you mean gently picking her up after ample time and warning, with the toy in hand, mind you and not taking said toy away from her?

OH WHAT A HORRIBLE BEAST I AM! lol!

Who said the woman was not getting impatient? Do you think she should have to have her needs fall second to my dd's? Why should she have to go the other way? People are not suppossed to block aisles. It is impolite. It is inconsiderate. Why would I want to teach my dd that that is ok to do?

Who are you to say my dd's need was forgotten? Were you with us? Did she continue to play with the toy? Do you know? No, so don't make assumptions.

I am helpful and considerate of my dd.


----------



## larsy

I posted the Gentle Spirit link for jbcjmom and others who are of the Christian persuasion, thought it might be interesting to them. Sorry if the link didn't work, thanks Netty for giving more info.

Religion is up for interpretation, religious literature is up for interpretation, and there is 'proof' for any way one wants to go, to be found in the Bible and other religious literature.

I agree with your analysis, JW. JFYI, the translation of this passage of Ephesians from the Greek it was originally written in reads:
"And the fathers, do not ye provoke to wrath the children of you, but nurture them in [the] discipline and admonition of [the] Lord." (from 'the New International Version Interlinear Greek-English New Testament') I like the use of the word 'nurture'.

OK, so religion has been a life-long interest to me, my degree is in ancient history and religion and I've been known to teach comparative religions at the local community college. As the world shrinks, I think it is more important than ever for people of different religions and non-religions be able to communicate with each other in respectful ways. This is where the language of reason and rationality can help people connect, imo. It seems to me a place where people can overlap and hear each other. But I am thinking I need to revise this theory, as I see how the communication here isn't connecting. Thanks for all the input, everybody.


----------



## larsy

Agreed, Daisy. I addressed the question here because it was asked here.


----------



## Iguanavere

I just wanted to thank you all for the nice compliments I've received. That feels really great!

I have tos ay that I so appreciate this discussion. I am so proud that we have this forum - that we can come together and openly discuss our ideas so civilly. (Is that how you spell it?)

Anyway - I think that TCS and avoiding coercion should be our first tack when approaching a situation with out child. I think there are many ways to solve problems when they arise and good parenting involves helping our children find those solutions.

I recently just finished reading a book called "Miseducation" by Elkind. In this book, Elkind discusses how teaching children curriculum at the age-appropriate time is preferrable then force-feeding academics at earlier ages. Basically, we should allow children to indicate learning -readiness before we try to formally teach them in symbolic ways.

There is a great chapter in this book that begins at birth and proceeds through school age and describes how children learn.

a baby needs to learn about trust. IF your baby is crying, then your responsiveness will help to cement their trust in you. Our toddlers need to manipulate physical things (i.e. need to touch and feel, explore - not manipulate in the emotional sense.)

I think coercion sometimes stems from parents simply not understanding age-appropriate behaviors.

As for dirt roads, the child I mentioned in my earlier post was in a car on a dirt road.

Again, thanks for all of the interesting solutions.


----------



## lilyka

So then what is a girl to do when she needs practical advice about her beloved little ones driving her nuts and persistantly coloring on the couch (our latest problem







: ) I am just plain not intrested in TCS stuff . We liike a little coersion around here every now and then. It is not that I am not intrested inlearning new things or helping my child explore safely, but I like a more Mom is in charge approach. Gasp, I expect my children to do what I say whether thay like it or not. They are more that welcome to tell me how misreable they are so long as they aren't using the whiny voice, but non the less they still must do it. What would happen in our house if people never were coeresed or at least practiced self coersen (sp) ? Well the place would be filthy (more so than it is) we would neve eat andmom would be quite a bit more on the heavy side. Every day I have to do things I really really don't want to do in order to provide a home that is safe and sane and I expect my children as members of this family to do the same. Niether do I have time to figure out safe ways for them to do all the goofy things they want to do. (Mom can I put Caroline in the blender so she will do a ballerina spin? No No in the street mom)

how I feel about raising children and the inherint qualities of children goes in complete conflict with tcs philosophies. Flame me if you want, but I believe that children do goofy, silly foolish things. They don't always think about others or even themselves. It is our job as parents to teach them what is acceptable and right. How to behave and when to question athourity. If I made it my mission in life to give my dd everthing she wanted and help her do whatever she wanted how would she learn that mom needs to have a life too, sometimes you just don't get what you want, when mom isn't around that will be dangerous ( js mom helped her to play near the street safely. Never told her she had to stay away. never made it a nonnegotiable rule. When I sent the girls out to play J always headed stright for the street because she didn't know it was a dangerous ugly world out there).
my children need to know some things are just not up for debate. And if they cry I am genuinly sad for them but go to no great lengths to make it possible.

Anyway what all this rambeling amounts to is I don't consider tcs a form a disipline. It is about helping your children get wherever thier desires lead them. Disipline is about getting to a place where chldren have self control and will resist impulses that may be inappropriate or dangerouse or just plain wrong for whatever reason. So I am not opposed to haveing seperate threads. One for disipline and one for tcs. I wouldn't be opposed to posting a question in both places if I wanted to see things from both perspectives.


----------



## Linda in Arizona

Quote:

_Originally posted by lilyka_
*
Anyway what all this rambeling amounts to is I don't consider tcs a form a disipline. It is about helping your children get wherever thier desires lead them. Disipline is about getting to a place where chldren have self control and will resist impulses that may be inappropriate or dangerouse or just plain wrong for whatever reason.*
Good point! TCS isn't discipline at all.

I'm really trying to stay out of the TCS debate as I don't enjoy it a bit, and yet it is nearly impossible to post anything on this board without it turning into a debate!


----------



## Daisy

OMG! How self-righteous and rude can you get!? *Why do you have to put Lucy down in that way?* Why don't you get that picking people apart this way is why some of you TCS'ers are offending people left and right?

Lucy, I think you are right, and you are handling this better than I would, obviously







.


----------



## Netty

****Who are you to say my dd's need was forgotten? Were you with us? Did she continue to play with the toy? Do you know? No, so don't make assumptions. ****

I think that the following part of your original post would lead one to say that your child's need to remain where she was to play with her toy was superseded by the other woman's need to continue down the aisle:

****At this point, I picked up dd, who immidiately threw a tantrum bc she was being forced to move. Well guess what, welcome to the human race! St we have to accomodate others!****

I understand how difficult a situation like this can be. I used to have a very hard time dealing with strangers or worrying about "what other people think." I found it helpful to put myself in my child's position. What if I were looking at an item and someone came along and physically moved me aside so that someone else could get through? You can bet that I would throw a kind of trantrum myself! Yes, your child was asked to move and it was explained to her *why* she should move. But she chose not to move. I would assume, then, that it did not make sense for her to move (she either didn't understand the reasons you gave or didn't agree that they were good reasons). So, if someone asked me to do something that I didn't understand or didn't make sense to me, I would be extremely angry and humiliated if I were physically forced (no matter how gently) to move aside.

**** DD would not like it if someone was blocking her way, so she needs to show others the same consideration. ****

This is your reasoning. I agree with it, but obviously your daughter did not. And if someone were in her way, would she have the choice to physically move them aside? Would that be a good choice? How will she learn "to show others the same consideration" from what was done to her? Might she not learn, rather, that if someone doesn't do what you want them to, you have the right to force them? Or, might she not learn that her needs and desires are less important than someone else's? Do you think these are valuable lessons?

****To say that it would be the lady's responsibility to work it out with my 4 yr old is ridiculous!****

I didn't say that it would be the lady's responsiblity to work it out. I said that it would be hers and my child's problem. Because I am responsible for my child and I am my child's advocate, I would be doing all I could to help *my child* solve the problem non-coercively. To say that the problem is mine is to view my child as an extension of myself rather than as an autonomous human being with needs and desires of hir own.

****She is my responsibility! I am trying to raise her to be considerate of others needs, not to let herself be ruled by her id!****

Is it better for children to be ruled by those in power? Were you considerate of her needs? Again, I realize that you were considerate in the sense of asking and explaining, but perhaps you didn't fully consider her lack of knowledge and experience. She probably didn't understand your reasoning and needed a reason which made sense *to her.* I think that it is best for all human beings to be "ruled" by reason and compassion rather than external power and authority. By advocating for children and helping them solve problems non-coercively, we are doing a great deal to help them do the same in future conflicts.

***Wouldnt life at the market be fun if we all adopted this self-servicing philosophy!****

Again, who eventually adopted a self-serving philosophy in the scenario you describe? The child was forced to comply. She did not agree to comply. No one was being harmed by her actions, but she was obviously harmed by yours (judging by her reaction).

****DD's Preference was clearly to remain seated in the aisle blocking all unsuspecting shoppers lol!****

Do you think that the *reason* she was there was so that she could intentionally block customers? I doubt that was her reasoning. If she could understand that people needed to get by and that she could look at the toy elsewhere, she would have agreed to do so. In other words, she was only doing what *made sense to her* to do. Perhaps she was too young to understand, or she was intent on her examination of the toy, or any number of things.

I don't mean to suggest that these kinds of situations are easily dealt with. They can be extremely difficult and nerve-wracking (especially if you were raised to believe--as we all were-- that "other people" are more important than oneself or that someone always has to "give way" in a conflict). But I disagree that your solution was the best one. It may have been the best one you could think of at the time (and that is certainly understandable when under pressure). But I think it is wrong to conclude that this was the best solution and that it is good and right to physically move one person (against hir will) out of another person's way. I suppose the question to ask oneself is: "Did I choose this solution because it was right for everyone involved, or because it was physically possible (since the child is much smaller) and the least uncomfortable for me (since the stranger expected me to move her)?"

Netty


----------



## larsy

Right. TCS is not a form of discipline, it is a philosophy about parent-child relationship and how people learn. The philosophy a parent operates from will inform how they relate to their children. Discipline, in the sense of trying to get the child to behave in a certain way that a parent wants them to act, without it making sense to the child to act that way, is not a part of TCS, to my understanding.

There is much more to TCS than non-coercion, though that is one if its most distinctive features. There are many mistaken conclusions on these boards about what TCS means for a family, not suprisingly. IME, it takes awhile to take it all in, and only an ounce of it has been flailed about on these boards.

By all means, those who are not interested should be able to clearly identify TCS content and ignore at will. How can this easily be done?


----------



## k'smami

I looked up the word discipline and what I found agrees with this sentiment.

discipline
1 : PUNISHMENT
2 obsolete : INSTRUCTION
3 : a field of study
4 : training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character
5 a : control gained by enforcing obedience or order b : orderly or prescribed conduct or pattern of behavior c : SELF-CONTROL
6 : a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity

So we've established that TCS is not discipline BUT that does not mean it doesn't belong in this forum and therefore not tolerated. Not because the name by definition excludes it but because of the intent of the gentle discipline forum which to quote the moderator is:

Quote:

*To answer the question, what is this forum for, I'll go to the explanation - Parenting without punishment is not just possible - it is the only effective way to discipline your child. Why spanking doesn't work. Alternatives to punishment. What is verbal abuse? Resources for being gentle with yourself and your children.

Another passage that I feel sums things up is from 'Natural Family Living' by Peggy O'Mara, Chapter 15 Discipline, pg. 187

Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the belief that children are born innately good and that our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems.*
http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...&threadid=2170


----------



## cynthia mosher

Many different views, thoughts, concerns...we share them all with you! I just wanted to let you know that we are considering what we can do about this, what will work best for the entire board and community, and still respect the interest in TCS and it's theories. Our main goal is to return the Gentle Discipline board to its stated purpose - that of a support board for alternatives to punishment, choices in conflict, and other such things. But that does not mean that we intend to banish TCS.

We do not wish to censor the discussion at hand or any other topic the community shows an interest in that we can easily host. So, we will come up with a way to accomodate TCS discussions that respects the focus of the Gentle Discipline board yet still acknowledges what TCS has to offer.

Please continue to offer your thoughts and ideas. We are listening.









~Cynthia


----------



## Holistic Momma

Lucy, bless your heart!







There... are... just... no... words...

Well, the only words that come to my mind are "oh good grief!"

Perhaps you should have coercively bribed her with ice cream.


----------



## Dr.Worm

Well, I'm glad to know that you both would intervene in dangerous situations. Although I don't really like the idea of the three-year-old jumping into the water. I agree with respecting your child and giving them choices such as letting them go outside without clothes to see how cold it is. Because they will come back to put some on. However, if Julia didn't want me to dress her, I'm not taking her to the mall naked. I am glad that you see there are times when you must inflict your will on your child..like when they could be hurt or killed. Whatever we call it, "coercion", "helping", we obviously have to make the final decision when we raise our children. I will let Julia have the option of wearing black or white pants, I won't let her have a bonfire in our house. I knew you guys were good Mommies. I just had to make sure you didn't really think babies and toddlers are smart enough to decide on their own about things that could kill them.


----------



## Netty

Suggesting that a child might like to go for some ice cream is not a bribe and is certainly not coercive. It would be coercive only if it were conditional (as in, "*If*--and only if--you move out of this lady's way, I will buy you some ice cream"). If you and I were planning to see a movie, would it be coercive if I reminded you that the movie I preferred had your favourite actor in it and you, then, changed your mind and *preferred* to go to the movie I originally suggested? Would you consider that a bribe? I find it strange that people will try to argue that offering ice cream is coercive and yet will--on the other hand--claim that giving a child a choice between moving or being physically moved is a logical consequence. (I'm not saying that this was explicitly said here, btw, just that such "logical consequences" have been suggested in this forum previously).

Netty


----------



## larsy

The course of action I propose in response to the hypothetical situations given are things that many parents have done in some places, in some times, in some situations. The difference would be the attitude of the parents in willing to find consentual solutions or default to coercion. This is true for the times before the articulation of TCS theory, as it is since the articulation of TCS theory.

An example of acceptable coercion: if a person were attempting to, say, break into my house, I'd use whatever coercion I felt necessary to stop them/defend my self, family, and property.

Dr. Worm, what is the problem with a 3 yr old jumping into water? Lots of parents take their itty-bitty kids to the pool for swimming lessons before they can walk, including teaching them to jump into the water. I hear the intention of these lessons is to help little kids be safer around water, though supervision is about the only thing that will keep little ones safe around water.

In any force-10 emergency situation, a parent would take action to keep a child (or another adult, I would guess) safe. A best guess would be that any person would like to remain alive and uninjured. I don't see that as coercion. Survival is a higher priority than crossing the street, and if something dangerous is coming along that a child (or adult) is not aware of, the right thing to do is to call it to their attention and/or attempt to stop them from, say, walking into the path of an on-coming vehicle.


----------



## k'smami

I don't see how what she posted is not TCS.


----------



## Iguanavere

My real name is Genevieve - Iguanavere is the most screwed up way anyone has ever said my name. ;-)

Anyway, good points, Just Wondering! Still I find that many people simply don't understand how children think. I didn't and I had to research child development so as to not have unreal expectations on my child.

Anyway, I meant to add to my earlier post that the whole reason I brought up the age appropriate beahavior issue is that a lot of times when we are struggling with our children, it is because they are going through a developmental shift. To bring this conversation back to the original topic of babies and carseats, I wanted to note that I never had car seat issues with my son after we discovered that he was OK with the car during naps and with a pacifier. I thought I had is all figured out until one day he refused to get into his car seat. For about a week I was "coercively" forcing him into it, until I read another thread on these boards which talked about TCS philosophy. I then decided to try some of those suggestions. So I allowed him to explore his carseat and the car. DS was going through a developmental shift and he needed to explore his new surroundings (the car.)

Once I realized this, I could try and use most of the TCS suggestions and sometimes they would work. My chief complaint about TCS philosophy is that it simply isn't always practical. For example, a TCS suggestion about the car seat issue with Toddlers would be to plan for enough time for your child to explore the seat before willingly getting in it. With a persistent child, like mine, I could plan, say for a half an hour of explore time and when the time was up, I wouldn't have a willing child. Then I would be late or have to bribe or coerce ds into seat. TCS would respond, plan for more time. I only have one child now, but if I had more, or twins, or was a single mother, I do not see the practicality of it.

I find that the practical approach is to simply set the rules. When we go in the car, we go straight to the car seat and get in it - no fussing. DS can explore the care when we get back home.


----------



## k'smami

Ahh. I see where you're coming from but in light of the original question of how a TCS parent would handle the situations non-coercively then how could what she said be "quite non-TCS"?

I would say that "old cronies" were practicing non-coercive parenting without calling it that. Kind of like practicing AP before you knew there was a word for it. IMHO.


----------



## larsy

And it is not going to remain the subject of such fascination forever. A parent might spend some time reading in the car while child check out every nook and cranny, a few times, and then it's done. We might tend to fear that it's always going to be this way. Remembering that helping children explore what they are interested in- like the car and car seat- to their hearts content will fill them up might help a parent be happy to help their child/ren explore.


----------



## larsy

Believe me, Jay Dubyah, it is just as frustrating for others, the way you deliberately miss the point


----------



## larsy

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of rationality and irrationality, but you will make of it what you will, oh infallible one.







Your interpreation of TCS philosophy has little to do with what is on the website, but that is your privilege.


----------



## Holistic Momma

Ooooh girlfriend Larsy, you might as well forget about that smilie. Hopefully I'm wrong but my perception about that "Jay Dubya" thing is those are fighting words. That seems a deliberate put down. At the very least, it seems disrespectful and at worse, I think you also managed to liken her to George Dubya which is IMO an insult to her.


----------



## larsy

erg... I certainly wasn't thinking politics.


----------



## larsy

Good idea. I'm still waiting for someone to convince why coercion is necessary and preferable to non-coercion.


----------



## Leonor

Quote:

_Originally posted by Just Wondering_
First I have a problem with this, because it is not a problem I had.

Why? Because up until about three, one of the two children was in the back-pack. After three, there were certain things they knew, which they might have to be reminded of.
Just a question: Did your children never protested being in the back-pack?


----------



## larsy

I'll leave you with a quote from Karl Popper "knowledge and the mind-body problem", as I have a problem finding rational points to respond to in your posts, JW, and I am packing to travel for a few days, much to your relief I expect.

"I am afraid I am probably - I do not know - the only philosopher who abhors definitions. I believe that definition is a logical problem of its own, and that an incredible amount of superstition is attached to it."

"People think that a term has no meaning unless you have defined it...it is for most problems quite irrelevent whether a term can be defined or cannot be defined, or how it is defined. All that is necessary is that we make ourselves understood. And definition is certainly not a means of making oneself understood."

"Aristotle has several definitions for 'man'. One is 'man is a featherless biped,' and I am sure 'featherless biped' is not as understandable as 'man'. The other is that 'man is a rational animal'. I am pretty sure that 'rational,' for example, is a much more difficult term than 'man'.


----------



## peggy

larsy said " I am still waiting for someone to convince why coercion is necessary and preferable to non-coercion"
You are not really waiting for that at all. It wouldn't matter what we put up here as to why we think TCS wouldn't work. You have your mind set. It's your way or the highway.
I resent the fact that one of you put up on your website that there was a great discussion going on over here, just to get more people here to support your opinion. ( Geez, the second post of one of your "followers" was to ask how to work the "ignore" list!) You don't contribute to the mothering boards in any other way except to lecture on TCS. You share nothing of yourselves. Hell, we don't even know if you HAVE children!
I have tried to be patient, I have tried to be tolerant, finally I have tried scrolling on by... but guess what??? I can scroll all the way to the bottom of this forum and it's all TCS!!!!
I apologize in advance to the moderators who will feel I have broken the "posting guidelines" You may delete my post if you think it is best. I also apologize to k'smami, who at least has tried to discuss this in a rational manner.

peggy


----------



## Leonor

Just Wondering,

The back-pack seems to be a great idea. But what would you suggest to a parent whose child dislikes back-packs?


----------



## k'smami

Frankly, I think that the insults are flying back and forth BOTH WAYS and IMO it doesn't matter who did it first. This is much like what you see being played out in school yards, "She hit me!" and then, "Well, she hit me first!" blah blah blah. It's really annoying, the threads are long enough as it is and I hate sifting through the insults to discover an actual point. AAARG!!!

By the way, I know that larsy has kids and I also know where she lives. Why? because I actually paid attention when she posted about it. I'm sure if you were so inclined, you could do a search and find it! And frankly it's irrelevant. If what she's saying makes sense, it shouldn't matter the number of children (or not) she has. And if it doesn't make sense by all means, refute it so that we can all learn.

I may end up deleting this later because even my participating all this off-topic stuff IMO gets in the way of actual learning.

By the way, people call in for reinforcements on discussion boards ALL THE TIME. People on these very boards have done it and I myself have even participated. The fact is that TCS discussion requires a lot of work when you've got to answer the same kinds of questions and explain what the theory itself is (not that I mind this by the way). Thank God that I'm not the only one doing it. I have no qualms about calling Just Wondering for reinforcements when I'm debating vaccines and I'm sure that a lot of you wouldn't either.

Peace


----------



## k'smami

Are you saying that TCS isn't about non-coercion? Perhaps in light of what you may have read about TCS in other threads you would believe that TCSers think TCS has some sort of monopoly on non-coercion but I believe that in this thread Larsy has not excluded any non-coercive parents who don't label themselves TCS.


----------



## Holistic Momma

Quote:

_Originally posted by larsy_
*Believe me, Jay Dubyah, it is just as frustrating for others, the way you deliberately miss the point







*
*My* point was could we refrain from painting happy faces when we are in the middle of being snide and disrespectful? It's just silly. It also guarantees that any argument we are trying to put forth won't be taken seriously.


----------



## peggy

Dear k'smami.
I did apologize in advance and I am sorry again if you took offense at a post that was not directed at you. I lost my cool after several attempts at trying to come to some common ground on this. As you said, all the endless debating is absolutely exausting!
I am still angry over this and any other attempts to make ammends right now would sound false. I did want to acknowledge your post and tell you I understand your frustration as I am feeling it too.

peggy


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by peggy_
*I resent the fact that one of you put up on your website that there was a great discussion going on over here, just to get more people here to support your opinion. ( Geez, the second post of one of your "followers" was to ask how to work the "ignore" list!)*

Will someone please tell me when this happened and what the subject was so that I may look it up in the archives? I subscribe to the TCS list and have not seen anyone mention these boards.

Quote:

*You don't contribute to the mothering boards in any other way except to lecture on TCS. You share nothing of yourselves. Hell, we don't even know if you HAVE children!*

That is a matter of opinion. I believe that many of the TCS posts have been valuable contributions to the mothering boards. I have been able to take what works for me and leave the rest. Is that so difficult? TCS posters share a lot, they just don't do it in the way in which we are accustomed. They believe that they do not have the right to share details about their children's (or anyone else's children) lives because it would violate the child/rens privacy. But they give some really good hypothetical examples, if you can try looking for solution in a different way.

Quote:

*I have tried to be patient, I have tried to be tolerant, finally I have tried scrolling on by... but guess what??? I can scroll all the way to the bottom of this forum and it's all TCS!!!!*

There are 74 threads listed in this forum for the past 30 days. 20 or so of those specifically deal w/ TCS (which one can easily avoid reading if one finds them offensive, annoying, verbose, etc.) Of those, nearly half were initiated by anti-TCS posters, or TCS antagonists. According to the user conduct rules, we are not to "post messages intended to bait others into entering an unproductive argument; 'flaming' is not acceptable...Do not attack other members individually." Many of these threads are in direct violation of the user conduct rules, and no one is addressing that.

The reason we are seeing mostly TCS posts at the top of the list is because these are the ones to which people are responding. If you would like to see other topics discussed, either start new threads or respond to some of the older ones which have nothing to do w/ TCS.

Larsy stared the thread "Taking Children Seriously" at the request of some people, for reasons I do not know. (Meaning, I don't know if it was people who wanted her to teach them more about it, or people who wanted her to "keep her nose out of their threads...") Since that time, she has not gone into other threads talking lots of TCS. She has addressed people's questions and given advice when people put it out there, but if one looks through all recent posts (which I am in the process of doing, BTW - report to follow ASAP) one will find that the TCS debate is confined to the many threads which clearly state they are TCS. So I really think that people are complaining about something that simply isn't happening any more. Maybe it did in the past, but it looks like it worked itself out, so can we please move on?


----------



## Jish

I asked the question because on many previous threads Larsy has refered to a "truth" that she is striving for in her TCS parenting. I don't know how asking her to explain this truth goes anymore astray from gentle discipline than any of the other threads. I was simply asking for some clarification to her prior posts, which were indeed posted on this forum.


----------



## Holistic Momma

Quote:

_Originally posted by peggy_
*As you said, all the endless debating is absolutely exausting!
*
May I suggest another way of viewing the aforementioned discussions? I'm finding them INVIGORATING! Heeheehee

Oh sure some of the ideas expressed have been exasperating such as allowing children to block store aisles (the whole it's not my problem, it's THEIR problem thing) and the original TCS solution to carseat woes which I believe they have since recanted.

Even so, I must admit I am finding the discussions delicious. I always enjoy knowing how other people think and why they do the things they do.


----------



## Jish

Doesn't this thread show that we are all more alike in our parenting styles than we would appear to be to anyone reading this board? I agreed with nearly every explantation that Larsy gave, with the exception of the outlet one, but I have already explained our deep respect for electricity (what with my dh being an engineer for the power company.) Those of us that don't "practice" TCS aren't necessarily pro-coersion, we just may be a little more old fashioned (not much, mind you) believing that children owe adults a bit of respect, yes, simply because we are adults. So much of how I deal with my children everyday would qualify as TCS, though I don't subscribe to their List, and don't believe in their "theory." I believe that I am a good parent. If what I would do in a given situation is the same as what you (not specific) would do, that makes you a good parent, too. Not because you practice the TCS theory, but because you love your children and you are doing what you believe is the best for them. That is what makes us good parents.


----------



## Jish

I personally feel that your first post summed it all up. I only wish I had wrote it. Good job!


----------



## peggy

paula-bear. the reference I made to some one posting on the TCS website to come to mothering was made here by a new member who posted under the Questions and Suggestions forum in a thread called "A Place for TCS"

I have to say that I find it incredible that I am being "flamed" because of one post where I later admitted I lost my cool. No one is taking into consideration all the many times I have posted on this subject in a very respectful manner and have gotten no where.

peggy


----------



## Jish

First of all, I voted for GWB, and trust me, I am not sorry that I did. I guess I may be the only Republican on these boards (no, that's not true. JW is probably not voting Republican from New Zealand -- although I could be wrong.)

Back to sitting in the aisle. It was mentioned countless times about how asking a child to move or moving a child out of the aisle violates the childs needs. NEEDS???? Aren't we confusing wants and needs here? Food, clothing, shelter, love....these are needs. Playing with a toy in the middle of the aisle and blocking traffic? Clearly not a need. There would be no life threatening consequence if the child were denied blocking the aisle. Denying food, clothing, shelter, or love would definitely be life threatening because these would be denying a true need. No child NEEDS to block the aisle to play with a toy. I guess I just WANT to get my priorities straight, or is that I NEED to get my priorities straight?
I'm just looking at the bigger worldly picture here.


----------



## Holistic Momma

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*It was mentioned countless times about how asking a child to move or moving a child out of the aisle violates the childs needs. NEEDS???? Aren't we confusing wants and needs here*
That's a really good distinction there, Beth. I'm curious to hear the response myself. I have a feeling though that TCS translates many "wants" into "needs".


----------



## k'smami

Dear Peggy,

I did not take offense at your post. I am disagreeing with the tactics of people on both sides to get their point across when they are using personal attacks. I have been feeling this way since WAY BEFORE your post, but have refrained from mentioning it so vehmently in the past.

I did feel I had to address some of the things you mentioned because I disagreed with them, not because they offended me.

Just Wondering,

I think I do understand where you're coming from, I just disagree with the way you are going about it. You have probably kept silent for so long in the hopes that people will see their own errors and when they didn't, you spoke up. (Much like I felt when I posted.)

I see how vaccines are different. I just think its unfair to condemn people for what seems to be a typical way of using the internet, after having seen so many examples of it and not saying anything.

All right, that was the last of it. No more meta-discussions for me. I am open however to discussing this privately or perhaps another thread that covers these discussions about the discussion, but not on threads who's expressed purpose is to discuss something else.


----------



## Jish

I think that I am addicted. I can't seem to log off. What has happened to me? I seem to spend more and more time at my computer every day.

Talk about guilt. Last night my dh came to tell me that my ds wanted me to come up and say good night (it was 9:00) but not yet because he was having a piece of cheese in bed and he wanted it to be a secret. So I was suppossed to wait a few minutes and go up. Time flies when you are typing away. I though about ten minutes had passed, so imagine my surprize when my dh came down at 10:00 and told me that my ds was still sitting in bed waiting for me. I felt awful







. I can't believe that I let this message board come before my son. I have truly gone off the deep end. Do they have a 12 step program for message board addicts? I must have better things to do with my time. Here I go, I'm going to log off now.....This time I really mean it.........


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by peggy_
*I have to say that I find it incredible that I am being "flamed" because of one post where I later admitted I lost my cool. No one is taking into consideration all the many times I have posted on this subject in a very respectful manner and have gotten no where.*
Peggy, I did not intend to flame you. I was only responding to your post with my opinion. I apologize if that in any way offended you, but it was not my intention to do so. I am only expressing the way I see things.

I am going to start a new thread called 'TCS - Statistics.' Please everyone, take a look at it. I went through all the threads in Gentle Discipline and compiled some statistics. I hope we can put an end to this bickering and find a COMMON PREFERENCE with regards to TCS on these boards!


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*Back to sitting in the aisle. It was mentioned countless times about how asking a child to move or moving a child out of the aisle violates the childs needs.*
No one said that asking a child to move violated him or her in any way. But being ordered or physically made to move does not help the child to grow - it does nothing to make him more considerate of the other person, either, IMO. I still say, how would an adult feel if he or she was browsing in an aisle and someone forced them out of someone else's way? They would probably have a negative reaction! Why is it that we have such a hard time giving children the same rights we adults take for granted? Is it that hard to help the child to see for him or herself why it would be a good idea to take the toy somewhere else so as not to block traffic in the aisle?

Just Wondering gave a wonderful example earlier about how she prepared herself and her boys for this situation. Maybe her response wasn't TCS, but I didn't think it was coercive. She said herself that her boys responded to her reasoning and she never had to physically move them out of anyone's way. Many other practical solutions have been given. Why is this concept so hard to swallow?


----------



## paula_bear

Hello everyone, I refrained from posting most of last night so I could compile some statistics. I consider myself a neutral observer in the whole TCS controversy, but it bothers me a bit when I see how people are reacting here. And I don't know exactly what they're reacting to, or why. The complaint I'm hearing is that TCS-followers come in and give a TCS response to every thread on the board. Then it starts a whole big TCS debate and the original poster's question gets buried in the quagmire (sp?).

Now, let me qualify by saying I only joined these discussions on 23-Nov-01, so I don't know what all transpired in the past. But I took the time to review each and every one of the threads currently on this Gentle Discipline forum and this is what I found:

There are 22 TCS threads. Most of these are active, which means that people are responding to them, whether that be to criticise or not...

Of the threads specifically discussing TCS, 11 of them (half) were initiated by people who are refuting TCS theory.

As of the wee hours of this morning, there were 53 other threads.

I went into each of those 53 threads to note two things:
1. Was there a TCS response?
2. Did this response spark a debate, or was it accepted?
(Aside: Most of the threads that contained a TCS response were from before the TCS threads were started. I guess one of two things happened - TCS posters were so busy debating, they didn't have time to check out any other posts, or they decided to stick to the TCS posts.)

This is what I found:
1. In 39 threads, there was no TCS response. In 14 threads, there was a TCS response, although this does not mean that TCS was mentioned by name.
2. Of the 14 threads that ilicited a TCS response, only one of them turned into a heated debate. In a few of the threads, there was continued discussion. In a few of the threads, the person who asked the original question thanked all posters for their input. I did not see where people resented having a TCS response. I did not see anyone trying to push any ideas.

The reason I took the time to do this is because I feel that this whole issue is blown way out of proportion. Maybe I didn't go back far enough. I do remember reading TCS responses before larsy started the "Taking Children Seriously" thread, but I couldn't understand all the hurt feelings. I still don't.

There is a very wise saying - "Take what you like and leave the rest." I think one can apply that to anything one reads on these forums. And, if TCS is so objectionable, stay out of the TCS threads, where most of the discussion is going on these days! As far as TCS taking over the Gentle Discipline forum, that is not true, from the analysis I have done here.

Peace to all - I hope we can find a common preference here!

Paula Bear


----------



## paula_bear

Please see my post, 'TCS - Statistics.'


----------



## paula_bear

Please see my post, 'TCS - Statistics.'


----------



## simonee

Thanks Paula Bear.

I was thinking about doing the same thing, but couldn't find the time to do it.

Your analysis confirms my instincts, and sadly proves that intolerance often speaks with too loud a voice and without enough reason.









Can't we all learn from each other? And accept individuals' choices regarding the tone and degree of detachment with which they choose to post?


----------



## peggy

After "sleeping on it" I feel very sorry for stooping to "blasting" larsy. That was stupid and immature and no way to carry on a debate or discussion. Larsy, I apologize.
I hope some common ground can be reached here soon. This has gone on way too long and is frustrating for people on both "sides".
I am sorry to have "hi-jacked" this thread once again, but I wanted to publically apologize.

peggy


----------



## peggy

JW is right. Alot of my frustrations stem from the idea that "Oh no, it's happening again" left over from the old boards. So it may seem that some of us are over reacting. Be it wrong or right some of us may be working from that perspective.

peggy


----------



## Pallas

Paula Bear, You're My Hero!

You confirmed what I only suspected.

And once again, jw, *raises hand tiredly* I'm not new. I've been around for a loooooooong time, and seen these discussions come and go, and I don't agree with you or your methods.

I don't think tcs has ever been oppressively present here. Oh, interest waxes and wanes, as it does in other topics. So what.

I am finding it increasingly irritating that you insist on speaking for these huge and silent groups of people. You call yourself an advocate, and say that you're just speaking up for all these poor, wounded people who are ... what? Too weak to speak for themselves? Too stupid to argue as "effectively" as you do? Too frightened of tcs'ers coming to their door disguised as Girl Scouts?

Bleah. If I WERE one of the people who was annoyed by tcs, I'd be insulted that you've taken this patriarchal attitude. As it is, I'm pissed off that you continually imply that you're speaking for me (as one of the old school, as a non-tcs'er) when you most certainly don't.

So I'll just keep raising my hand, to remind the mods that you don't speak for everyone, and you don't speak for me.

Did I mention that Paula Bear is my hero?


----------



## paula_bear

Thanks, just wondering and Peggy, for attempting to explain the source of your frustration, but I still don't really understand where you are coming from. I'll check in with you a few months from now and let you know what I think then...

I would never stop reading anyone's posts just because they posted something objectionable to me in the past. I never know who is going to offer the exact information I need at any given moment. I would just like to see people treating others with respect and not putting out loaded questions, so to speak, drawing others into a debate which one knows has no productive outcome...Or maybe I am wrong, maybe some good will come out of all of this bickering...


----------



## amnesiac

Now the term "TCS" is relatively new to me, but a couple of things that I have gleaned from the TCS website are that "there can be no official definition of what it means to take children seriously" and that the TCS definition of educational theory is "the conditions under which human minds do and do not thrive, and about how people learn and how knowledge is created."

Given that information, I would expect TCS advocates to accept the fact that 1) their personal definition of TCS may be wrong 2) the conditions that foster learning and the acquisition of knowledge are not necessarily universal among unique individuals. In a discussion forum such as this, I would also expect those practicing TCS to exercise the ability to find a common preference among discussion participants as opposed to furthering argument and hurt.

Furthermore, since there can be no definition of TCS, we cannot actually tabulate statistics on what exactly constitutes a "TCS response."


----------



## sagewinna

I agree with Paula-Bear and Pallas, and I am definitly not a "newbie". I have been around Mothering Boards for a long time.

I find it interesting that there are so many threads giving attention to TCS that are started by anti-TCS parents!

They do have a right to speak, you do have the right not to read what they write and even ignore what they say!

Agree to disagree! Geez.


----------



## amnesiac

One thing I noticed in that thread you mention was the reference to intrinsic motivation. I wonder if a TCS approach doesn't foster the use of manipulation to create "intrinsic" motivation? How might manipulation be preferable to coersion in this case?

I also noted elsewhere a statement that children raised in TCS households are better able to avoid coersion when they later enter school & other coersion-filled environments. We know that the extent to which individuals are able to cope with problems is greatly dependent upon our prior experiences. I wonder, if a child has been raised without experience with coersion, how are they able to effectively deal with it at a first exposure in older childhood, adolescence or adulthood? Might children raised with some degree of coersion actually have more effective and creative coping mechanisms for finding common preferences (or is this what one might also call "creative problem solving"???) in later life?


----------



## Iguanavere

I don't consider myself an "anti-TCS" parent, but I also don't mind some of the things that Just Wondering has said, either.

I have been around these boards for about a year and in the last 3 months the "common preferences" that many TCS advocates advise are, IMHO, sometimes so impractical that I fear the original poster may feel completely inadequate and or confused because the TCS solutions are often very vague and long.

Don't get me wrong, I've really learned a lot of useful information from TCS and I agree that non-coercive parenting is an ideal we should all strive for in our parenting/personal lives.

I just feel it is not practical nor helpful to refuse to acknowledge that there are times when a common preference cannot be acheived. Certainly we all want to be diplomatic and we should all strive for that, but I *know* that there are times when one party thinks that they are acheiving a common preference, but the reality is that it is actually a compromise and/or bribe.

I also do not think that censure would be appropriate. Personally I like the mental stimulation and the challenge to my values. It is good to question our thought processes and values, if anything to strengthen or change our views!

I say - debate on!


----------



## MamaLeah

I am not exactly new, not exactly old. I've been actively reading the boards for about a year and have followed the TCS issues for - I don't know - months. Before the boards went down. I feel that the TCS posters have been respectful and helpful. I have not seen them attack anyone ever. I have seen anti-TCS posters attack, ridicule and belittle. Now, I hate to put it that way because I don't think we should put people in categories according to their views on TCS. There are huge variations on both sides. I hate how people want to divide up into camps over this. The ideas of TCS have undoubtedly made me a better parent, and I never would have encountered them without this board. Do I find myself always living up to the ideals of the philosophy? Of course not, but I still like to think about what those ideals might be. Even if they aren't MY ideals, they are good to think about. So which camp in my in? I don't know, am not going to put pressure on myself to decide right now, and I don't think anyone else really cares to know.

I guess this is my long way of trying to say that from what I have seen, I think tolerance would be more helpful for the parents on this board than censure.


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by amnesiac_
*Furthermore, since there can be no definition of TCS, we cannot actually tabulate statistics on what exactly constitutes a "TCS response."*
Well, let me make it clear to everyone that I identified TCS responses using the following criterion: The post referred specifically to the TCS philosophy or the poster suggested that a situation be handled using non-coercive methods. Technically, some of these posts could have been AP or NP, but if there was any doubt I put it in the TCS category. I would be happy to send any interested parties a synopsis of my research, which I'm sure is far from scientific. However, I did it to illustrate a point, and, in my mind, I acheived that objective.

Besides, if there is no such thing as a TCS response, or a TCS response cannot be defined, why are we even talking about this? I thought this all started because "so many people" were growing tired of hearing a TCS answer for every question!


----------



## Netty

****I just feel it is not practical nor helpful to refuse to acknowledge that there are times when a common preference cannot be acheived. Certainly we all want to be diplomatic and we should all strive for that, but I *know* that there are times when one party thinks that they are acheiving a common preference, but the reality is that it is actually a compromise and/or bribe. ****

I don't like to meta-discuss and have avoided it so far, but I also find it very difficult to sit by and read all of these personal attacks and misrepresentations of TCS advocates and TCS theory. I think a great deal of frustration is caused by assumptions made concerning the TCS arguments (just one example of which is quoted above). I have read many comments claiming that TCS advocates say or do things that they have not said at all. Many may *infer* something from our arguments, but if you re-read what we have written, you will often see that you are assuming something that has simply never been said or even implied. And when we try to clarify a misunderstanding, we are accused of nit-picking or offering slippery logic. *Of course* there are times when a parent will be unable to find a common preference! No one has claimed otherwise. That doesn't mean that a common preference doesn't exist, however; it simply means that a parent couldn't find it at the time. That is understandable. It happened to me *all the time* when I was first learning about TCS, and it still happens to me sometimes now (though less and less as I come to know my own and my children's desires better and better). I would never--and have never--argued with someone who says that they couldn't find a common preference but *would sincerely like to have done so* (not as a challenge to TCS but as a way of improving problem-solving ability). I would support them and offer them any suggestions I might have for future reference. But I do argue with those who claim that it is *right* and *good* to coerce children at certain times. Just as you would challenge anyone who claimed that spanking was a good form of discipline. I challenge coercive problem-solving because I think there is a better way. And I challenge that mostly because the person I'm responding to is *challenging* my theory. I think coercion of children is an abuse of power and a betrayal of our responsiblity as parents. I'm willing to support and clarify my theory whenever asked to do so. I believe that the arguments used to support coercion are irrational and self-serving. I'm willing to "agree to disagree" when someone asks me to do so, but not if they post this publically along with spurious assessments of my argument. All of my posts have been *in direct response* to questions asked about TCS or the process of finding common preferences. Many participants in the TCS discussions seem to be asking us to simply agree when we do not agree. They often challenge TCS without wanting to be challenged themselves. Is this fair? And is it right to resort to personal attacks and misrepresentations? I'm willing to comply with any request from the administrator of these boards and to meta-discuss with those who post to me privately. I think this sort of meta-discussion, however, should *always* take place through private email with the person one takes issue with or with the administrator or moderator of the boards. That's what I have been doing and will--after this brief exception--continue to do. If we're going to fight--and I honestly have no interest in fighting--let's at least fight fair.

I welcome *private* responses to this post and will strive to answer each one privately. Oh, and sorry for the length of this post. I obviously had a great deal to get off my chest. Believe it or not, TCS advocates are real people with real feelings too.

Netty


----------



## Daisy

I have been around for a while and agree with Just Wondering and Peggy, and the others who have expressed the same concerns. It seems that some of you just really *want to believe* that JW and those who agree with her are intolerant, mean, over-reacting, etc. Time and again in many different ways we have expained that people have felt attacked, and have left. Yes, it's really too bad that those people aren't speaking up for themselves, but does the fact that they aren't mean that what happened didn't happen at all? I believe some of them even went back and edited their posts, because they felt judged. So of course, if you go back and read threads after the fact, you may miss some key points. You say you haven't seen any TCS posters be rude. I don't understand how you could have not noticed the tone of so many posts that imply the mother was treating her child badly because she picked her up and moved her, or made her be still so a clean diaper could be put on. You this, you that, you shouldn't do this, you're damaging your child when you do that, on and on. I'm not saying that TCS discussions shouldn't take place. I am saying that some posters need to care whether or not they come off as judge and jury. Why can't they talk about what *they* would do, instead of picking apart the other mother for everything they think she did wrong? I keep saying that this is looking like religious debate. Some TCS posters believe that their way is the only way, and they will tell everyone else that they are wrong, and they will judge everything another mother does as wrong, and tell her so. If these arguments were taking place in the Spirituality forum, the moderators would have come in long ago to ask people to be respectful of others beliefs. "Their beliefs are just as right as yours are, so be respectful. No proselytizing please." I've seen that kind of request a number of times. So what is wrong with making that same sort of request in this forum?


----------



## webbeccjo

Someone stated:


> >the whole idea of Christian discipline is severely distorted to look like something very loving and good
> _____________________________________________
> 
> I haven't read this whole thread, and that may get me in trouble LOL! meaning I may be going over something that's already been brought up, but the above comment really bothers me.
> 
> Please realize that I'm just expressing my beliefs, not saying that anyone else should agree or believe as I do, but these are my rambly thoughts on the subject!
> 
> I understand what it means, but it bothers me. The idea that there is one "Christian" way to discipline children is ludicrous.
> I am a Christian, yet I don't discipline in a punitive manner. I don't consider myself to discipline with "Christian Discipline" other than the fact that my spirituality permeates every fiber of my being.
> 
> I also disagree with the implication (even if it is my own implication) that non-tcs = punative coercive parenting.
> 
> To take the bath situation for example, you assumed that any non tcs parent would automatically force/coerce their child into the tub by plopping them in and beinning to scrub them over protest.
> What about the child who is covered in mud,yet does not want to get into the tub? a positive or gentle disipining parent may do much as a tcs parent would : look for alternatives to a regular tub bath to get the child clean, decide if the child really even needs a bath, take the time to explore *why* the child doesn't wish to bathe and take steps to address whatever issues pop up (fear of the drain, soap in the eye, etc...) empathising and validating feelings al lthe while.
> If there are no fears involved, the parent may simply decide to say "I understand you don't want to take a bath, but I need you to hop in the tub. Do you want the red washcloth or the blue one?"
> I "get" that to a strict tcs-er that is considered coersion, but I don't equate it with punitive overtly coersive parenting that doesn't aknowledge the childs needs or feelings.
> 
> I like and implement a LOT of tcs parenting, and strive to be as low coercion as possible, but I think that there are a few elements of tcs that border on permissiveness, which I consider to be just as abusive as punitive parenting.
> (of course I am open to exploring that it may be my preconcieved notions of tcs that I find to be permissive)
> 
> I think children instinctively look for a few boundaries outside of themselves to be/feel safe. I (as a positive disciplining parent) provide those boundaries when my child is too young to provide them for himself, while at the same time being sensitive to my childs needs and what my child may need/want to learn from a given situation.
> 
> I also don't believe that children are born knowing exactly what they need. I think that comes with life experience. They gather that type of info over time, after living out natural consequences. (*not* to be confused with logical consequences). I also feel that it is my job to block natural consequences for my child while they are too young to experience them safely.


----------



## Netty

****I think children instinctively look for a few boundaries outside of themselves to be/feel safe.****

What makes you think that children--unlike adults--want to have boundaries placed on their freedom? I think that children certainly look to their caregivers for help in getting what they want, but I'm not convinced that they actually *want* boundaries. If they *do* want them, then why would they protest when given them? And if they do not protest, then there is obviously no coercion involved.

***I (as a positive disciplining parent) provide those boundaries when my child is too young to provide them for himself, while at the same time being sensitive to my childs needs and what my child may need/want to learn from a given situation. ****

I think we agree, if you mean by "boundaries," that you help your child learn what may be unsafe and offer acceptable ways of doing what s/he wants to do. I think it's our responsibility to help our children get what they want in ways that are not harmful to them. There are non-coercive ways of helping children learn *their own boundaries*. But imposing boundaries from outside is, imo, coercive.

****I also don't believe that children are born knowing exactly what they need.****

I think children are born knowing what they need. They just do not always know--nor are they capable--of satisfying those needs safely and effectively. They learn this through experience and knowledge. And they learn this *safely* by having parents who will help them satisfy their needs with common preferences whenever possible.

***I think that comes with life experience. They gather that type of info over time, after living out natural consequences. (*not* to be confused with logical consequences). ****

The ability to solve problems on one's own comes with life experience. But the ability to know one's own intrinsic needs comes with life itself. I think that human children need parental guidance for as long as they do because human's survive according to how well they are able to solve problems (unlike, say, tigers who survive through aggression). It takes a *long time* to learn how to solve problems effectively and with the least harm to those involved. And any interference in the ability to learn this important skill is, imo, irresponsible and harmful to the child (both in the present and long-term).

***I also feel that it is my job to block natural consequences for my child while they are too young to experience them safely.***

I agree. And I think this can be done non-coercively.

Netty


----------



## Daisy

Who is it you are quoting?


----------



## jtsmom

jbcjmom,

I usually am on the computer at night. I can't tell you how much sleep I've lost. Not just the tcs thing, I find all of it addictive! I keep saying, Ill shut it off at 10, 11. 1130. Then I don't get to bed until about 12, and drag my butt around all morning.

have a good weekend
jtsmom


----------



## Netty

Sorry, I'm quoting "webbeccjo" (from the thread "Why Choose Coercion?") I didn't attribute the quotation because I didn't want any one individual to think I was picking on her. I'm just commenting on the argument in general. I'll remember to attribute quotations from now on as I see that it would be important at times to consider the comments in context. Sorry about that.

Netty


----------



## amnesiac

> _Originally posted by Netty_
> 
> "What makes you think that children--unlike adults--want to have boundaries placed on their freedom? "
> 
> I, for one, am an adult & I do enjoy the imposition of certain boundaries within my community. I like the fact that we have a speed limit to follow, that limits are placed upon what we are permitted by law to do to other people, that restrictions are placed on child labor, .....
> I like limits a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If they *do* want them, then why would they protest when given them? "
> 
> Well now I believe in some cases that would be to test how firm and how flexible that limit actually is.
> 
> "I think it's our responsibility to help our children get what they want in ways that are not harmful to them. "
> 
> Is it a realistic expectation that we should always be able to get what we want?
> 
> "And they learn this *safely* by having parents who will help them satisfy their needs with common preferences whenever possible."
> 
> Or caving & letting them have their way when common preferences are not possible as the TCS theory advocates?
> 
> "The ability to solve problems on one's own comes with life experience. "
> 
> How do you suppose children learn to effectively cope with coersion if they are raised in TCS households where they have no life experience dealing with it?


----------



## Britishmum

I'm trying to stay out of the tcs threads as much as possible and have made an effort this week to post on other threads that are getting little traffic.

I'm not the slightest bit threatened by tcs, nor do I feel offended by the tcs posts. Irritated and frustrated sometimes by what seem to be elusive answers, but certainly not upset. I have researched tcs and quite simply don't fully agree with it. There are weaknesses in the theory, but I have no problem with others quoting it, as long as they don't offer irresponsible advice, which I have seen happen a few times.

I emphatically do not believe that tcs should have its own board here. That would give it status above and beyond other parenting philosophies, which may be equally as valid, just because it can cause controversy.

I'd really like to see more balance on the boards now. It's really up to any people who feel the same to start alternative discussions and to bump up the non-tcs threads by scrolling down to look for them and then responding to them.


----------



## ekblad9

Call me what you want but I don't know what TCS is. Can someone please tell me?

Thanks!


----------



## MamaLeah

You know, I almost edited my last post to add this, and I didn't so now I will.

I don't think that you are wrong and I am right. I think that we see the same situation differently. I believe that I am seeing things clearly, and I believe that you are seeing things clearly, but because we are different people and bring different experiences to the table, we are seeing things differently.

Does that mean no one should ever speak their mind? No. It means that we will all have different things to say. Which is good, right? Even though I don't agree with you on this specific point, I don't think you have lost your marbles.

Of course, I'm only speaking for myself. Thanks for your efforts and thoughts.


----------



## paula_bear

Well said, Britishmum.


----------



## Icicle Spider

I'll give this a go (ducking)...

Quote:

_Originally posted by amnesiac_
*One thing I noticed in that thread you mention was the reference to intrinsic motivation. I wonder if a TCS approach doesn't foster the use of manipulation to create "intrinsic" motivation? How might manipulation be preferable to coersion in this case?*
Manipulation is not preferable to coercion, it is one and the same. Could you explain why you think TCS fosters the use of manipulation?

Quote:

*I also noted elsewhere a statement that children raised in TCS households are better able to avoid coersion when they later enter school & other coersion-filled environments. We know that the extent to which individuals are able to cope with problems is greatly dependent upon our prior experiences. I wonder, if a child has been raised without experience with coersion, how are they able to effectively deal with it at a first exposure in older childhood, adolescence or adulthood? Might children raised with some degree of coersion actually have more effective and creative coping mechanisms for finding common preferences (or is this what one might also call "creative problem solving"???) in later life?*
This is the same argument used by those who advocate putting an infant to sleep in a room all by itself. Johnny is eventually going to have to learn to be by himself, so he is learning a valuable skill right now.

Johnny is eventually going to be coerced, so I am teaching him a valuable skill right now.

I think this is just a cruel as the infant left to cry itself to sleep.

There is no such thing as a child that has not experienced coercion, even in the strictest of TCS households







(that was an attempt at a little pun). A child will experience plenty of coercion outside of the parent/child relationship from the get go. Usually, all it takes is a trip to Grandmas. I see it as my job to help my children negotiate the coercion they experience, not to add to the coercion they experience.

Also, the older and more mature a child is, the better they are able to deal with higher levels of coercion, just as an older child is better able to deal with being separated from it's mother. So again, it just doesn't make sense to expose a young child to something they are not emotionally ready for.

Pat


----------



## mamakarata

On the old board, I too got a little tangled up in a TCS debate about who has t.v. in the house or not. I had posted a Waldorf view point regarding tv and got back a response from a tcs'er that was something like "I won't even begin to address the Waldorf theory" as though it was the worst TCS offender.

My first reaction to this and the TCS concept was to argue the same points...what if my child wants to (smoke, hit, jump off a bridge) etc. I talked about it for weeks in my household, with my husband, with my 11yo DD who was ready to post her own opinion against it. You know, got all worked up about the adaucity of this theory.

Then I started asking myself what I was so upset about? I only react strongly to something when I am fearful. So what am I afraid of? That my own parenting is flawed? That I am about to realize some huge mistakes I have been making? Do I have to rethink my parenting?

Then I had my own TCS moment with my 11yo wanting permission for something I was inclined to decline. But found myself analyzing why I would decline. No, it wasn't anything racy like "Mom, can I shoot up heroine after school today" or anything. Much more boring. But still, I found myself questioning my initial response, and realized it was doable if not at least discussable. But that came up because of the TCS threads. I really did learn something about myself and my own self imposed fears.

I think theories that really questions our reality are super beneficial to our own growth. I decided then that rather than look for all of the flaws in it, I would look for ways it would work. Without laying some heavy expectation on myself, but at least being open to learning more options and seeing my child in an even more respectable light.

I for one have not been able to soley rely upon my "intuition" because it was so riddled with my own childhood experiences. What might seem like intuition could actually manifest itself into a spanking, or yelling. I for one had to rethink many of my initial responses to my child. Especially when it echoed some of my own child hood behavior and how my parents responded.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a "Born again TCS'er" or anything. But I have learned that much of the ridicule and abuse thrown at children is really a desperate and mostly unconscious attempt to protect them from a negative response that we ourselves endured from our own abused parents. It's like an unopened package that until we open it and examine it, we keep passing on to our children. Make sense?

My point is that since I decided to find what works about it, rather than analyze the flaws (which I believe there to be) I have found the posts enjoyable. I would rather see positive TCS suggestions to particular situations than an argument of how the theory is flawed, or how other theorys are flawed. Just real life situations brought to the board with suggestions from everyone's theory in response. How cool would that be? To get suggestions from say an AP parent, a Waldorf parent, a TCS parent. There are so many options available, I consider us lucky to have such a diverse group of passionate parents give us their insights.

IMO, everyone here is cool. Let's keep working at supporting eachother.


----------



## geomom

Well, I have lurked and posted here for about a year. The TCS debates seem to come and go. Generally, I'd say the TCS people mostly respond to criticisms of their philosophy. Thanks for the stats, paula_bear!

Of course, I kind of like TCS because I don't like specific 'how to' advice.







I am the philosophical sort. And I practice a kind of consensus parenting that seem at least superficially similar to TCS theory so that is probably why I am not bothered it.


----------



## Netty

I will respond to this at the "TCS -- problem" folder so things don't get too confusing 

Netty


----------



## Netty

****One thing I noticed in that thread you mention was the reference to intrinsic motivation. I wonder if a TCS approach doesn't foster the use of manipulation to create "intrinsic" motivation? How might manipulation be preferable to coersion in this case? ****

I'm not sure of your reference, but I don't quite understand the connection between instrinsic motivation and manipulation. I do not advocate manipulation, as it is another form of coercion. Intrinsic motivation is not something that one can "create" in someone else: it is either there (instrinsic) or it isn't. TCS parents strive to preserve and aid instrinsic motivation by ensuring that children either get what they want or prefer what they are getting instead. TCS children are not forced into "wanting" something that they do not really want. For example, a child who "chooses" to eat hir vegetables so that s/he can get hir dessert is making hir choice based on *extrinsic* rather than *intrinsic* motivation (s/he would really just rather have the dessert, perhaps, or something else instead of the vegetables). Extrinsic motivation often interferes with--and can even replace--intrinsic motivation, so that we may come to lose that sense of ourselves that inherently knows what we want or don't want. I know that I, personally, suffered from this and still struggle with it at times. Coercion can make it difficult to distinguish what one *truly* wants rfrom what someone *tells us* we *should* want.

****I also noted elsewhere a statement that children raised in TCS households are better able to avoid coersion when they later enter school & other coersion-filled environments. ****

It stands to reason that children who are exposed to non-coercive problem solving will be more able to solve problems non-coercively for themselves.

****We know that the extent to which individuals are able to cope with problems is greatly dependent upon our prior experiences.****

I agree.

****I wonder, if a child has been raised without experience with coersion, how are they able to effectively deal with it at a first exposure in older childhood, adolescence or adulthood?****

Hopefully, they won't accept it and they'll know themselves well enough to avoid it or deal with it when they do encounter it. You seem to be implying that TCS children never have problems. That is, of course, not true. TCS parents don't sheild children from problems; they help them solve problems effectively. TCS children have problems just like all children. The difference, however, is that TCS children are helped to solve problems in a way that does not involve coercion of themselves or those close to them (i.e. those who are willing to engage in non-coercive problem-solving). Given this exposure to non-coercive problem-solving, it stands to reason that TCS children will be able to deal effectively with coercive people. Most importantly, they will be able to recognize states of coercion and avoid them whenever possible.

*** Might children raised with some degree of coersion actually have more effective and creative coping mechanisms for finding common preferences (or is this what one might also call "creative problem solving"???) in later life?****

I don't see how coercion would help someone find common preferences. If, for example, Johnny is forced into a bath against his will, how will he learn that he could have become clean by having a shower, or using a washcloth, or going for a swim? How will he learn that it is, actually, quite alright to go without a bath when one doesn't want it? How will he learn that it is wrong to force other people to do things they don't want to do? And how will he learn to avoid doing this when faced with his own problems later in life?

Netty


----------



## summermom

How about taking a break from the arguing and posting and counterposting going on in this forum? You are all intelligent, thoughtful, articulate and knowledgeable mothers -- why not focus your energy and knowledge in helping other mothers in need of support like someone who is going through a difficult pregnancy or is facing issues of grief or loss. Or someone who needs information about a medical problem, or needs help with a plugged duct.

Controversy is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is wearing a little thin right now. A break from the combativeness might be healing to you as individuals as well as to all of us as a community.

This suggestion is not put out there with the intent to silence. I simply want to encourage us all to stop "fighting" and trying to "win" and use our wisdom to help those in need instead. I hope this post will be accepted in the spirit of gentleness it was offered in.

Thanks for reading this.


----------



## k'smami

I really like your post.


----------



## darlindeliasmom

Well, I for one just wanted to wade in here to say that I was one of those who was becoming distressed before the boards crashed that every question asked seemed to elicit the same snotty advice.
While the boards were down, I decided to try to learn more about TCS, because I was trying to find the source of my odd malaise. Am I right that this philosophy stems from Ayn Rand's Objectivism? seems to share much of the same language... I've always found "enlightened selfishness" just creepy, and so have given myself permission to scroll on by. I DO feel frustrated for moms who have to wade through this stuff every time they have a parenting concern.
Whatever. I just know that with this atmosphere, I would hesitate to ask for advice/support in this forum.
Now I'll just return to lurking here again...


----------



## Sahara

I like the idea of moms who don't want TCS input to just put 'no TCS response' or something in the thread or question. I've seem moms who can't breastfeed or have a homebirth do that when asking questions in other forums. That way moms who don't know about TCS will still get diverse input, but the moms who don't wish to put TCS philosophy into practice make their interests clear.


----------



## amnesiac

"Manipulation is not preferable to coercion, it is one and the same. Could you explain why you think TCS fosters the use of manipulation? "

In teaching our children about our world, parents frequently use insidious means of imparting our own opinions unintentionally so as to convince the children of what they think about given situations. This creates a situation wherein the child develops what he perceives as an "intrinsic" concept, when it actually has been created by the manipulation of the parent.
Example- my child is playing Nintendo & it's bedtime. I say, "it's important to get plenty of sleep so that your body can work the way it's supposed to & you don't get sick. I can see by your yawning that your body is getting tired. Do you think you should turn off the game & go to bed now?"
Now, I have not marched in & said "Turn off the game & get in bed" as a "coercive parent" might. However, in offering assistance in solving the problem, we have indeed found common preference & he does really want to go ahead to bed, but it isn't really intrinsic, it's based on the information I've given him & thus have manipulated his choice.
Or perhaps I've misunderstood--maybe a "TCS" parent would just let them play until they fell asleep in the floor?

"it just doesn't make sense to expose a young child to something they are not emotionally ready for. "

So what is the measure of "emotionally ready" to experience coercion?

"TCS parents strive to preserve and aid instrinsic motivation by ensuring that children either get what they want or prefer what they are getting instead. TCS children are not forced into "wanting" something that they do not really want."

Now I'm really confused...how can one prefer to get a substitute for what we want? I don't understand how that can happen. If your job is to ensure that they "prefer" to get that substitute, you have indeed manipulated their desires & gotten them to accept what they didn't really want.

"It stands to reason that children who are exposed to non-coercive problem solving will be more able to solve problems non-coercively for themselves. "

I take this to mean that they will be better able to avoid behaving coercively & agree with that premise. How does it enable them to effectively cope with coercion from others? If you have no experience with coercion & don't know what it is, how can you know how to effectively deal with it?

"How will he learn that it is wrong to force other people to do things they don't want to do? And how will he learn to avoid doing this when faced with his own problems later in life? "

I have vivid memories of instances in my youth where I was forced to do something against my will & now, as an adult, I consciously avoid repeating those offenses against others. I personally learned that it is wrong & how to avoid it, based upon my feelings in response to experiencing it firsthand. Not that I advocate extreme forms of coercion, but based on my own experience, I wonder if firsthand experience with coercion in the form of rules & limits isn't a more powerful motivator than "TCS" approach for some children?


----------



## Iguanavere

Icicle Spider said somethings very inconsistent....that a child may not be emotionally unready to handle some things (sorry if I am paraphrasing....)

Isn't that they same as being irrational? In other TCS threads, one of the arguments about limits, bourndaries, rules, has been that children are not as rational as adults, therefore it is important for us to impose limits on certain things.

TCS says that we should not assume children want limits. Yet, Icicle Spiders says:

"So again, it just doesn't make sense to expose a young child to something they are not emotionally ready for."

If they are not ready for it, are you manipulating their environment or them by not exposing them to something they can't handle emotionally. And why can't they handle it, if all children are rational.

I think TCS is a case of miseducation. IT has so many great intentions, but doesn't seem to really understand children. Children are so different from adults. They learn differently - everything. They should be given the same respect as adults, but it must be age appropriate - it must be something they can understand.


----------



## Iguanavere

that these TCS discussions are awesome, but really don't belong in this forum - perhaps "Talk Amonst Ourselves" is a better choice?


----------



## k'smami

My problem with Just Wondering's original post is that I haven't read the TCS babies thread and it's quite long now so I've got some work to do before I can even formulate a response. So I'll be coming back here after I read it.

Now to address hypocrisy...

First I'd like concrete examples of how someone didn't take an adult seriously in this forum. This would be for my own purposes to see if in fact I believe there has been hypocrisy. I won't debate it but I'd just like to know.

Second even if someone on this forum didn't take an adult seriously (and I'm not really sure what the criteria for this is, in your opinions), I would probably be right in thinking that the context would be quite different than how TCS defines taking children seriously. The reason is because in the Parent/Child relationship, adults have the power and can force thier will on thier children and thereby not take their need to learn about something and thier rights to personal autonomy seriously. This is in my opinion what TCS means by taking children seriously (Please tell me if you don't think so). Now if I were to apply this definition to the allegations that people are not taking the adults on this forum seriously, I fail to see how this has happened and even if it's possible. No one on these forums has the power to force their will on the other adults here- except the moderators, and even in this scenario they can't control what people do in thier homes or how they think. They have a chioce to ignore, argue, or never come back. Children are not given these chioces. So, my opinon is that it isn't hypocrisy to advocate TCS and not take the adults seriously (if the definition that I think you are applying is correct) on this forum. Furthermore if this has to do with personal attacks, I think that it's hypocritical to even condemn TCS people for it if others on the other side of the debate are doing it also. By doing the same thing, in my opinion, you negate any right you have to complain about it for you are breaking the very rules you want upheld. Sounds inconsistent to me.

Another meta-discussion- How's that for inconsistent! LOL


----------



## Netty

****Icicle Spider said somethings very inconsistent....that a child may not be emotionally unready to handle some things (sorry if I am paraphrasing....)

Isn't that they same as being irrational? ****

No, it's not the same. This is a common misunderstanding of the terms "rational" and "knowledgable". When we say that humans are born rational, we are referring to the process of conjecture and refutation through which all human beings learn. Infants learn by the same process as adults (critical rationalism). They improve or reject theories based on new information. That information comes through knowledge and experience. Children do not learn by having information forced into them, as though they were empty buckets waiting to be filled with the water of knowledge. Children gain knowledge by living in the world and going through the processes of conjecture and refutation of theories. They do not have the knowledge and experience they often need to solve problems, but they learn according to the rational process. They are born rational, with the ability to learn. How else do they learn to talk, to walk, to reach for an item, to crawl? TCS strives to encourage, rather than discourage, the process of critical rationalism.

***In other TCS threads, one of the arguments about limits, bourndaries, rules, has been that children are not as rational as adults, therefore it is important for us to impose limits on certain things. ***

Children are just as rational--if indeed not *more* rational--than adults. They may be more rational precisely because the process of critical rationalism has not yet been hindered or thwarted through coercion (wherein one is forced to adopt a theory that does not yet make sense).

****TCS says that we should not assume children want limits. Yet, Icicle Spiders says:

"So again, it just doesn't make sense to expose a young child to something they are not emotionally ready for." ****

I don't want to speak for Icicle Spider, but I would say that we shouldn't force children to accept (i.e. act on) theories that do not make sense to them. To force a child, for example, into a bath when s/he does not understand why s/he should have one and doesn't want one, is to interfere with the rational process. If, on the other hand, we can find a *reason* for having a bath that makes sense to the child, then we are not hindering their rational processes (for example, fun bubbles, soap paint, bath with Mama, pretend to be a fish, etc.). If we unable to find a reason which makes sense to the child, then we should accept their reasoning (even if we do not understand it), since they have a right to bodily integrity. We can always try to find reasons the next day, or the child might agree to have a bath at a later time, for their own reasons.

****If they are not ready for it, are you manipulating their environment for them by not exposing them to something they can't handle emotionally. And why can't they handle it, if all children are rational.****

They may not be able to handle something because it doesn't make sense to them to act on someone else's reasoning rather than their own (based on the knowledge and experience they have so far). This is the same for adults, isn't it? Given time and assistance, they will gain more knowledge and experience. But the process of rationality begins the moment someone has a desire (i.e. a theory).

***I think TCS is a case of miseducation. IT has so many great intentions, but doesn't seem to really understand children. ****

On the contrary, I think that TCS is the only educational theory that I've come across which *does* understand children in the sense that the theory recognizes that children are rational. TCS theory recognizes that *all* human beings learn the same way and that coercion interferes with the natural process of learning (i.e. rationality).

***Children are so different from adults. They learn differently - everything. ****

I disagree. Why do you think that children learn differently than adults? I agree that they have less knowledge and experience than adults, but they learn by conjecture and refuation just as adults do.

****They should be given the same respect as adults, but it must be age appropriate - it must be something they can understand.****

Precisely. That is the basis of TCS theory. We should never force a child to act on a theory that they cannot understand and, therefore, agree with.

Netty


----------



## Icicle Spider

Quote:

Example- my child is playing Nintendo & it's bedtime. I say, "it's important to get plenty of sleep so that your body can work the way it's supposed to & you don't get sick. I can see by your yawning that your body is getting tired. Do you think you should turn off the game & go to bed now?"
Now, I have not marched in & said "Turn off the game & get in bed" as a "coercive parent" might. However, in offering assistance in solving the problem, we have indeed found common preference & he does really want to go ahead to bed, but it isn't really intrinsic, it's based on the information I've given him & thus have manipulated his choice.
Excellent point and example. This scenario you describe could be either coercive or not...hows that for a classic wishy-washy TCS answer!

If the child decided, "you know, I really am tired, and the last time I stayed up all night long playing Nintendo I missed out on going to the beach, so I think I'll call it a night", then it is not coercive.

But if the child relented because they knew that there really wasn't a choice in the matter, then it is coercive.

TCS defines coercion as "the psychological state of enacting one idea or impulse while a conflicting impulse is still active in one's mind." In other words, coercion is just a state of mind! The same exact scenario could be coercive in one person's mind, while it is not in another's.

A good example of this for adults are road speed limits. For some adults, they like the idea of everybody driving at a slow pace and are more than happy to abide by the posted limit. Other adults think it is an imposition on their own choice and are in a constant state of coercion while driving.

Quote:

Or perhaps I've misunderstood--maybe a "TCS" parent would just let them play until they fell asleep in the floor?
Yes, they would, and what is wrong with that?

I know that as an adult, I spent countless hours playing the text computer game Adventure..."You are in a twisty maze of passageways, all alike...".

I think it is GREAT when anybody gets so interested in something that they don't even want to stop to go to sleep. I know that for me, some of the best and most exciting learning experiences are like that.

Why do we deny children the excitement and intensity of being totally absorbed into something? It has been my experience that when they go at it 110% that they will eventually learn all they need from it and move on to something else. Also, much is learned about how to manage such focused interest. Sometimes we have to over do it to learn what is too much for us personally. A great example of this is the "This TCS thing has made me insane!" thread.

Quote:

So what is the measure of "emotionally ready" to experience coercion?
This is part of our job as parents to help each individual child figure out. I see this as an extension of the AP philosophy of creating a secure home base from which they can explore the world from. A strongly attached child decides when and at what levels of detachment they are ready for, and they know they always have a secure home base to return to.

So the answer to this question is, it is different for every child. Yet another wishy-washy TCS answer!

Quote:

I have vivid memories of instances in my youth where I was forced to do something against my will & now, as an adult, I consciously avoid repeating those offenses against others. I personally learned that it is wrong & how to avoid it, based upon my feelings in response to experiencing it firsthand. Not that I advocate extreme forms of coercion, but based on my own experience, I wonder if firsthand experience with coercion in the form of rules & limits isn't a more powerful motivator than "TCS" approach for some children?
I am sure that this same argument must be used against AP. "I wonder if firsthand experience with separation in the form of separate bedroom isn't a more powerful motivator than "AP" approach for some children." This very well might be true, but at what cost?

And again, as it has already been stated, children will be experiencing plenty of coercion outside of the parent/child relationship.

Quote:

Icicle Spider said somethings very inconsistent....that a child may not be emotionally unready to handle some things (sorry if I am paraphrasing....)

Isn't that they same as being irrational? In other TCS threads, one of the arguments about limits, bourndaries, rules, has been that children are not as rational as adults, therefore it is important for us to impose limits on certain things.
Is a baby separated from it's mother irrational for crying? I think not, I see such crying as a very rational response to the situation from the information it has. And again, every baby is different. Some babies are perfectly fine to be away from their mother for awhile, while other babies are not. They are all different individuals and they all know when they are ready for detachment.

This is what I meant when I said that a child may not be emotionally ready. They have very rational reasons for not being ready. Does it make an adolescent irrational if they are not emotionally ready for intimate relationships? I think not, I am sure they have their own very rational reasons.

Quote:

I think TCS is a case of miseducation. IT has so many great intentions, but doesn't seem to really understand children. Children are so different from adults. They learn differently - everything.
TCS agrees children are different than adults. Everyone has their own learning style, adults and children. You claim that children "learn differently - everything" than adults. When does this different learning style switch over?

Quote:

They should be given the same respect as adults, but it must be age appropriate - it must be something they can understand.
What levels of respect given adults are not understandable by children?

Pat


----------



## Ms. Mom

Thanks Sarah, as a Moderator that's the kind of information I need to here.

We really are trying to work out a solution. One that won't silence all the wonderful voices here, but also won't drive anyone away.

I like this to when my kids are arguing. I'm inclined to send them both of to seperate corners. But that solution dosn't solve the problum. It only segregates them and drives the wedge between them deeper.

It's a tough task because we're all so passionate about our children. I keep telling myself that this problum is better than the alternative - not caring!


----------



## Netty

****"What makes you think that children--unlike adults--want to have boundaries placed on their freedom? "

I, for one, am an adult & I do enjoy the imposition of certain boundaries within my community. I like the fact that we have a speed limit to follow, that limits are placed upon what we are permitted by law to do to other people, that restrictions are placed on child labor, .....
I like limits a lot! *****

Yes, but these "limits" make sense to you, do they not? They are not limits in the sense of *imposed* boundaries that you do not agree to have imposed upon you. You abide by these laws and limits because you understand and agree with them. But if, for example, someone came along and told you that all adults must bathe at 7:30 each night, would that be an acceptable limit to you? I would think that you would protest because, perhaps, you like to shower rather than bathe or you like to bathe at 10:00 when the children are asleep, etc.. Now if this same person gave you a good reason (i.e. one that you understood and agreed with), you might then agree to have a bath each night at 7:30. When we agree with a rule, it does not rule us and it is not an imposed limit.

****"If they *do* want them, then why would they protest when given them? "

Well now I believe in some cases that would be to test how firm and how flexible that limit actually is. ****

If you agree with a law, do you test it? For example, if you agree that driving at a certain speed makes sense, do you test this limit? Would you, for example, speed by a police car just to see if the officer would, indeed, give you a ticket? You might speed past the police officer if you didn't understand the law of speed limits or were unaware of them. And you might do this as a way of protest because you disagreed with the law, but I doubt you would do this if it were a law that made sense to you and were one that you agreed to abide with.

****"I think it's our responsibility to help our children get what they want in ways that are not harmful to them. "

Is it a realistic expectation that we should always be able to get what we want?****

Yes, I think so. Sometimes, if we are unable to get what we want, we can at least want what we get. In other words, what we get should make sense to us. If it does not make sense to us, we should certainly strive to change our circumstances, don't you think? The example I like to use is that of the Wright brothers. They wanted to fly. But, of course, they couldn't fly. By understanding why they couldn't fly (making sense of it), they came to see how they *could* fly by building a machine. They understood the limit and then strove to overcome it. If they had merely accepted the limit--even a "natural" limit such as gravity and human physicality--they would not have created new knowledge.

****"And they learn this *safely* by having parents who will help them satisfy their needs with common preferences whenever possible."

Or caving & letting them have their way when common preferences are not possible as the TCS theory advocates? ****

That one is hard, I know ...But if we, as responsible parents, accept that we should respect our children's desires if we cannot find a common preference, then we will work that much harder at finding/creating them, won't we? If, on the other hand, we could merely resort to coercion whenever a common preference couldn't be found, we would do so (just as non-TCS parents do). After all, it is certainly easier *at first* to resort to coercion. I know that I had a very hard time at first and did tend to self-sacrifice often as I worked on understanding my child's needs, my own needs, and the process of finding/creating common preferences. And sometimes I *would* resort to coercion. But if I merely accepted, therefore, that coercion or self-sacrifice is inevitable, I wouldn't have continued working on improving my problem-solving abilities. And I wouldn't be where I am today. I can tell you that TCS has changed far more than my relationship with my children. It has changed by relationship with life!

****How do you suppose children learn to effectively cope with coersion if they are raised in TCS households where they have no life experience dealing with it?****

But why should we learn to cope with coercion? Should we not, rather, learn to avoid coercion of ourselves and those we claim to love? TCS children still have problems. But it stands to reason that they learn how to solve problems non-coercively the more often they are exposed to non-coercive problem-solving. They will likely learn to respect their own desires and needs rather than subsuming them under someone else's. And they are more likely to learn how to do this without interfering with other people's autonomy. I don't believe that any human being should have to cope with coercion. The more we can do to help one another and ourselves out of coercive states of mind, the happier and more autonomy-respecting we will likely become. No one likes being coerced. Why would we assume that children do?

Netty


----------



## amnesiac

"When we agree with a rule, it does not rule us and it is not an imposed limit. "

No, it is a self-imposed limit. I believe we are getting into a bit of a semantical disagreement with this, so I won't go any further than to say that a boundary by any other name is still a boundary...regardless of whether one agrees with the reason for the boundary.

"But if, for example, someone came along and told you that all adults must bathe at 7:30 each night, would that be an acceptable limit to you? "

Since we are in the "Gentle Discipline" forum, I'd venture a guess that few among us are going to be so strict as to impose such a rigid rule upon our children. Flexibility & options are always desirable to me, however, it has been my experience that young children appreciate a predictable routine & so I don't have a problem in the least with asking them all to adjourn to the bathroom after dinnertime on most nights.

"If you agree with a law, do you test it? For example, if you agree that driving at a certain speed makes sense, do you test this limit? ...I doubt you would do this if it were a law that made sense to you and were one that you agreed to abide with. "

Actually, you're quite wrong. This particular law is indeed one that I have been known to test in the past even though I do understand it, agree with it & usually abide by it. I also recall many times as a teenager doing things just to see how far I could go.

"if we are unable to get what we want, we can at least want what we get. In other words, what we get should make sense to us. "

Just because an outcome makes sense to us doesn't mean that we necessarily find it desirable in any way.

"If they had merely accepted the limit--even a "natural" limit such as gravity and human physicality--they would not have created new knowledge. "

So in your opinion, is it acceptable for your child to not accept the limits placed upon whether s/he may hurt other people in order to get what s/he wants?

"why should we learn to cope with coercion?"

Because it's part of living in our world. Somewhere in life, we are certain to encounter coercion in some form. My question is, how exactly do you teach your child to avoid it? Is standing in line & waiting your turn in the grocery store an acceptable form of coercion that we must learn to deal with?

"No one likes being coerced. Why would we assume that children do? "

Who was assuming that?


----------



## Heavenly

Okay I will not even go into my opinion of TCS but I just want to say I do not feel it is discipline. The board is supposed to be for Gentle Discipline, when I post a question say how can I handle my child throwing things or something I am asking for gentle (non-spanking ways) to deal with the problem. I don't want to hear all this "advice" about how there must be a way I can allow him to throw things. That is NOT discipline. I think there should be a separate board for TCS because TCS is a parenting theory, not a method of discipline. And I for one am SO sick of hearing it.


----------



## Heavenly

I am not saying that TCS people shouldn't post here but maybe it would be helpful to have a board devoted to TCS so if people want advice or information about TCS they can go there. Look at the first page for crying out loud, it's all TCS. This board is basically completely TCS and I for one would like to have an ACTUAL board to devoted to gentle discipline - my definition of gentle discipline being no spanking, yelling, etc. I was excited when I first saw this board but now I don't even want to post on it because it is certainly not what it says it is. TCS, IMO, is not discipline, it is a theory of raising children. I want to be able to come to a board and ask for gentle ways to get my child to take a bath, not to be told he shouldn't have to take a bath and that I'm coercing him







: . I'm not saying TCS people can't put their opinion in but how about learning a little thing I like to call humility and saying "this is what works for our family" not coming at it with the attitude of "this is the way a GOOD parent would handle it, how can you be so mean to your child, actually thinking you, as a parent, may know what's best!? Horrors!"


----------



## summermom

Larsy, Just Wondering, Netty, Paula-bear, others -- what do you think? Do you think this is a good idea, or no?


----------



## Netty

****No, it is a self-imposed limit. I believe we are getting into a bit of a semantical disagreement with this, ****

I think that semantics are extremely important if we are to understand what each of us means.

****so I won't go any further than to say that a boundary by any other name is still a boundary...regardless of whether one agrees with the reason for the boundary.****

There is a difference, as you noted above, between an imposed limit and a self-imposed limit. I am not referring to self-imposed limits (since they are feely made), but to limits imposed from without and which one does not agree with or does not understand.

****"But if, for example, someone came along and told you that all adults must bathe at 7:30 each night, would that be an acceptable limit to you? "

Since we are in the "Gentle Discipline" forum, I'd venture a guess that few among us are going to be so strict as to impose such a rigid rule upon our children. ****

I didn't mean to imply anything by that example. It was an example used in an effort to clarify my argument.

****Flexibility & options are always desirable to me, however, it has been my experience that young children appreciate a predictable routine & so I don't have a problem in the least with asking them all to adjourn to the bathroom after dinnertime on most nights. ****

I don't have a problem with that either. I only have a problem with *coercion*. That is when someone is made to do something against their will that they do not understand or have no desire to do.

****"If you agree with a law, do you test it? For example, if you agree that driving at a certain speed makes sense, do you test this limit? ...I doubt you would do this if it were a law that made sense to you and were one that you agreed to abide with. "

Actually, you're quite wrong. This particular law is indeed one that I have been known to test in the past even though I do understand it, agree with it & usually abide by it. ****

Can you clarify when you have "tested" this law? Have you done so for a *reason* or simply in order to test the limit? And if you did do this to test the limit, did you have good reason (by your lights) for doing so?

****I also recall many times as a teenager doing things just to see how far I could go. ****

Of course we all test *natural* limits. I'm referring, however, to limits imposed from without. My point is that if people are given limits that do not make sense to them or that they do not agree with, they will seldom abide by them. And I don't see why one should.

****"if we are unable to get what we want, we can at least want what we get. In other words, what we get should make sense to us. "

Just because an outcome makes sense to us doesn't mean that we necessarily find it desirable in any way. ****

If it is avoidable, then it is best that we learn how to avoid it. If it is not avoidable, then we learn how to accept it because we understand that it is unavoidable. The important point is that we do not remain in a state of coercion.

****"If they had merely accepted the limit--even a "natural" limit such as gravity and human physicality--they would not have created new knowledge. "

So in your opinion, is it acceptable for your child to not accept the limits placed upon [hir] whether s/he may hurt other people in order to get what s/he wants?****

No, of course not. Everything I have written so far explicitly says that I am against coercion. Why then would you assume that I would want my child to coerce someone else? I strive to find/create *common preferences* wherein no one needs to be coerced into doing anything they do not want to do.

****"why should we learn to cope with coercion?"

Because it's part of living in our world. Somewhere in life, we are certain to encounter coercion in some form. ****

I am always saddened when I hear someone say that coercion is part of living in our world and that we, therefore, need to learn to accept it (and teach our children the same). Why would we want to perpetuate this idea? Perhaps you are confusing the idea of a problem or conflict or desire with a coercive state of mind. It may help if I clarify the difference: A coercive state of mind is when one is enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in one's mind. When someone has a problem or conflict or desire, one is not necessarily in a state of coercion. For example, when I read this message from you, I was faced with the problem of clarifying my thoughts and ideas. And I desired to do that as soon as I read your response. You presented me with a problem. But I saw this problem as good and helpful to me because it would help me to clarify my thoughts as well. I was eager to respond. But, just as I finished reading, my child asked me to help hir do something. I was faced with a conflict (either write this message or help my child). I solved this problem by *choosing* (freely and without coercion) to help my child because it makes sense to me that s/he is my primary responsibility. Once s/he was happy, I turned my attention to this message and my response. Though I was faced with a conflict, at no time was I in a state of coercion.

****My question is, how exactly do you teach your child to avoid it? Is standing in line & waiting your turn in the grocery store an acceptable form of coercion that we must learn to deal with?****

Again, these are examples of problems that can be dealt with either by accepting them (i.e. making sense of them for oneself) or by overcoming them (finding a way of getting groceries, for example, without having to wait in line [get someone else to shop, order groceries by phone, bring along a book to read while in line, etc]). One would be in a state of coercion (really self-coercion) if one stood in line waiting when one didn't want to and it made no sense (by one's own lights) to do so. If, for example, I wanted to go to a movie with a friend and my husband--who was supposed to go shopping--forgot to pick groceries up on his way home, I would be in a state of coercion while I stood in line and I would no doubt resent my husband. And if someone were pointing a gun at me and forcing me to wait in line when I preferred to be doing something else, I would also be in a state of coercion.

****"No one likes being coerced. Why would we assume that children do? "

Who was assuming that?****

Then you agree that children dislike being coerced just as do adults? If you agree with this, why would you (general, not specific, you) choose coercion over finding/creating common preferences? And if you would prefer to find/create common preferences, where do we disagree?

Netty


----------



## Linda in Arizona

I agree.


----------



## peggy

Heavenly,
I know how you feel, it has been frustrating lately. I also don't think a seperate forum is the answer. As JW said, read Cynthia's response in Question and Suggestions. I really liked her answer to this dilemma.

peggy


----------



## peggy

I, for one, am done debating. I know..I know..I've said that before..But I really mean it this time!!!!























peggy


----------



## Iguanavere

for articulating much of what I wanted to say.

Icicle Spider - yes it is factual that babies and chldren learn very differently than adults. "Miseducation: Preschoolers At Risk" discusses concrete evidence regarding this - the author is David Elkind.

Here I quote his book:

"The learning of young children is manipulative and fundamental as opposed to the learning of older children adn adults, which is symbolic and derived. For us as adults it is easy to take our immediate world of annimate beings and inanimate objects for granted. We are so caught up in our symbolic world of future plans and projects, or past successes and failures, that the immediate world often seems secondary to what is to come or what has gone before. Even when we do doncentrate upon the present, as in savoring a special dish or a fine wine, our pleasure comes as much froma sophisticated, experienced palate as fromt he food or wine itself. As we mature, each new experience is interpreted from generalizations of similar experiences in the past and anticipations of comparable experiences in the future.

For the young child, however, there is only the present, and each experience is fresh and unique."

"Young Children, then, learn through direct encousnters with the immediate world of people and objects, throughe xploring these experiences with all their senses and combining these experiences to arrive at more comoplex and complete schemas or elementary concepts of the furnishings of everyday life. This type of manipulative learning is a necessary prerequisite to the symbolic learning that will come later."

"We miseducate young children when we ignore the manipulative and fundamental nature of their learning....There is considerable evidence to support the negative effects of presenting formal instruction to children who are not yet equipped to learn in the sumbolic and derived modes."

(Sorry to simply quote, but I would be paraphrasing him anyway."

anyway, all that to say that if you are not aware of a child's developmental skills and you try a TCS "rational" approach to explaining why the sun shines to your 3 year old, to me, it sounds like you would beusing abstract and symbolic ideas.

A 3 year old doesn't want that much information - nor can their little brains handle it (except maybe Just wondering's children, who sound so exceptionally smart!) What a 3 year old wants to hear is: "The sun shines so we can have light and so the grass will grow." They do not want to hear about thermal-dynamics and the rotation of planets. So when you go outside, as a responsible parent I would say, "The sun might give you too many kisses, so we are putting on some sun screen before we go outside. It is your choice - put sunscreen on and go outside or stay inside."

It maybe coercive - but getting skin cancer really sucks, so in our family - that is what we do.

Sorry to be so quick and short - my plumbing is exploding!


----------



## Icicle Spider

Just Wondering asked:

Quote:

Nothing I suppose... but lets take it further. If the child stayed up all night, and was so tired that they turned around and said "I'm not going to school today" or "I'm not doing any schooling at home" the TCS parent was say "fine..."(by your logic. Yes?)
Correct, because the child doesn't go to school nor does "school at home".

Quote:

And just say that the same thing happens every day.... with the child is up all night, and sleeping all day, and seemingly will not shift on to a new way of thinking (I think you said that iye they usually do) the TCS parent stands there and does nothing? oh, maybe they might discuss all the logic reasons as to why sleep at the appropriate time might be a good idea, ... but what say that child just doesn't want to know? and there looks to be no end to that phase?
There are lots of people who sleep all day and stay up all night. For some people this is the way they are the most productive, others because they work graveyard shifts. Being able to quickly adjust between day routines and night routines can be a very valuable skill, especially in certain industries like airlines.

Quote:

As an aside, at the bottom of your posts you have as your moniker...Why did you use this? Even with "apologies"? That is twisting the meaning to suit yourself. How would you feel if someone did that with something you had written(yes I know he's dead, but does that make it okay?) - knowing that in doing that they had changed the meaning......?
I decided on that signature because I was thinking about what you said in your very expressive welcoming message to me on the Questions and Answers forum with regards to TCSers thinking they invented something new. That's what got me thinking about the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" and that that is what TCS means to me.

Life is a no-brainer, Liberty is the absence of coercion, and the pursuit of Happiness is working towards getting what you want.

So I looked up the Declaration of Independence and came up with what Thomas Jefferson really wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Well, that didn't ring just quite right, so I changed "men" to "people". Once I made that change, I realized that I was no longer speaking for anyone than myself, as opposed to Thomas Jefferson's situation, so I also changed the "We" to an "I", resulting in the signature below.

So my apology to Mr. Jefferson is that I changed two words, not that I changed the meaning. What I have also done though, that I do not apologize for, is to extend that meaning to in fact include "all people" including children. I do not think Thomas Jefferson meant to include children or even women for that matter.

Pat


----------



## Jish

Jennifer,
A pat on the back from me. Good response. I tried to get on the Gentle Spirit board through the first link and failed. I haven't tried the second link, but maby now I might, I'm curious what they see as Christian discipline.

To anyone...Doesn't Dr. Sears have a book on Christian parenting? If so, has anyone read it?


----------



## Jish

Paula_Bear,

When you are out and about and you need to get by someone don't you simply say "excuse me" to make the person aware of your presence. Most people are not rude, they are simply unaware that they are in someone elses way. So I guess you could say that I move people out of my way all the time. By telling my child that he is in someone elses way, I am simply giving him the opportunity to move, which he does. With my 14 month old I do physically take his had after I have drawn his attention to the person waiting to get by, and I simply say to him something such as "move over here, babe, so this woman can walk by." It is rude and self centered to block an aisle, and by pointing it out to my toddler, and physically showing him how to fix the situation by taking his hand and gently moving him out of the way I show him how to handle it in the future. IMO if I don't show him how to right the situation, who will?


----------



## Jish

By the way, you criticized my handling of my child in that situation, but you didn't respond to my actual question which was wants vs. needs. Any thoughts here?


----------



## Netty

Iguanavere wrote:

****yes it is factual that babies and chldren learn very differently than adults. "Miseducation: Preschoolers At Risk" discusses concrete evidence regarding this - the author is David Elkind.****

Could you clarify where you see "concrete" evidence in the passage you quoted? It seems to me that David Elkind is promoting a theory about learning. In fact, his theory is quite similar to TCS:

****"Young Children, then, learn through direct encounters with the immediate world of people and objects, through exploring these experiences with all their senses and combining these experiences to arrive at more complex and complete schemas or elementary concepts of the furnishings of everyday life. This type of manipulative learning is a necessary prerequisite to the symbolic learning that will come later.****

This is simply a long way of saying that children learn by conjecture and refutation of theories (critical rationalism). The symbolic (or abstract) learning that Elkind refers to comes later because young children do not yet have the knowledge and experience to understand abstractions. This does not mean that children learn differently. To say that would be similar to saying that a first-year English Literature student learns differently from a fourth-year one because the fourth year student has read Shakespeare and, therefore, has a greater understanding of the Renaissance period of literature. It would be wrong to expect an infant to understand abstract concepts in the same way that it would be wrong to expect a first-year English student to understand Northrop Frye's account of Shakespearian Tragedy (though, I should add, one should always keep an open mind ;-))

I agree with Elkind when he writes:

****"There is considerable evidence to support the negative effects of presenting formal instruction to children who are not yet equipped to learn in the sumbolic and derived modes"****

This is precisely what I have been arguing in the other forums concerning boundaries, coercion and problem-solving.

****anyway, all that to say that if you are not aware of a child's developmental skills and you try a TCS "rational" approach to explaining why the sun shines to your 3 year old, to me, it sounds like you would be using abstract and symbolic ideas.****

I would not explain why the sun shines to my 3-year-old unless s/he asked. And then I would explain it in a way that seemed to satisfy hir. There are many adults who can't grasp why the sun shines. Do you think they, too, should be coerced until they are able to understand?

****What a 3 year old wants to hear is: "The sun shines so we can have light and so the grass will grow." They do not want to hear about thermal-dynamics and the rotation of planets. ****

I would not presume to know what a 3-year-old thinks based on someone else's developmental theory. I base this solely on paying attention to my 3-year-old and what s/he is interested in learning.

****So when you go outside, as a responsible parent I would say, "The sun might give you too many kisses, so we are putting on some sun screen before we go outside. It is your choice - put sunscreen on and go outside or stay inside."****

So kisses burn, do they? Sounds like a bad theory to me ;-) Why not just tell them the truth?" The sun is hot, like the stove or this fire, and it can burn. We don't realize we are burning because the sun is so far away and the burn happens slowly." And if the child is too young to understand or care very much about this fact, the parent can find a better reason (according to the child) for wearing sunscreen (fun colours? A special massage with moisturizer before going out?) or can consider other ways of protecting the child's skin from the sun (avoiding outings between 11:00 and 3:00, wearing thin long sleeves and pants, wearing a hat of the child's choice, etc.

****It maybe coercive - but getting skin cancer really sucks, so in our family - that is what we do.****

I don't think that what you are suggesting is coercive as long as the child agrees to wear the sunscreen (though I don't think your explanation is very honest). If the child does not agree but wants to go out anyway, you are coercing them if you won't allow them out or seek an alternative solution. There are many ways of avoiding sunburn and skin cancer. Sunscreen is just one of many.

Netty


----------



## Jish

The tcs issue has been such a hot topic lately, and since they aren't going to start a new forum exclusively for it I have a suggestion. Perhaps it should move to the "activism" forum. The arguements seem to be heading in that direction.


----------



## Icicle Spider

Just Wondering wrote:

Quote:

I asked you what you would do if your child just wanted to slack around, with an upside down routine.

I didn't ask you about the people who sleep all day and work all night.

I asked what you would do if your child did this.

Now, I could assume that your answer would be "nothing". But I can't assume that, can I? So could you please answer the question?
Your correct that I would not do nothing.

I would try to understand what they are accomplishing with such a routine and try the help them accomplish it. I would try to take an interest in whatever it is that so fascinates them. I might even join them for a couple of nights if I could swing it. All nighters can be a great way to get really good at a video game.

From your original question you did not mention "slacking around", so I did not make that assumption. If I thought the child was "slacking around", (warning, here comes the TCS party line!) I would seriously examine why *I* thought they were slacking around. What looks like slacking to one person, might be the most creative moments to another. I suspect that the time I am spending composing these posts would be considered slacking around by some.

I know of a very accomplished theoretical physicist who claims some of his better inspirations came to him while watching television.

Have you read any of the books by Daniel Greenberg on the Sudbury Valley School? In one of them, I forget which one, he describes a child that did nothing but fish in the school pond for years and years, day in and day out. It looked like a whole lot of slacking around, but that child was 110% focused while he did it. He later went on to be a very successfully computer professional by applying the same intensity that he learned from all those years of fishing.

Pat


----------



## Daisy

nevermind


----------



## Britishmum

Netty said about laws, "Yes, but these "limits" make sense to you, do they not? They are not limits in the sense of *imposed* boundaries that you do not agree to have imposed upon you. You abide by these laws and limits because you understand and agree with them. But if, for example, someone came along and told you that all adults must bathe at 7:30 each night, would that be an acceptable limit to you?"

It seems to me that part of the problem with tcs is that the tcs advocates seem to think that anyone who doesn't subscribe fully to tcs philosophy must by definition believe that coercion of extreme shapes and forms is 'good' for children.

I would hazard a guess that most people visiting a Mothering board entitled 'Gentle Discipline' do not impose such rigid rules on their children. I would also guess that most people visiting these boards would explain to their child their reasons for rules of any sort.

It would seem to me that these discussions would stray less from the topic and be less volatile if tcs advocates could try not to give give such extreme examples of coercion.


----------



## Iguanavere

It is very sweet of your to come to my defense.

In truth I am not offended by Netty's post which references my post. A little, mmm, I'm not sure - I guess it just seems a little pedantic. I just don't know why I am drawn to this debate - It makes me giggle so!

Anyway, Netty, about concrete evidence. The passage I quoted wasn't meant to be cited as the concrete evidence. I quoted that passage to illustrate an idea I was having a hard time articulating. You see all my toilets had just backed up into my bathtubs (3 in total) and my grandmother had just bathed in crap! I was a little crazed, had food in the oven and plumbers running all around my house. Why am I posting? Crazy, I know!

Anyway, you would need to read Mr. Elkind's book and / or check his bibliography for the cited research.

I think that you missed the point - which would be easy, considering how disjointed my last post is....

You say that Elkind's passage is a long way of explaining :

"that children learn by conjecture and refutation of theories (critical rationalism)."

I do not think that is what Elkind is theorizing. In fact, I would propose that Elkind would say that excessive conjecture and discussion of theories would be, for lack of a better phrase, way over most children's heads.

I bring up the topic of miseducation mostly because so many of the TCS suggestions in this forum revolve around a lot of explanations to the child about why they should do what we want them to do. Most of the suggestions are simply not age - appropriate.

For example - in the car seat debate, one suggestion is to allow the child's teddy bear to sit on the seat and to watch what happens when the car stops suddenly. I do not believe that a toddler can rationalize that they will get hurt, because they can clearly see that their teddy bear did not get hurt.

Toddlers and pre-school age children do not understand death in the concrete way that adults do. It is one reason why television can be so detrimental to children, as they cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality.

If we try to use symbolic teaching to find common preferences, in my opinion you are miseducating and I feel it is harmful.

And yes, when the sun kisses us too much you get burned. At least that is what happens in our neck of the woods. Oh, yeah - Santa Claus is a yearly visitor at our house as well!


----------



## Icicle Spider

> Iguanavere quoted "Miseducation: Preschoolers At Risk" (which I won't repeat)[/QOUTE]
> 
> I agree completely with David Elkind as quoted. Everything he describes is attributed to a lack of knowledge, not the way we learn.
> 
> Consider if you were to take two identical twins, educate one in the finest universities, and lock the other one in a dungeon away from all learning. After 20 years, do they both now learn in the symbolic world of adults? No, but both are equally rational, the difference between the two is not how they now learn, but what knowledge they have acquired.
> 
> Just Wonderings example of the fact that children learn languages much easier than adults is also an excellent example of the effect of knowledge. The reason most adults have a hard time learning a new language is because they have *TOO* much prior knowledge. Their knowledge of a current language hinders their learning process for new languages.
> 
> Lack of knowledge has been used to coerce people all through history. Slaves were considered stupid and irrational, when in fact all they lacked was knowledge. Women were denied suffrage because they were considered "irrational", they just don't think like a man, so what makes them think they should be able vote. All of this is false, everyone is rational by their own lights. Everyone has very rational reasons for acting or thinking what they do.
> 
> We could go round and round on this forever because this is one of the main points of TCS that is a Gestalt type shift of thinking. The realization that in fact children really are completely rational. It is totally counter to all current thinking about children, even here at Mothering magazine. It is really a mind twister. It took me a long time to "see it" and to understand what the implications are.
> 
> Pat


----------



## Leonor

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*By the way, you criticized my handling of my child in that situation, but you didn't respond to my actual question which was wants vs. needs. Any thoughts here?*
My thoughts are that an individual has wants and to him/her, those wants are the same as needs. It means if the individual desires aren't satisfied some amount of suffering occurs. Other people might judge some of him/her needs as invalid or luxury.

For instance, parents tend to consider their childreen need clothes but don't need toys. This is a mistake as usually children could do well without clothes (so many struggles to get those snowsuits on) and the wanted toys are really important for them to learn things about the world (one *only* learns by playing).

For me there are things amongst basic needs that for other people could be seconds, like having a TV, VCR, camera, computer and Internet connection. I don't mind only eating noodles with beans or always wearing the same old clothes.


----------



## amnesiac

Regarding the learning of language, my boys were actually a part of an ongoing language research study at MIT overseen by Professor Steven Pinker. I was sent a copy of Pinker's book The Language Instinct which is interesting for anyone curious enough to read it.

With regard to children staying up into the night...
My children happen to be really sensitive to sleep in that, if they don't get a certain number of hours at night, they invariably get sick. One might argue that they could just sleep later in the morning, but their little biologic alarm clocks don't work that way--no matter when they go to bed, they always wake up between 6:45-7:00 each morning. So that's why I insist on having a bedtime each night, with the occasional exception. I happen to firmly believe in Maslow's heirarchy of needs & feel that it certainly applies in this situation--the physical need for a sleep requirement must be met before the psychosocial desire to play the game & any resulting creativity may occur.


----------



## amnesiac

Quote:

There is a difference, as you noted above, between an imposed limit and a self-imposed limit. I am not referring to self-imposed limits (since they are feely made)
Now this confuses me. I was under the impression that a self-imposed limit is equivalent to self-coercion & that TCS advocates the total absence of coercion in any form. Is that wrong or do you follow a less rigid TCS application?

Quote:

Can you clarify when you have "tested" this law? Have you done so for a *reason* or simply in order to test the limit? And if you did do this to test the limit, did you have good reason (by your lights) for doing so?
No, I can't clarify as I'm afraid it's happened many times for many reasons. Sometimes it's been for a good reason, like on the way to the ER. Sometimes it's been just because I felt like it.

Quote:

Of course we all test *natural* limits. I'm referring, however, to limits imposed from without.
Actually I was talking about limits imposed from without. Perhaps you might explain what exactly is the distinction between a "natural" limit & an external limit? Do the definitions ever intersect?

Quote:

I am always saddened when I hear someone say that coercion is part of living in our world and that we, therefore, need to learn to accept it
Firstly, I said we need to learn how to cope with it, not to accept it.

Quote:

If it is not avoidable, then we learn how to accept it because we understand that it is unavoidable. The important point is that we do not remain in a state of coercion
So it sounds like you're ok with being coerced into acceptance if you perceive it as being unavoidable?


----------



## Daisy

Okay everyone, see ya!
Netty and Iguanavere, I apologize for involving myself in your conversation.

edited because I'm tired of being misunderstood


----------



## Icicle Spider

Iguanavere wrote:

Quote:

I bring up the topic of miseducation mostly because so many of the TCS suggestions in this forum revolve around a lot of explanations to the child about why they should do what we want them to do. Most of the suggestions are simply not age - appropriate.

For example - in the car seat debate, one suggestion is to allow the child's teddy bear to sit on the seat and to watch what happens when the car stops suddenly. I do not believe that a toddler can rationalize that they will get hurt, because they can clearly see that their teddy bear did not get hurt.

Toddlers and pre-school age children do not understand death in the concrete way that adults do. It is one reason why television can be so detrimental to children, as they cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality.

If we try to use symbolic teaching to find common preferences, in my opinion you are miseducating and I feel it is harmful.
You are absolutely correct that all of these suggestions are not age appropriate for, well, a certain age, depending on the child. No where does TCS advocate using only symbolic teaching, these were all just suggestions, *depending* on the child.

There were many other suggestions for avoiding car seat coercion with very young children that did not involve any explaination to the child at all, such as using mass transit instead. These are all just attempts at being *creative* in finding a possible common preference. Who knows what the actual solution will be for a specific situation.

If you get caught up in picking apart any suggestion, you totally miss the point. You will be successfull in finding a scenario where the suggestion falls apart. But that doesn't invalidate those scenarios where the suggestion does work.

Pat


----------



## Jish

Please tell me you are not serious, a TV, computer, internet etc. are needs? Will you die without them? I don't think so. I think that this is why there are so many screwed up people now. We have our priorities totally out of whack. For thousands of years before us they managed to live without the luxuries we have today. They had what they truly needed to survive. Unfortunately, that isn't true because many people died due to starvation and exposure etc. That still happens today in our own filthy rich country. The next time you buy a toy you or your child "needs" think of the child who is out on our streets dying at that very moment because he has nothing to eat. When did we become such a selfish, me first society? I am doing my best to raise my children to change that, not to perpetuate it by catering to their superflous wants as if they were bonafide needs.


----------



## k'smami

I guess if we want to get literal we can establish a need as something that is necessary for survival but I typically express my needs differently and I think a lot of people do also.

For example, I NEED to wash my hair every 3 days or it will be dirty and dull-looking. Will I die if this doesn't happen? No. Many parents say thier children NEED to bathe everyday. Will they die if it doesn't happen? No.

In my home we NEED the computer and the internet. I need it for research and to connect with other mother's who think like me. Dh needs it for freelance projects. Will we die without it? No. And I'm sure if compelled we could even do these things without it but we have made it a priority, a need if you will, to keep it running and available.

We may say that we NEED vegetables in order to grow. But I managed my whole childhood without them (due to trauma from extreme coercion). And grew to an above average hieght of 5'8". I had regular cholesterol and a low bp (80/40) and only got sick once a year. Now I can say that I need vegetables in my life but I also know that I can survive without them.


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by Icicle Spider_
*Iguanavere wrote:
If you get caught up in picking apart any suggestion, you totally miss the point. You will be successfull in finding a scenario where the suggestion falls apart. But that doesn't invalidate those scenarios where the suggestion does work.

Pat*
I have to say that I agree with this statement. I have found this to be very true. In fact, it is what had kept me from actually actively applying TCS for many months after I had already agreed to the theory.

I believe I've said this elsewhere around here. There is no to-do-list with regard to finding common preferences. The point is to just find them. With some families the same solution would work, with other families another solution would work instead. The good thing about asking others what they would do in a certain situation is that we can have access to another pool of ideas and creativity.

However, I do also see the benefit of others rejecting a suggestion. When this happens there is also the opportunity to keep thinking and find an even better one. For example someone's rejection of my suggestion to show a child how to use electrical cords and outlets safely led me to think of another suggestion which a lot of parents may feel more comfortable with (giving a child an unplugged surge protecter that they can plug things into to show them how to use electrical cords safely). This is also a good way of looking at things with our children. A child's rejection of a suggestion can also present the opportunity to keep thinking and find an even better common preference.


----------



## k'smami

I limit my intake of refined sugars. I find that if I don't do this I invite a lot of health problems into my body (for instance, the presence of too much yeast







). This is a self-imposed limit because I'd rather not eat sugar than deal with the yeast. I do not believe that this is self-coercion because I prefer this to having the yeast issue.

In my opinion, self-coercion is doing something I don't want to do. For instance, there are some nights when I come home from work that I feel too tired to cook dinner. In my opinon, it is self coercsion to cook in this case. Especially if Dh can make dinner or there is something quick and easy that I can make without actually cooking like peanut butter on whole wheat bread with fruit.


----------



## peggy

Dear k'smami.
I respect your opinion very much. You have stated yourself that we should move on from this bickering, that things have been done on both sides that were wrong.
Given that I find it interesting that you are going back and answering all the TCs threads.
I gathered , perhaps wrongly, that everyone wanted to move on.

peggy


----------



## Leonor

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*The next time you buy a toy you or your child "needs" think of the child who is out on our streets dying at that very moment because he has nothing to eat.*
Are you thinking in the child dying in the streets this very moment? Why haven't you sold your computer yet to feed her? You don't need the computer! Do you think about it each time you buy an item for yourself?

The child in the streets is not my responsibility, it might make me sad but I didn't put her in the world, her parents are guilty of her misery, not me or my children. It would be wrong to make my child unhappy by not buying her the wanted toy and use the money instead to feed someone else's child.

Sarah Lawrence has a great article about this. It made me aware of this issue:

http://www.sarahlawrence.org/Article...ngEqually.html


----------



## paula_bear

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*By the way, you criticized my handling of my child in that situation, but you didn't respond to my actual question which was wants vs. needs. Any thoughts here?*
This is where you're mistaken, Beth. I did not criticize your handling of your child. This is a thread about TCS and I simply gave examples of how this situation could be handled without coercing the child. While pointing out to the child that someone needs to get by, and leading him/her by the hand is a very gentle way of handling the situation, it is still coercive, IMO, because the child had no choice in the matter.

Quote:

*When you are out and about and you need to get by someone don't you simply say "excuse me" to make the person aware of your presence. Most people are not rude, they are simply unaware that they are in someone elses way.*

My point was that, if you nicely ask someone to let you pass by saying excuse me without thinking them rude for blocking your way in the first place, why wouldn't you allow your child the same consideration? Why not wait for the person to say, "Excuse me." and then point out to your child that he or she needs to make way for this person to get by? It only takes seconds to allow the child to make this decision, based on the facts (person needs to pass, I am blocking the way, I can easily take this item and explore it over there in the corner, I guess the best thing to do would be to move...) I simply don't understand why this is so difficult. Or, as Just Wondering stated earlier, prepare for this situation in advance by explaining that if child wants to explore items in the middle of the aisle, he or she may have to move to let people pass.

I also must say that it will be easier for the child to follow this reasoning if he or she knows that the parent is trying to help him or her get what he or she wants. Meaning that, if you have been coercing your child up to this point (however gently, mind you, I'm not accusing anyone here of parenting in a "wrong" sort of way), he or she may not trust you yet, and these rational tactics may not work in the beginning.

Back to the wants vs. needs issue, does your child "need" you to treat him or her gently and parent him or her in the AP style (or whichever way you choose to parent)? Technically, no, he or she would most likely survive even if you beat him senseless in response to the above scenario. But we are all trying to do more than meet the minimum requirements for survival. TCS simply states that no coercion is ever justifiable. Does this mean that TCS parents never coerce their children? Heck, no! But they continue to make an honest attempt in every situation to find a common preference and to respect their child's "need" for autonomy.

If you don't agree with TCS, that is fine. Parent in the way that feels best and right to you. But I don't think any example you can think of will get a TCS parent to agree that coercion was indeed necessary or preferable...


----------



## Jish

PB,

First of all, I find that people seldom address my children directly. It often makes young children uncomfortable and I have found that people will often say "excuse me" to me when my child is blocking the aisle rather than directly address my child. This then places the ball directly in my court and I handle the situation as stated before. Just as I may never come up with a situation you can't find a way to TCS, you will never convince me that your way is correct. In fact, all this TCS discussion is driving me in the opposite direction.

Leonor,

Yes, I do feel guilty that I have so much and there are so many who have so little. That is why my family donates to the food bank, the free lunch program, buys Christmas presents for children who wouldn't otherwise receive one. We give to our church so they may help the many who need it. Our children also donate a portion of any money they might receive for b-days, Christmas, etc to charity. I really hope that my children are happy in their life, but in order to know happiness you must first know suffering. Otherwise, how do you know you are happy? I want my children to contribute to the world and to make a difference in the lives of people who have so much less than we do. We sacrifice a lot so that I am able to stay home with our children, but I realize that we are still very lucky to have everything that we have and I thank God every day for our good fortune. Just because I don't know a starving child personally doesn't relinquish me of all responsibility to help them. But again, I feel like I'm the only Christian on the board (by the way, my children's names are Christian and Jonah







)


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by peggy_
*Dear k'smami.
I respect your opinion very much. You have stated yourself that we should move on from this bickering, that things have been done on both sides that were wrong.
Given that I find it interesting that you are going back and answering all the TCs threads.
I gathered , perhaps wrongly, that everyone wanted to move on.

peggy*
Yes Peggy, I did say that I wanted to move past the bickering (i.e. personal attacks). I don't think I ever said that I wanted to end the discussions about TCS. Many people have said that thier problem is not that there is TCS discussion on this board but the way in which TCS people are discussing it. I didn't realize that in asking people to move on, people in fact were asking that the TCS discussion stop. If that is the case, I disagree. Asking that, when people are being respectful is in effect silencing opinions unnecessarily IMO.


----------



## k'smami

Quote:

_Originally posted by Just Wondering_
*Dear Ksmami,
Does an unplugged surge protector teach them that power sockets are dangerous? Or will they assume that every plug socket in the house is as safe as the "toy" you have provided them with? And go around treating the plug like the ones in their dead one, not realising that it is not a reflection of reality?*
The idea for using the surge protector was to teach the child to use sockets safely. I believe a parent can do this by as showing the child how to plug things in and what not to put into the socket. I'm sorry that I didn't make this clear, but under no circumstances do I suggest that a parent treat this surge protector as a toy and leave the child to hir own devices with it. Of course a parent should treat the dead plug as reverently as a live one as an example to the child in how to use it. The suggestion of the surge protector was to allay the parents fear of electrocution when teaching the child how to use plugs, not to allow the child to "play" with it as if it were some stuffed animal or what have you. A parent should treat this surge protector as any other to prevent the possibility that the child could assume that they could use it in a way that was not intended. Thank you for mentioning this Just Wondering, you have allowed the suggestion to become more concrete.


----------



## Leonor

Quote:

_Originally posted by Just Wondering_

1) That Sarah could consider her "theory" as the ultimate authority on poverty and its causes. But then, that exemplifies the attitudes of those who consider TCS the be-all and end-all of all humanistic issues. Since when has she been the ultimate economic, social and historial intellectual of the world?
I don't see where she writes she is the ultimate authority of humanistic issues or anything else, could you please quote? Being a libertarian, I find it weird she would say she was an authority of anything.

Quote:

2) That you were unaware of the issue before reading this article.
I wasn't unaware of the issue of poverty, I live in a 3rd world country, remember? The issue I was talking about, and I apologize for not being clear, is the wants vs. needs, the guilt of wanting and having possessions (I was talking about that in my post). It never crossed my mind that being selfish could be right.

Quote:

3) That in light of No 2, you seemingly looked no further for other explanations.
I know others explanations for poverty, but that was not what I was talking about.

Quote:

4) that seemingly knowing nothing about the issue, you then considered her article "great".

In order to assess the validity of any one article, I have always done extensive spadework to find out the realities of the world in total. Not one person's views. I guess, as a journalist, I am expected to.....
To find out the validity of one article and find it great one has to read how many on the same issue exactly?


----------



## Leonor

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
I want my children to contribute to the world and to make a difference in the lives of people who have so much less than we do.
Of course you should live the way you think is right and talk about your beliefs with your children, but you shouldn't want that they live in a certain way. It's their lives, it's them who should decide how to spend their wealth.

I also want that Bill Gates shares my fortune with me, but as I have no power over him, I'm out of luck. Unfortunately parents have a lot of power over their children.


----------



## Leonor

Quote:

_Originally posted by Just Wondering_

I never said she did. I asked the question

Since when has she been the ultimate economic, social and historial intellectual of the world?
This seems to be one of those kind of questions whose porpuse is to make what one says or writes invalid. Does one has to be the ultimate economic, social and historial intellectual of the world to write valid articles?

This makes me remember parents who ask their children "Since when are you a teacher/ doctor/ adult/ person?" to shut them up









Quote:

In my case, on any given topic, I usually research until the river runs dry from publically accessible sources.
You could have researched for your whole life and still not find the truth on the issue.


----------



## peggy

Dear k'smami,
I didn't want to silence anyone. I just thought refocusing on something else for a bit would calm things down. I was wrong.
The discussions continue, bickering and all.

peggy


----------



## Jish

Quote:

_Originally posted by Leonor_
*

Of course you should live the way you think is right and talk about your beliefs with your children, but you shouldn't want that they live in a certain way. It's their lives, it's them who should decide how to spend their wealth.*
That's a ludicrous statement IMO. Of course I want certain things for my children. Don't we all want certain things for our children? You simply want different things for your children than do I. TCS parents still want things for their children, their goals and the methods of achievement are simply different. My children get to decide how to donate their money and to what charity, and they (at least the oldest one) are excited that because of them someone will have a better day.


----------



## Jish

I've finally figured out how you all quote each other!!!!!!


----------



## peggy

But you wouldn't do that to us, would you???

peggy


----------



## Ms. Mom

Beth - I love your ideas on charity! Would you mind starting a post on that? I think we could have a fabulous discussion. Maybe in Parenting Issues? or TAO? Or if you think it fits here - go for it! Just let me know where you post it so I can contribute.

Sorry to but it here - I just thought it was a great idea!


----------



## tinawind

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Leonor

Of course you should live the way you think is right and talk about your beliefs with your children, but you shouldn't want that they live in a certain way. It's their lives, it's them who should decide how to spend their wealth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*

That's a ludicrous statement IMO. Of course I want certain things for my children. Don't we all want certain things for our children? You simply want different things for your children than do I. TCS parents still want things for their children, their goals and the methods of achievement are simply different.*

Some of the TCS philosophy is about helping children live in the ways that *they* want, even when its not ways that the parent would choose, its one of the things I like about that philosophy - of parents helping their kids do things that are important to the kids, even when its not a choice the parent would make.

I've known so many people (mostly teens & adults, but kids with other issues too) whose parents couldn't maintain support of them because the child practiced a different religion, came out as gay, disclosed abuse by a family member or friend, had strong differing political views, chose to give up all their possessions & live off the land, or chose things like being really into making money.

I think wanting certain things for your child, and wanting to help your child live the way your child wants to live can be more different than a different method of achievement. The way I read it (I apologize if this is a mistaken analogy) is that jcbmom was saying thing like 'one parent wants their child to be Baptist, another wants their child to be Buddist' and leonor was saying something like 'a parent wants their child to practice whatever religion (or none) that the child chooses'

It seems like very different kinds of things to me. I think a parent who is trying to raise a child to be Buddist and a parent who is trying to raise a child to be Baptist have more in common with each other, than either do to a parent who is Buddist or Baptist herself, and shares her religion with her child, but is trying to raise her child to experience religion in whatever form makes sense to the child.

Did that make sense?


----------

