# You HAVE to do things... (spin-off)



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I realize that this is being discussed in a few threads as a result of discussions of discipline so I wanted to create another thread so we could all discuss this topic.

I see a lot of people saying things like their children have to learn about the "real world" and that sometimes we all HAVE to do things, that we HAVE to obey certain rules, that we HAVE to learn and teach our children how the world works and various other references that to me, are basically justifications for there being times where we HAVE to be punitive.

I disagree. I feel that life is a choice. I feel that there is nothing in this world that I am doing because I have to do, but rather, the things I do or don't do are all consentual choices on my part directly related to the battles I choose, the way I choose to live, the comforts I am not willing to give up, the path I have chosen to take, the part I want to play in society.

I strive to teach my daughter that nothing she does or doesn't do is forced. I strive to teach her that by making certain choices, she will either be benefiting herself and her fellow (wo)man, or that it will be to the detriment of herself and her fellow (wo)man. I want to empower her, with my gentle guidance and love, to grow to ditinguish between choices that will benefit her and others or hurt her and others -- trusting, that people in general don't want to make choices that are going to hurt them. I trust that my daughter will grow to understand that doing kind deeds and treating herself and others with love and respect will result in a fufilled feeling, and not respecting herself or others, not loving herself or others, doing unkind things, will result in a feeling of unfullfillment inside. To me, this is just common sense.

I think the idea that we "have" to do certain things creates a society of blame and martyrdom. It makes it easy to pass our choices on to other people, or to wallow in our own self pity.

As this relates to parenting, I think that I am doing my daughter a service in attempting to create a completely consentual relationship, one not based on power, or punishment, or force. If all she knows is this, what is the likelyhood that she will allow someone to abuse her, or mistreat her? What is the likelyhood that she will blindly follow someone else's order without question, that she will allow those around her to mistreat others?

It has been very hard for me to unteach myself the things I have been taught. I did NOT grow up in an AP or GD home. It was a VERY punitive, very "parents are the boss", a very "we are not equal" type home -- and even though I know my parents love me, it is hard to not still have resentment at all the ways I feel they did my siblings and I a disservice.

No one has a perfect childhood. As much as we try, no one has it perfect, that is not reality. However, I will be damned if my daughter takes 10 years like I have, to heal from her childhood.

The very act of her being alive, in our house, was not a choice she made. She didn't choose any of it. She is basically "stuck" with us until she moves out. My goal for her as she grows, to feel as if she _had_ had a choice, she would have chosen us.

The act of me bringing her into the world doesn't give me authority over her choices and her body, and her life. Yes, I will happily provide a roof, clothing, food, guidance, love, acceptance, understanding, a soft place to fall -- I love being her mom and I want her to know that we are responsible for her safety and well-being... but that her body, mind, heart and spirit are her own.

She doesn't "have" to do anything, just as I don't. Or any of us.

Okay, bring on the "what if's" .....

"what if you are in a parking lot and your child doesn't want to get into the car seat and she is screaming, are you going to sleep in the car?".... and so on...


----------



## jgale (Jan 21, 2003)

Thanks for posting this. I have been thinking about this a lot, and reading a lot of the interesting discussion here on the topic. I also recently read Unconditional Parenting.

In theory, I totally agree with what you have written and I agree that life is full of choices and learning to toe the line is not what I want my child to learn from me. My problem is that the day to day logistics of maintaing that kind of relationship with a toddler has been impossible for my family.

I didn't see how old your daughter is, but my feeling is that non-coercive parenting is something that is on my radar now and will become more central to my parenting style as my son gets older and more verbal.

For now, I find the logistics to be unworkable. Yes, there are many many things that I can compromise, and many choices that my son can make rather than having me arbitrarily decide. But I can't do that all day long every single day in every situation. Sometimes if he really doesn't want to leave the park, then we can stay an extra half hour. But sometimes I have to go to work or I have an appointment or I'm just really freaking tired and I need to balance his desire to stay with my desire to leave.

I guess balance is what I find difficult to achieve in trying to parent a toddler non-coercively. Whenever someone posts here asking for suggestions on how to get their kid to do something or stop tantruming or whatever, there are almost always half a dozen replies about how the parent shouldn't be trying to get the kid to do whatever it was in the first place--"Why do you have to leave the park right then?" "Why does your toddler have to get into his car seat?" etc. I think that most people would acknowledge that at least occasionally you really do have to do something (ie. if you really have to go to the bathroom or someone is ill, etc), but I think that even in an ordinary situation the parents wishes and preferences should also be considered, equally with the child's.

To me, that is the bigger lesson here. Not that my child needs to obey my rules because I said so and I'm the boss, but that he needs to understand that in a relationship, there are two people and to be considerate of the other person's needs and preferences. Right now, he is too young for that. For example, he would like to nurse probably for an hour and a half every night to go to sleep. After about 40 minutes I usually tell him "Mama's breasts hurt, they need a break. Lets sing a song instead" etc. And he would choose to continue to nurse even so...because he's 2. So I take him off, and he cries for a few minutes, and then we sing a song and he falls asleep. There are a lot of things that I can justify forcing him to do because if I don't, his actions will so negatively impact me/his father/the dog etc and I just don't think he's old enough yet to understand that.

Incidentally, I must say that I really don't see that he is any less happy overall with me laying down the law a little bit more often, which I've been doing lately. I talked to a friend who recently weaned her three year old. When I asked her how she did it, she said "I just realized that it was ok to say no sometimes." I've kept that phrase in my head and I really think that it has helped me to find more balance in my relationship with my son.

I really enjoy these threads and I look forward to hearing other's thoughts on the subject.

Jessi


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
The very act of her being alive, in our house, was not a choice she made. She didn't choose any of it. She is basically "stuck" with us until she moves out. My goal for her as she grows, to feel as if she _had_ had a choice, she would have chosen us.

The act of me bringing her into the world doesn't give me authority over her choices and her body, and her life. Yes, I will happily provide a roof, clothing, food, guidance, love, acceptance, understanding, a soft place to fall -- I love being her mom and I want her to know that we are responsible for her safety and well-being... but that her body, mind, heart and spirit are her own.

...

Hmm, I wonder if our vastly different (yet not so vast as they are more different in "theory" than practice) parenting philosophies perhaps are related to vastly different theories of life itself.
I believe with all my heart and soul. In fact I would go so far as to say "I know" my children chose me. I did not choose them. I did not create them in so much as they chose me and came into the world through me.
So you think all of life is choices but she did nto choose you and is "stuck" with you.
WHile I think my children actively chose me, knowing me and what I had to offer them as a parent. Knowing what they wanted or needed from their childhood and knowing what I would provide.
I believe they knew what kind of guidance I was able and willing to offer and how much love I have to offer them.
And because my children chose me out of trust that I will care for and provide for and teach them, I do have a responsibility and even 'authority' over their bodies and lives at a very young age. This is an authority I believe they chose to entrust in me for safekeeping until they were old enough to claim it for themselves. Like a sacred trust.
I agree with everything in the end of the paragraph except to add that as guardians of their safety and well being I sometimes have to guide their bodies and instruct their minds and fill their hearts and nurture their spirits.

Joline


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

When I said she was "stuck" with us, I was being tongue in cheek...I'm sorry you misinterpreted that.

Reading your posts, we do have vastly different views in some areas, and in some areas we agree...that's cool...

I still maintain that it is not my job, nor my place to "control" my child...no matter how *nicely* I am controlling her. That is not to say I will never have to do something she doesn't choose to do, or that she will always get what she wants, or that it will always, in every circumstance be a solution she may have chose. Having said that though, I will never believe that my role as a parent is to show my child where "her place" is...that place being, *under* me.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I still maintain that it is not my job, nor my place to "control" my child...no matter how *nicely* I am controlling her. That is not to say I will never have to do something she doesn't choose to do, or that she will always get what she wants, or that it will always, in every circumstance be a solution she may have chose. Having said that though, I will never believe that my role as a parent is to show my child where "her place" is...that place being, *under* me.

Absolutely. I have no interest or stake in trying to convince you othewise. I am certain that you have reached your conclusions on how to parent your child with as much reflection and thought and study as any of us and your choice is only to be respected.

I also will never believe my role as a parent is to show my child where "her place" is either.
It doesnt mean that I do not have to sometimes control my children. But what it does mean is that when I do have to, it is to accomplish the goal and never to prove the above point.
In fact I think it is absolutely absurd that some people even think you have to "show him who's boss" or "where his place is" . Um. Children are BORN helpless and entirely dependant. THey pretty much know from birth where the power is. It is neither kind nor helpful to rub it in.
Joline


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
No one has a perfect childhood. As much as we try, no one has it perfect, that is not reality. However, I will be damned if my daughter takes 10 years like I have, to heal from her childhood.

The very act of her being alive, in our house, was not a choice she made. She didn't choose any of it. She is basically "stuck" with us until she moves out. My goal for her as she grows, to feel as if she _had_ had a choice, she would have chosen us.

The act of me bringing her into the world doesn't give me authority over her choices and her body, and her life. Yes, I will happily provide a roof, clothing, food, guidance, love, acceptance, understanding, a soft place to fall -- I love being her mom and I want her to know that we are responsible for her safety and well-being... but that her body, mind, heart and spirit are her own.

I am sorry that you had a childhood in which you felt that your body, mind, heart, and spirit were not your own. No boundaries can be as harmful to a child as too many boundaries. I hope that your daughter will help you come to a happy medium of protection and freedom.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Thanks for your words sapphire, and for your input johub...

I don't want to paint the picture like I had some kind of nightmare childhood. In fact, I am sure it was more similar to many people's childhood than different. Having said that though, I feel that different personality types respond and internalize situations differently -- and while I do believe that hitting and yelling and basically expecting complete compliance is damaging to all children, I feel it is very detremental to a highly sensitive, highly creative child who has a tendency to question authority.

This is a moot point if my child is the type (like my sister) to just obey without question. It is not a weakness of my sister whom I love very much, just kind of part of her natural personality (as a child anyway) --- with her, there were little power struggles, so there were few punishments ...when someone said put on your shoes, she put on her shoes. When someone said time for bed, she got ready for bed. So if my child happens to have the type of personality where she is just generally agreeable in most situations, then I really won't have to worry or think about much as it relates to discipline.

However, if my child is anything like me (and she is already a little spitfire)... it is important to me to embrace that, instead of constantly working against it. It is important to me to really let her know through my words and actions that her opinions matter, her feelings are just as valid as ours, that it is okay to question, okay to choose a different path, that no one is "in charge" of her, but rather, we are working directly with her to create an environment of mutually agreeable solutions. An environment where she is free to be whoever she is, free to make all of her own choices regarding what she wears, eats, when she sleeps, how she learns, and in most cases, where she goes, what she does, how her day is structured.

I firmly believe that when one is treated with kindness and respect, they return it 9 times out of 10.

It is hard for me to envision a situation where my child feels respected when I am the one calling the shots. Some of my favorite teachers in school or bosses at work were the ones who knew the responsibility of their job or role, but never pulled the "trump" card or had to remind me who was "in charge". Some of my least favorite people, are ones that did the opposite.

Mutual respect requires an equal relationship. (or as closely as possible taking into consideration our child's age, capacity for understanding, our responsibility to keep them safe etc)


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
It is hard for me to envision a situation where my child feels respected when I am the one calling the shots. Some of my favorite teachers in school or bosses at work were the ones who knew the responsibility of their job or role, but never pulled the "trump" card or had to remind me who was "in charge". Some of my least favorite people, are ones that did the opposite.

Mutual respect requires an equal relationship. (or as closely as possible taking into consideration our child's age, capacity for understanding, our responsibility to keep them safe etc)


Envisoin this for example. You want your child to have a healthy breakfast. YOur child wants the ability to choose their own breakfast. You offer yogurt with fruit or scrambled eggs and fruit. Your child feels powerful that they get to choose what they want. Mom feels like she has controlled the situation because she did not offer a banana split. If the child has unlimited choices, he or she might choose the banana split. Mom might not like this but mom is uncomfortable having control over the choice.
But in the above scenario where a child is given choices, the child has power appropriate to his or her age and experience but underlying it is the strategic control of the parent. Mom is calling the shots in the sense that only healthy choices are given. But the child is still respected when the choices are things she likes and she gets to choose what she wants at that moment.
This type of interaction is repeated in all types of circumstances. The child has a reasonable amount of control but it is underpinned by the overall control of the parent.
Joline


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

That's where we differ I suppose. Our child is (or will be, she is still only 5 months) allowed to eat anything we have in the house, for any meal. I don't worry about this at all, as we tend to eat very healthy, so it isn't as if she will be reaching for cheetos or banana splits, as we rarely have anything like that in our house.

If however, we happen to have tofutti (vegan ice cream) or tortilla chips (I make them homemade) or whatever else, that may not be "breakfast" food or even the utmost healthy, she is welcome to it for breakfast if she wishes.

You see though, I believe children and people in general are basically creatures of habit, or they find comfort in routine. If from the time she can eat finger foods until the time she can actively choose her own food, we are serving healthy meals, chances are this is what she will prefer -- but if one day she wakes up and says "mama, can I have tofutti for breakfast?" I would let her have tofutti. That will be her choice. The fact that nothing is off limits in our home foodwise, nothing will feel "forbidden" or off limits or like a big old treat that she can't have, or can only have when she finishes her meal, or can't have before a meal, or whatever....limits the novelty of eating tofutti for breakfast every morning. I feel if you take the punishment/reward/consequence/treat dynamic away from children, in this case regarding food, most children will naturally just think "I can have tofutti if I like, no biggie, but today toast sounds good" or whatever...


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I can respect taht your opinion on this differs.
However I do not think that this means the child in my example feels disrespected, which really was my point that a certain amount of parental control and a child feeling respected can go hand in hand.
You may not choose any amount of control. Swell.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I woldn't say "no" amount of control. If my child is running towards a busy street, my knee-jerk reaction would probably be to scoop her up, or grab her back, or yell (not at her, but a sort of frantic Stop!) or something...that is control I suppose.

However, things like forcing my child to eat what I think she should eat for breakfast, in my opinion, is not respectful. What if she doesn't want yogurt or whatever else? What if she wants last night's leftovers? Who am I to force her to eat something she doesn't want to, feeling really good that at least I offered her *some* choices? What if those choices weren't acceptable to her?

The reason we don't have a bunch of junk in our house, other than being health concious, is the fact that we don't want to be hypocrites either. I am SO not into the "do as I say not as I do" parenting...so if there are cheetos, she can have cheetos...but there hardly ever is something like that anyway.

The only exception is alcohol, because that is like, ya know, a federal law and I don't want my children being removed from me because they told their friends *mama lets me have beer*....


----------



## MomInCalifornia (Jul 17, 2003)

I am curious as to how you will feel allowing your daughter to run your day? You say she will have complete control over her schedule. So, when she wakes up and says she wants to go to the park, will you go? What is you have a scheduled appointment, or a headache, or just flat out don't feel like goig to the park?

I agree with giving children a sence of ownership in their world, and allow my daughter (almost 3) to make may choices. A choice of two outfits for the day, what she wants for snack etc. I, as the parent howeve, set the plan of the day. I take it the consideration of both my childrens wants, our family needs, and my desires as well.

What about when you have 2 kids and they each want something different, but at the same time.

And since you brought it up earlier, what about the car seat situation? What if you have a dentist appointment, which you will be charged for whether you show up or not, and which needs to be scheduled months in advance. What if she doesn't want to get in the seat, or heck, what if she really does not want to see the dentist?

While it sounds good in therory, especially with a child so young and with out many wants and strong opinions, I woulnder how it would really work with a family with older and multiple children.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I can see both sides of this story. I used to be firmly in the same camp as johub. I like order. I like to think I know better about when and what dd should eat, when she should sleep, how much TV she should watch, etc..... I felt like I am the adult, I have the experience, and it is my job to "help" dd make healthy choices.

Then......I had a very spirited child. From day one she was not at all interested in my experience or know how. She wants/needs to do what she needs to do and my attempts at manipulating it was completely unsuccessful.

I read all about non-coercive parenting before dd was born. I thought it was completely nuts. I could not imagine "dickering" with an 18 month old to negotiate when we would leave the park. It all seemed like WAY too much work and allowing the child to be very spoiled.

But having a spirited child turned out to be WAY more work than I ever imagined and it turns out that when we are more respectful of her making her own choices and having equal input in our family decisions (when she knows what is going on) has made things MUCH easier. She is only 2.25 years old. But already she understands when I say we need (or actually I propose) to leave the park for an appointment (or something) because I do listen to her input and do what I can to facilitate her choices whenever humanly possible. I can express my needs to her just as she can express her needs to me. And she is already extremely respectful of most people. It is amazing.

I started reading Kohn (with a very preconcieved negative attitude, I might add) when dd was about 18 months and we were in the middle of a non-sleeping tantruming nightmare. I really thought he was nuts. But in desperation I "tried on" some of his principles for a while and that is how we got where we are.

I feel much better about our relationship. it is not roses every day, but the tantrums seriously disappeared the day after I changed my own outlook. Bedtime was an absolute nightmare. I had the idea in my head that to be good parents, dd needed a "bedtime". It never worked and created huge conflict in the entire family every night. everyone was resentful, angry, tired, and exasperated. After thinking on it, dh and I decided that "bedtime" wa snot something dd wanted or needed. We threw the concept out and everyone is MUCH happier. Everyone. At first I was sad to give up our "couple time". But it turned out we only needed "couple time" because we were exhausted and resentful from the 2-3 hour bedtime process every night. Now we have "family time" and everyone is happy. How simple. How I wish I hd figured that out earlier.

I could go on and on about every little thing. Food struggles, clothing, carseats.......on and on and on...... It really is Ok to let your children have sya in these things. Big say. All of the say. It does work out.

It is not perfect. I sometimes revert to my old thinking when things get tough. I feel like yelling "WHY am I even negotiating whether to put the darn shoes on or not...JUST PUT THEM ON ALREADY!!!!!" But every day, I get better and our relationship together gets better and better. I will never be perfect.

I am "type A" 100%. This concept is very very hard for me to "get". But I am very glad that I did. I want dd to have joy in life. I want her to seek joy when she is an adult and not settle for the "I HAVE tos". I feel so free because I have just learned that joy now, at age 30. I grew up in a big "HAVE to" and lived my life that way. I can let that go. I do not want dd to live 30 years of her life that way.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I believe the control and disrespect are evident when the child's wish for their own body is disregarded, imo. For instance, when the parent exerts control by limiting an available option or imposing a mandated "choice", especially when this occurs for no life-threatening reason. The use of coercion is disrespectful, imo. Even if the child is told they "have to" do xyz.

*Coerce-v: 1. to restrain or dominate by nullifying individual will; 2. to compel to an act or choice; 3. to enforce by force or threat. syn: see FORCE. (Webster's Dictionary, 1972, pg. 160.)*

We have had "healthy" food choices freely available in our home and our son has chosen as CaptainCrunchy describes. He might eat a Rice Dream "ice cream" on wheat-free cone for breakfast any time he wishes. Sometimes that is two cones for breakfast, and sometimes it is 1/2 a cone that he has a taste for. There is no "have to" eat xyz before ice cream; so there is no dynamic of limiting or binging created in our home. However, if we are out and he wants an ice cream cone and we haven't eaten dinner, that would be fine too. (Although, since we avoid dairy, I would just explain if they don't have dairy free ice cream. And togehter we would work to find some other creamy sweet that he prefers, or he might prefer to wait until we get home, or he might choose the dairy.) Eating "healthy" alternatives has not been something that he avoids or refuses to do because they are not mandated either. He doesn't "have to" eat something when he doesn't want to. It isn't a power struggle that we have created. I believe making someone eat something they don't want to is disrespectful and disregarding even if it is "for their own good".

But, how would a child who grows up under a coercive paradigm recognize disrespect is the Catch 22 question. It is like fish not being able to perceive water; it is all they know.







It took me many years of living with my husband, who is always respectful of me and others, to recognize how disrespected my individual will as a child was. In childhood, I was told you "have to"; but I objected to the dissidence of being coerced to comply. And my awareness of being treated with disrespect grew as I experienced respect from teachers and others. The most profound experience was when I was employed, I was respected as an individual. Even though jobs had responsibilities, I still didn't "have to" do the job. I had a choice, unlike "having to" under the coercive 'directed compliance' of childhood.

No, Respect does not occur when one person controls another against their will, imo. Granted, there are plenty of parenting paradigms which actively endeavor to break a child's will. Coercive parenting to gain compliance or obedience may not be _seeking_ to break a child's will, but it still disregards, disrespects and is destructive of her will, in my own personal experience. At least until I could rebel and I didn't "have to" anymore.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Ditto Yoppervegan!


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I am curious as to how you will feel allowing your daughter to run your day?

I speculate from this post that you are working under the assumption that children are manipulative, selfish beings that don't care at all for the feelings of others, the schedules of others and that they have an ulterior motive to run the household. I don't agree with that or sentiments like it at all. Granted, young children are very age appropriately self centered in that they sometimes are unable to see past their own wants at the moment to work towards the greater good, or agreeable solution.

Of course I am not going to wake up in the morning, walk up to my daughter and say "the day is all yours...tell me exactly what you want to do all day and we will do it!" That to me, is not a two-way relationship. At the same time though, I am not going to wake my daughter up and tell HER what we are doing all day either, despite what she feels or wants or needs. Many parents do that. They say, okay we have to go here and there and to the shops and this and that and maybe if you "are good" we will stop at the park. I am not into that kind of parenting at all.

Of course there are times where things need to be done, such as dentist's appointments and the like. However, I feel that you will find very few children who are just wantonly defiant for no reason whatsoever than to get under their parent's skin and to make their lives harder. Many pepople parent from that perspective, I do not. If my child did not wish to see the dentist, perhaps the last time the dentist's office frightened her? Or perhaps she felt scared in the chair with a stranger looking in her mouth with a bright light? Maybe she hasn't brushed so well and she is afraid the dentist may scold her or something? Maybe she hasn't been there before and she is scared to go the first time, scared of the unknown? Maybe she is so immersed in doing something that she doesn't want to leave to go because she thinks she won't be able to revisit it later? There are a ton of reasons she may not want to go, but none of which I believe are "I want to run mom's day damn it, so I am NOT going to the dentist."

I don't believe children work like that.

If she didn't want to go to the dentist, we wouldn't go. Simple as that. I can say that because I feel when a child knows what to expect, (you talk about it days before or the night before), you explaiun exactly what is going to happen (the dentist is only going to look in your mouth) you explain the time frame (we are still going to the park, the dentist will only take about an hour), you talk about any fears, etc...it is very unlikely a child is going to stomp her feet and say..."I don't care... I AM NOT GOING AND I AM RUNNING YOUR LIFE!! HAHAHA!".....

I would think that if someone's child is consistently (key word, we all have off days)engaging in power struggles to try to retain or gain some control over the things they do and the places they go, what they wear, the things they eat etc... that maybe they are acting out as a result of being too controlled in other areas....


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

How would you (scubamama & captaincrunchy) handle it when your child wants to do something, but doesn't want to do something else that's a prerequisite? My daughter wants to go out every day. _I_ want my daughter to go out every day, because she's much, much easier to cope with if she gets some fresh air and exercise. However, my daughter does _not_ want to put on clothes...she doesn't want to put on shoes...she doesn't want to put on her coat. If I get her dressed, I'm using force. What do you do?


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I got a little OT on my first post. As to the "Have tos"......

I just do not get it. 99% of the time dd enjoys being with us. She likes new adventures and going shopping and visiting friends. She knows that getting in the carseat (not her favorite thing) usually results in doing something she enjoys. Occasionally she does not want to get into it no matter what. I usually find out later she has a diaper rash or a tummy ache that made the carseat seem like a horrible idea. Luckily it is pretty easy to work around. There is very seldom somewhere I "HAVE TO" go to. If we are talking about a dentist appointment that I will get charged for if I do not show up, I usually have some sort of care arranged for dd. Usually dh arranges to be home so I can go alone anyway. If she wants to go, all three of us goes and dh watches her there. If all of that fails, to be honest, I will pay the $25 charge before I force dd into the seat. I do not know why she does not want to go. It might be trivial (to me) or it might be serious. She is too young to tell me exactly. But I have to assume that she has a good reason (to her) and I should repect that. I get seriously carsick in cars. I have to be in the front seat and sometimes even must be driving. I recently visited freinds for a weekend and they wanted to drive me all over to see the sights. it was a very hilly curvy area. I was green in the backseat after 30 minutes. I asked if I could switch with the front seat person. She agreed and all was well. Dd is too young to negotitate something like this. All she would know to do is refuse the careseat. if I ignored that and stuffed her in anyway, I would seriously be disrespecting her. Now, i am pretty sure she does not get carsick since she is usually agreeable to get in it. But if one day she is not, I have to assume there is a reason and a valid one.....just as valid as my could-be-percieved-as-invalid-if-I-could-not-articulate-it request to sit in the front seat.

So in my opinion, a "HAVE TO" comes down to what is really important. I am not perfect (as I mentioned earlier) but I strive very hard to say that I "HAVE TO" respect my dd to the best of my ability before I "HAVE TO" do anything else.

I mean really, what is a "HAVE TO"? How often is there really a life or death "HAVE TO"? I can think of a few. I might have to save dd from oncoming traffic in a disrespectful way if it were an emergency. I might have to stuff her in a carseat in order to take her to the ER if she swallowed poison. Sure, i can grasp that those situations exist very rarely.

And I do not think it is about self sacrifice. First off, having children period is a sacrifice. There are inherent limitations in my lifestyle that comes with that. Not forcing my child to do things has not made my life more difficult. If anything, respecting my dd makes her more able to respect me. She does not dictate my entire day. Because we have a resepctful relationship, she can ask to go to the park and I can tell her if I have a headache and do not want to go. That might be the end of the conversation. Sometimes going to the park is more important to dd than my headache (to her). When that is the case, we discuss other options. Maybe dh can take her to the park. Maybe a friend can. Maybe she would be happy to wait until afternoon. And sometimes (very rarely....it has actually never come to this) there is some reason I do not understand that dd feels that her need to go to the park is so overhwelming that maybe I would reconsider my feelings in order to help her. Maybe she and dh planned a surprise party for me at the park. Maybe dd is meeting an important friend there. Maybe maybe maybe. The fact is I do not know. So until she can clearly articulate it (and sometimes adults cannot even do that....liek the surprise party) I have to trust that since we have modelled respectfulness, she is trying her best to do the same. Sometimes that means trusting. And just doing it. Not sacrificing, but giving dd a chance to call the cards that we as adults really get to do 99% of the time. I would bet that most times we would be pleasently surprised.

In actuality it does not really happen that way. dd knows that I feel her agenda is important and she therefore feels mine is important. She knows I have her happiness in mind when i make plans and therefore trusts that I am going in a direction that will be agreeable to her. And she also knows she can express her displeasure if things are going too much in not-her direction and she trusts that i will try and help her out with that. It really makes for an agreeable arrangement in which we each get what we want. WAY WAY WAY easier than trying to just call most of the shots and deal with her resistance all day.

I try to think of like my relationship with dh. He might have an idea to go out for the evening somewhere. I might have a headache and tell him this. sometimes he would say, "OK, I do not want you to be miserable with a headache all night, lets stay home". Sometimes he will say, "Oh, that sucks, but I think you would still have fun, let's try it". Then i get to say if I agree or not. Because I know that he respects me, I usually know he has my best interest in mind and therefore trust his suggestion more willingly than I would if I thought he had only his agenda in mind. Why should it be any different for smaller people? I think of how miserable our relationship would be if I just did what he said blindly knowing that he did not care about respecting me.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jgale*

Thanks for posting this. I have been thinking about this a lot, and reading a lot of the interesting discussion here on the topic. I also recently read Unconditional Parenting.

In theory, I totally agree with what you have written and I agree that life is full of choices and learning to toe the line is not what I want my child to learn from me. My problem is that the day to day logistics of maintaing that kind of relationship with a toddler has been impossible for my family.


Would it be possible if you didn't "have to" do it perfectly?

Quote:



I didn't see how old your daughter is, but my feeling is that non-coercive parenting is something that is on my radar now and will become more central to my parenting style as my son gets older and more verbal.

For now, I find the logistics to be unworkable. Yes, there are many many things that I can compromise, and many choices that my son can make rather than having me arbitrarily decide. But I can't do that all day long every single day in every situation. Sometimes if he really doesn't want to leave the park, then we can stay an extra half hour. But sometimes I have to go to work or I have an appointment or I'm just really freaking tired and I need to balance his desire to stay with my desire to leave.


Parenting in a nuclear family is difficult, especially when you are going to work on a schedule. That choice does impinge on your life and your son's. Just as it benefits your life and your son's. The underlying need is for adequate family finances. Could adequate be redefined? Could this need be met in other ways? Could a more flexible work option be sought? Could going to the park occur sometime other than when you are needing to go to work immediately afterwards? I imagine a part of your son's reluctance to leave the park is that he is enjoying undivided mama time! I don't know his age, but I imagine he understands that work = no mama at home. Could you be going home to something fun when leaving the park instead of home with mama leaving (ie. special water play, bubbles, ride bikes with dada, go for a stroller walk with dada, play ball with dada). 'Home with mama leaving' doesn't sound like where he wants to go when you leave the park. I found that going to the library from the park had the benefit of finding a video and then going home. And leaving the library had the benefit of watching the video at home and that eased the transition from the "most fun" to the "least fun" activity.

What could make the appointment more enjoyable for him? We bring food and a backpack full of books and little toys to engage himself while I have an appointment. I bring dada along to engage our son when I have an appointment. Sometimes they go places or stay home together while I have an appointment. There are options to make these things possible which meet both his needs and yours, imo.

Quote:



I guess balance is what I find difficult to achieve in trying to parent a toddler non-coercively. Whenever someone posts here asking for suggestions on how to get their kid to do something or stop tantruming or whatever, there are almost always half a dozen replies about how the parent shouldn't be trying to get the kid to do whatever it was in the first place--"Why do you have to leave the park right then?" "Why does your toddler have to get into his car seat?" etc. I think that most people would acknowledge that at least occasionally you really do have to do something (ie. if you really have to go to the bathroom or someone is ill, etc), but I think that even in an ordinary situation the parents wishes and preferences should also be considered, equally with the child's.


*I totally agree that the parents wishes and preferences can be considered equally with the child's.* The dilemma is that the child really doesn't have control of making that happen. They can not restrict or impose their will, other than by expressing frustration and distress when their will is ignored, obstructed or disregarded. The act of creating balance and modeling consideration falls to the parent, imo. We have always parented non-coercively and I feel fortunate that our son, at four years old, is so abled to negotiate for his needs and considerate of my needs. Not perfectly. Not consistently. But routinely and as a norm, he offers suggestion which consider my personal needs, limitations, wants, wishes and will. We are both less effective when tired or hungry, I observe. But the process is constantly to find a mutually agreeable solution. And we just keep working to create it. We don't default to coercion. I really work at modelling consideration of his needs so that he will observe and experience the benefits of this process of holding each of our needs equal.

Quote:



To me, that is the bigger lesson here. Not that my child needs to obey my rules because I said so and I'm the boss, but that he needs to understand that in a relationship, there are two people and to be considerate of the other person's needs and preferences. Right now, he is too young for that. For example, he would like to nurse probably for an hour and a half every night to go to sleep. After about 40 minutes I usually tell him "Mama's breasts hurt, they need a break. Lets sing a song instead" etc. And he would choose to continue to nurse even so...because he's 2. So I take him off, and he cries for a few minutes, and then we sing a song and he falls asleep. There are a lot of things that I can justify forcing him to do because if I don't, his actions will so negatively impact me/his father/the dog etc and I just don't think he's old enough yet to understand that.


For which things are you struggling to find mutually agreeable solutions? I find that when there is a pattern of difficulty finding a mutually agreeable solution, the system (expectations, environment, timing, unidentified underlying need, etc.) needs to be altered. When we are struggling to create a solution which meets both of our needs is when *discussion* with those involved, or other objective people (for instance with my on-line support, or like-minded friends), helps to trouble shoot.

For the nursing forever issue, which is not meeting your needs, I would create more attractive alternatives. Perhaps, he is needing your undivided attention and when you aren't nursing you are busy elsewhere. We have experienced this phenomena too.







Finding things as good as nursing is tough.







But it can be done. Maybe a warm bath together, snuggling with a video, cuddling under the covers with dada? I don't know what aspect of your attention he is seeking. Is he thirsty? Have you offered tasty substitute drinks, smoothies, etc? Is he hungry? The singing a song sounds wonderful. How about a walk in the sling and a song? The transition to some standing activity can help break the nursing aspect of the mama time but still meet the underlying need for your undivided attention. But sitting down and not nursing is a bit challenging, in my experience.

Is the car seat a real issue or a theoretical dilemma? Mostly, I found going TO fun was easier than leaving fun. Providing an opportunity for fun during the ride can happen too. Magnadoodles, children's music, juice in a box, snacks, crayons and paper on a travel tray, toy steering wheels, little cars and trucks to hand back during the ride, DVD player for long trips, etc. Not going into the car when needing a nap, transitions are challenging then. Going into the car needing a nap, depends if they like falling asleep in the car. It depends upon what the child's need related to the car seat is. Helping him to listen to his body helps him to learn to communicate his needs. Give words to his feelings, 'you sound hungry, tired, etc. you are having a tough time leaving this fun place, we are going to go do xyz'.

Quote:



Incidentally, I must say that I really don't see that he is any less happy overall with me laying down the law a little bit more often, which I've been doing lately. I talked to a friend who recently weaned her three year old. When I asked her how she did it, she said "I just realized that it was ok to say no sometimes." I've kept that phrase in my head and I really think that it has helped me to find more balance in my relationship with my son.

I really enjoy these threads and I look forward to hearing other's thoughts on the subject.

Jessi


I totally believe that you can say "no" about your body. Just as I believe our son can say "no" about his body. But, finding a win-win is a more portable, practical and preferrable skill to model than win-lose, imo. Just saying "no" without considering how our actions affect others isn't modeling consideration of other's needs imo. That is not what I want to model, demonstrate or impose on our son. I want him to have the opportunity to learn *how* to find win-win solutions. That takes much more negotiation, listening, consideration and respect than "no", imo. And it is an ongoing learning curve for me. I don't do it perfectly either.

Best wishes, hope that helps.

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

How would you (scubamama & captaincrunchy) handle it when your child wants to do something, but doesn't want to do something else that's a prerequisite? My daughter wants to go out every day. I want my daughter to go out every day, because she's much, much easier to cope with if she gets some fresh air and exercise. However, my daughter does not want to put on clothes...she doesn't want to put on shoes...she doesn't want to put on her coat. If I get her dressed, I'm using force. What do you do?
Well, we have a fenced in backyard where she can happily run around naked if that is her preference. Under a certain age of course, children can't really negotiate or understand reasonable solutions. However, I have never encountered a child who was so adamantly against putting on any clothing at all ever, that it became such a problem that no one could ever leave the house. I have however, encountered children who don't so much NOT want to wear clothes, they just may not want to wear what their parents want them to wear. This is not an issue with us. If my daughter wants to wear a bathing suit and a tu-tu in 30 degree weather to go to the park in, I would happily let her. Cold weather doesn't cause illness. Now, when the inevitable happens and she gets cold, I will provide her with the coat I would have brought in the car for her. I probably wouldn't make an issue out of it at all, other than probably saying "Isn't that nice and warm? I love being warm when it's cold outside." or something of the sort, then moving on...

Now some hard @ss type parents would be like, I will let her wear what she likes but not bring a coat to "teach" her that if she is cold that is the consequence and she will learn her lesson. I am not like that at all. I would bring a coat, because after all, when she is an adult, she can wear a bikini to go snow skiing if she wants to, and if she gets cold, she will be able to get a coat. No one would force her to stay like that to "teach her a lesson".

If the child was old enough to reason or understand I would just be honest. I would say that it is the law that people have to be clothed when going into shops or in public areas because it may offend others, or cause a disturbance or scene or whatever. I would explain that I personally don't have an issue with her being naked and she can run around all day long naked in the back yard, but if she wants to go out, there are certain rules of society, and that she can wear whatever she wants, but it has to cover her bare heiney!

To me that is not controlling, that is simply stating a fact. In almost all states, there are decency laws and whatnot that prohibit people from walking around naked. It isn't fair maybe, but that is the law and mama is not willing to be arrested so she can run free. No manipulation, no control, just stating what I am willing to accept, which is not jail time or a big fine, or CPS stepping in.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

:


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I speculate from this post that you are working under the assumption that children are manipulative, selfish beings that don't care at all for the feelings of others, the schedules of others and that they have an ulterior motive to run the household. I don't agree with that or sentiments like it at all. Granted, young children are very age appropriately self centered in that they sometimes are unable to see past their own wants at the moment to work towards the greater good, or agreeable solution. ..

ditto CapatinCrunchy. (We really are not the same person posting under two names.





















)

I want to respond to AbigailsMomSarah too. But thanks CC for saying what I believe too.






























Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

(We really are not the same person posting under two names.
























Nah, just two people who know what time it is....







.... j/k people, don't flame!!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Just to be clear, I have _no_ problem with my children running around naked. I'm glad they enjoy their bodies so much. (I actually had a 3-month long war with former neighbours of mine over this issue as they thought my then-4-year-old son was "sexually abusing" their daughter by being naked. They eventually moved so they didn't have to be around my "pervert" son.)

The issue is the weather. It's cold and very wet, and she had a bug (I think she's over it now). I'm the last person in the world to think that rain is a bad thing (my user name reflects my feelings about the weather). But, when it's cold outside, and it's _pouring_ rain, she's got to wear a jacket. We don't usually go out in the car - we walk. I _could_ put a jacket in her little brother's stroller, but that would mean putting a cold jacket on a cold toddler. And, I know that cold air doesn't cause illness (heating systems do sometimes). But, catching a chill when you've already got a cold is no fun at all.

She also likes to ride in the backpack a lot. I can't put her jacket on if she's already on my back.

I guess I'll just keep going the way we have been. I think she's starting to figure out that we get outside more quickly if she gets dressed more quickly. And, she's usually willing to put on her shoes now...


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

But having a spirited child turned out to be WAY more work than I ever imagined and it turns out that when we are more respectful of her making her own choices and having equal input in our family decisions (when she knows what is going on) has made things MUCH easier.

I feel much better about our relationship. it is not roses every day, but the tantrums seriously disappeared the day after I changed my own outlook. Bedtime was an absolute nightmare. I had the idea in my head that to be good parents, dd needed a "bedtime". It never worked and created huge conflict in the entire family every night. everyone was resentful, angry, tired, and exasperated.
This is a great, important post. And I want to use it as a springboard. You birthed a child who demanded/required a certain type and style of interaction. This challenged your pre-conceived ideas and theories on child rearing. But you quickly "read" and responded to what your dd's personality demanded of you in terms of the kind of parenting and interaction that leads to the most family harmony and in a way that honors your values.

I also birthed a spirited child (2 of them). One of those spirited children demands a style of parenting that is completely counter intuitive to what I thought I'd be doing. He requires absolutely firm, non negotiable boundaries. He's absolutely whither and disintegrate with the type of parenting your dd needs. Eventually, I abandoned the theories I held dear and parented that child in the way that enables him to feel confident, bold, secure, loved and worthy.

Let me offer an analogy, a related one. I think unschooling is an awesome *option* for education. I don't believe it's the best, the only, a superior or even the natural, organic way for all children to gather information and move into the adult years.

Likewise, I don't agree with the premise that coercion = harm in child/parent relationships. I believe that low coercion as a standard can be an excellent choice. I believe that the process of common *preference* finding can be an excellent tool.

But, no, I don't believe for a second that each child should be or needs to be parenting in the absence of coercion.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AbigailsMomSarah*
I am curious as to how you will feel allowing your daughter to run your day? You say she will have complete control over her schedule. So, when she wakes up and says she wants to go to the park, will you go? What is you have a scheduled appointment, or a headache, or just flat out don't feel like goig to the park?

If I need to expound on this further, I will. But I have tried to cover it with a prior post about appointments. And I too believe that children inherently are harmonious and desire to please. That when the environment and expectations are developmentally appropriate, conflicts do not occur. So, noone "runs our day". We work together to meet both of our needs. Don't you? Who runs your day? Does it "have to" be either or? If the child's needs are being met what conflict is arising? If your needs are being met what conflict is arising? What specific schedule issues are imposed on you all that is creating a conflict? Could you provide clarification and perhaps we could help trouble shoot some possible solutions so that no one "has to" do anything they don't want to do.

Quote:

I agree with giving children a sence of ownership in their world, and allow my daughter (almost 3) to make may choices. A choice of two outfits for the day, what she wants for snack etc. I, as the parent howeve, set the plan of the day. I take it the consideration of both my childrens wants, our family needs, and my desires as well.
Our son can wear anything he wants. If it is cold he might want to wear shorts. He is very hot natured. But I have an 'outing bag' with long pants, a jacket vest, ear muff type head warmer, and extra socks. When he opens the door, sometimes he says 'it is cold, I want long pants'. And he puts on long pants. I sometimes find when I open the door, it is cold and I change clothes. We don't have play clothes and dress clothes. He is a child and play is his work. We have some nicer clothes that he has worn to the symphony but he can play at the park in them too. Sometimes his choices do not match!







Sometimes, making alterations is agreeable; sometimes not.

Quote:

What about when you have 2 kids and they each want something different, but at the same time.
I only have one child. I do have a dh of 23 years who has egocentric needs at times too.







Especially for my undivided attention. So, we negotiate. I have friends who parent non-coercively with multiple children. It is much easier to live together when everyone has negotiation skills than to rely on a referree, peace maker, judge to decide conflict resolution. The children are facilitated with conflict resolution skills of listening to each's pov and with discussing mutually agreeable alternatives. They have the benefit of more heads doing the brainstorming to find solutions that consider everyone's needs and are agreeable to everyone. Have you read "Siblings Without Rivalry"? The book helps to decrease sibling conflict, especially drawing in the parent to take sides.

Nurturing the tools of reflective listening and win-win conflict resolution decreases conflict, imo. Conflict resolution does not need to occur from the top down. Otherwise, the children just keep coming to you to solve the problem, over and over and over. Modeling and facilitating the communication tools of respectful consideration must be done out loud, transparently. Not dictated, imo in order for the children to learn. I believe that 'wanting things at the same time' is an aspect of a win-lose dynamic. When one Trusts that their needs are going to be met, the immediacy of "now" doesn't seem necessary. However, if one wants something and that precludes the other getting what she wants, I imagine they both want "it" now.

Is there a specific example?

Quote:

And since you brought it up earlier, what about the car seat situation? What if you have a dentist appointment, which you will be charged for whether you show up or not, and which needs to be scheduled months in advance. What if she doesn't want to get in the seat, or heck, what if she really does not want to see the dentist?

While it sounds good in therory, especially with a child so young and with out many wants and strong opinions, I woulnder how it would really work with a family with older and multiple children.
This hasn't been a problem for us. We discuss the appointments and address concerns and go when we need to go. Since "have to" do doesn't occur in our home, when I have explained to our son that we need to go to the appointment at a specific time, so that we won't need to wait a long time for our turn, he has come along. With coaxing and leaving plenty of time for doddling, and plenty of preparation in advance as CC described. Sometimes, the appointment might be postponed. I have done that when I was too ill for a dental appointment. Life doesn't end if an appointment is cancelled. We have been going to our dentist for 15+ years, they are considerate of the fact that we expect consideration of our son's needs. Same with the family practice MD, the chiropractor, the counselor, friends, playdates, music class, gym class, etc.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Ditto Yoppervegan again.









I don't consider parenting a sacrifice though. I wanted to share our life with a child for 10 years before our son was born. I have had a rewarding career, travelled, etc. I don't feel like I "have to" do anything as a parent. Sometimes, I don't want to immediately change a poopy diaper







but I consider the benefit more important than the cost. Maybe it is because I am old







, this time of his childhood is going by so fast to me.

And Yoppervegan made an important point about *leaving* when a child no longer wants to remain somewhere! I think this is challenging but critical too. That is why discussion, consideration, advanced preparation and making back up plans to meet *my* needs (or a sibling's needs) without imposing on our son (or the other sibling) is so important. I guess the alternative is to just expect him to go and like it???

Mutually agreeable solutions are available. For instance, my friend's husband was out of town and he had a motor cycle accident. So, she needed to take the trailer to go bring him and the bike home immediately. Neither of their daughters wanted to make the 6-8 hour round car trip. My friend asked her friend to stay with the girls until she returned, that was agreeable to all. But the younger had planned on going to the Rock Club that evening with mama, so I went with her instead. Our son was agreeable to stay home with dada. Everyone had what they needed and agreed to. No one "had to" do anything they didn't want to do.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
How would you (scubamama & captaincrunchy) handle it when your child wants to do something, but doesn't want to do something else that's a prerequisite? My daughter wants to go out every day. _I_ want my daughter to go out every day, because she's much, much easier to cope with if she gets some fresh air and exercise. However, my daughter does _not_ want to put on clothes...she doesn't want to put on shoes...she doesn't want to put on her coat. If I get her dressed, I'm using force. What do you do?

We had this issue until I realized that our son just gets too hot in the car, and doesn't like the feel of clothing when sitting idle. Even in the house, he strips down to the bare minimum. He has some sensory acuity issues. And he is highly sensitive. And is very hot natured. (unless it is about 35-40 degrees, he doesn't get cold without a coat. I am the opposite so I think he must be freezing but he is perfectly articulate and just is not cold.) He wears the necessary loose clothing to cover his body and he puts his clothes on in the car when we arrive. Same with shoes. He prefers a blanket in the car for when the car is first cold and then throws it off when he gets too warm. I of course have a coat on and heat.









How old is your daughter? I would think the above would work until age 5ish and then naked children in a car might be an issue.







But our son is perfectly agreeable to put clothes on to go into an establishment or event. You might try that. It is much easier to dress a willing participant, I imagine.

Pat


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
But, how would a child who grows up under a coercive paradigm recognize disrespect is the Catch 22 question. It is like fish not being able to perceive water; it is all they know.







It took me many years of living with my husband, who is always respectful of me and others, to recognize how disrespected my individual will as a child was. In childhood, I was told you "have to"; but I objected to the dissidence of being coerced to comply. And my awareness of being treated with disrespect grew as I experienced respect from teachers and others. The most profound experience was when I was employed, I was respected as an individual. Even though jobs had responsibilities, I still didn't "have to" do the job. I had a choice, unlike "having to" under the coercive 'directed compliance' of childhood.

I, too, had the experience of being coerced as a child. My parents punished, controlled, coerced, the whole kit and caboodle. However, one thing that they were very, very good at was turning power over to us as it became age appropriate. Therefore, I felt plenty able to recognize "respect", and felt that as I grew and learned, I would become more and more capable and therefore be able to control more and more of my life. Which was true. And if I felt there was something I could handle that my parents were still controlling, we could debate it. So by the time I was the age to be an adult, I felt completely ready to be an adult.

If it weren't possible for children to recognize respect without non-coercive parenting, respect would not exist in our society, right?

FWIW, I think non-coercive parenting is great, and it really made me think when I read the first thread on here about TCS.

But, (you knew it was coming) other things are more important in our family.

I want my dc to have close sibling relationships and it would be so hard to parent like this w/children spaced the way mine are.

I want my dc to be able to go to college, and that means we have to make economic sacrifices and they have to come with me to some icky jobs sometimes (like maintaining the sewer at our rental).

There are a million other things I feel would be restricted by this kind of parenting but don't have time to write about. And since I just don't buy that my kids are not going to be able to grow into emotionally healthy, respectful, kind, productive adults w/out a little bit of non-physical, playful coercion, that's the way I'm going to parent.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
How would you (scubamama & captaincrunchy) handle it when your child wants to do something, but doesn't want to do something else that's a prerequisite? My daughter wants to go out every day. _I_ want my daughter to go out every day, because she's much, much easier to cope with if she gets some fresh air and exercise. However, my daughter does _not_ want to put on clothes...she doesn't want to put on shoes...she doesn't want to put on her coat. If I get her dressed, I'm using force. What do you do?

Answering this question is going to make the point I wanted to say....

I think that there doesnt' have to be a separation between "non-coercive" parenting, and having some situations where the child really can't make the decision. I would say I do not practice coercive parenting at all, but I also am not running my day based on the whims of a toddler or preschooler.

In the above scenario, this is what I say "Hey DD, do you want to go to the park?" (in a nice, excited sort of voice). "Yeah!" she says "Okay, well we need to put on our clothes first.". I say this in a matter-of-fact way. If she protests about the clothes I'll just repeat myself "well, I'd love to go to the park but we need clothes" and then might try to distract her a bit with "would you like to wear your blue pants?" or I'll ask her what she wants to bring with her (because she NEVER leaves the house without a couple of fave-trinkets-of-the-day).

But honestly, most of the time just stating something as a fact, as if I were saying "well, you must heat water before it will boil"...this works the vast majority of the time. There is no sense of coercion, no sense of conflicting wills. In fact, by starting out by emphasizing what SHE wants "shall we go to the park?" the whole tone of it becomes "I want what YOU want, and here's what we need to do".

I have found this approach to work really well for us. So while there are aspects of our day that she has no real control over, my goal as a parent is to never make the situation appear to be one of me controlling her. I try to frame all such situations in the sense of the two of us working together to a common goal.

So far, it's worked really well for us. I don't have to coerce or force my kids, but I also don't let them dictate the day's schedule (though of course there are times when they can, and I think that's healthy and educational).


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
So while there are aspects of our day that she has no real control over, my goal as a parent is to never make the situation appear to be one of me controlling her. I try to frame all such situations in the sense of the two of us working together to a common goal.

ITA with this, and for practical reasons, too. If I really tried to control my dd, I couldn't. I absolutely CANNOT make her do anything she doesn't want. So it's easiest for all involved to approach things from this perspective.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I woldn't say "no" amount of control. If my child is running towards a busy street, my knee-jerk reaction would probably be to scoop her up, or grab her back, or yell (not at her, but a sort of frantic Stop!) or something...that is control I suppose.

However, things like forcing my child to eat what I think she should eat for breakfast, in my opinion, is not respectful. What if she doesn't want yogurt or whatever else? What if she wants last night's leftovers? Who am I to force her to eat something she doesn't want to, feeling really good that at least I offered her *some* choices? What if those choices weren't acceptable to her?

The reason we don't have a bunch of junk in our house, other than being health concious, is the fact that we don't want to be hypocrites either. I am SO not into the "do as I say not as I do" parenting...so if there are cheetos, she can have cheetos...but there hardly ever is something like that anyway.

The only exception is alcohol, because that is like, ya know, a federal law and I don't want my children being removed from me because they told their friends *mama lets me have beer*....

This isnt really different I think than any of us do it in practice although our theories are behind it. I think you would be hard pressed to find any mom on this board who was the least bit interested in forcing their child to eat anything. And I also think that if a child is offered choices and he is not interested that doesnt mean there is no room for negotiation. My kids will not be having browines or sugary cereal for breakfast but my three year old will often hear my choices and say "how about smoothie instead." And if this is reasonable, he gets his choice. So nobody is talking about forcing them to do anything. Except maybe to go without something bad for them.
If I give 2 choices, there are implied choices I might have not thought of mentioning. But there are still many definite "no's" . But just because I say, no banana split for breakfast it does not mean I am "forcing" my child to eat something else. It is still his choice.
In my house I also pretty much try to follow the second rule, keep stuff you dont want your child to have out of the house. (but that IS control because the child cannot control what groceries are purchased. It is still coercing your child to choose from foods that are availible while you control what is availible. It is no different from controlling choices offered)
But my DH likes stuff that he wants in the house that the kids shouldnt eat. So I dont offer it to them. And once they do get a taste for it (thanks dad) they still only get it sometimes, and then not for meals.

If you know your child would really prefer a banana split for breakfast and you choose not to purchase those items when you are at the store you are doing the exact same thing. You are dictating the choices your child has to choose from.
Joline


----------



## Rigama (Oct 18, 2005)

I have to wonder, nice as it all sounds in theory, how will your child take it when they are older, or even grown, and are in a situation where their needs aren't first and foremost on everyone's minds? Because let's face it. In the world, there are things that need to be done and our feelings on the matter don't matter one iota. Perhaps his boss tells him he must work over the holiday weekend or lose his job. Perhaps he proposes to a woman who simply isn't interested in marriage, or perhaps she wants to have a child with a man who doesn't want one. There are countless times when our kids will have to face doing/hearing something that isn't what they desire. Papers that need to be written, red lights that need to be obeyed, student loan bills that need repaying, taxes to be filed, etc.

As a parent, I feel it's my job to give my son a sense of control over his life, but I also believe that I'm doing him a grave disservice by teaching him that if he talks smoothly enough he'll always get his way. Sometimes he won't. Will I let him have caramel popcorn for breakfast? No. Because I know how he acts if he's all sugared up. So, I'll suggest something like "How about if I make you either eggs or oatmeal for breakfast, then you can have caramel corn." And there are other times when I just say "It's non-negotiable" as in...we've just left WalMart, he's been busy touching everything in sight and he wants a snack in the car. "Okay, here's your snack. First lets use hand sanitizer." But I don't want to! "Well if you want the snack, you need to use the sanitizer so you don't get sick" But I want to get sick and barf! "Then i guess you don't want the snack. Let me know if you change your mind and want to clean your hands so you can eat". I do not see myself as a manipulative, controlling, zealot and my son is most certainly a happy and laid back child. A child who knows HE CAN influence his world, but who also knows that sometimes he has to do things that he may not want to do and is *gasp* familiar with personal disappointment. And better still, he knows that when he is simply unwilling to or incapapble of making a decision on his own, he can count on me to make the best decision FOR him.


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

I did not finish reading all the posts yet, but I wanted to add a little anecdotal insight here:

I had a friend who felt very imprisoned and unappreciated as an individual as a child. Her thoughts weren't made to be genuine and things she believed were thought to be ridiculous by her family. When she had children, she vowed to give them love, freedom and guidance. She believed that she was doing these things the best she could. Little did she notice, she was doing them a disservice in the way she went about these pratices. Let me explain: I would best explain her way of parenting as GD, which is great, I GD too. But DD1 was very undisciplined to the point where her misbehavior was constantly being postivley reinforced by mom's worry that she would mame her daughter's self-esteem in some way. The unsupportiveness of her parents has influenced her to be dterimentally lenient, much to the dismay of others - such as myself. It ultimatly led to the downfall of our relationship, her having accused me of compromising her _daughter's self-esteem_ by physically removing her from climbing in MY REFRIDGERATOR. There are extremes at both ends of the spectrum and she passed into extreme at that moment, IMO. What I am really trying to say I think, is that we must find a *balance* between how our parents directly or indirectly taught us to parent, and how we want to differ from those practices.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

For me, doing things I don't *want* to in my daily life just really isn't a big deal to me. I don't have a sense of injustice, unfairness, or lack of choice or control about my day-to-day life. Of course, there are situations where I am genuinely opposed to things, and I try to resolve the situations as best I can to try to get the solution I want (or as close to it as possible). BUT, in day-to-day life, I simply don't see the problem with not getting to do what I want when I want, or negotiating my preference all the time - quite frankly, it seems emotionally exhausting to have to think about things that much. I don't feel cheated or coerced in my life because I sometimes "have" to do things. But maybe it's just me. Looking back at my own childhood, from what I can remember, my parents let me make some choices, but others they made the choices - and it didn't bother me. It wasn't made a big deal by anyone, that's just the way things worked. My parents were most definitely GD (no spanking, no yelling, no shaming), and we all worked together as a family to get things done. Sometimes we did things my way, sometimes we didn't. But when we didn't, it was OK. Maybe it's just my personality, and maybe I'm just blessed to have a DS with the same disposition. OR, maybe because I was allowed to make some decisions, I felt it was OK when I didn't, that it just wasn't my turn that time, and it wasn't a big deal.

I remember reading in some threads that people do chores, or whatever, because they either like the end result better than not doing whatever it was, or along those lines - the consequence of NOT doing something is less appealing than just doing it. I think that either of those are entirely valid, and probably true for me too (though I tend to not really think that deeply about my own life). BUT, I also think that my job as a parent is to help my child *learn* this, not make him eventually come to this conclusion on his own. To help him realize that although he may not *want* to do something (or want to stop doing something), that the end result will be something he enjoys, or the lack of result will be worse than just not doing it...and sometimes that may mean not working out a mutual solution, but sometimes just not getting his way. I don't think small children are capable of thinking that abstractly, and just like with many, many other things they can't do on their own until they are older, it's my job to help him and teach him.

I can understand that if someone came from a family where they never had a say that they would want to make sure that their children did, but I honestly think at some point emphasizing constantly that choices and mutual solutions are always possible could make more out of situations than there needs to be. If you are allowing your child to make regular choices in their life (structured or unstructured), I can't see how leaving the park now versus in a half hour is going to make your child feel like they aren't respected or valued or equal in the family (if you have a need to be somewhere and your kid doesn't want to go) .....I think it is a mindset of balance, and balancing everyone's needs, but not always belaboring the decision trying to find something that works for everyone. Sometimes my needs aren't going to be met - oh well. Sometimes my son will be disappointed that we're leaving a park, or that I ask him to finish his homework before dinner so we can have fun together after dinner (just giving random examples)....but since he does (and will continue to) have a lot of situations where he gets to do what he wants, and I don't make a huge deal of apologizing and sympathizing when things aren't going his way, he sees that it's not as big a deal either, and that life goes on, and that life in general is pretty darn good.

Clearly I'm not talking about parenting where the kids never get a say in anything, but I just don't see the problem in a family working together by not always negotiating things, but by sometimes getting your way and sometimes just not. I can't imagine a child, who is generally respected, loved, and valued, being overwrought and bitter for life over occasions where they don't get to do what they want every time (or seek out a mutual solution). Sometimes mutual solutions or other alternatives are easy to reach, and should be tried if possible, but I think sometimes dragging it out trying to find something that would work for everyone maybe gives too much power to the situation instead of just getting on with it.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
If you know your child would really prefer a banana split for breakfast and you choose not to purchase those items when you are at the store you are doing the exact same thing. You are dictating the choices your child has to choose from.
Joline

Exactly. My dd ate Frosted Flakes while at my mother's house, and now she asks for them every time we go to the store.

What would you do in this situation, Captaincrunchy and Pat? Do you really think a two year old would prefer Uncle Sam w/dried blueberries over Frosted Flakes just because they haven't been coerced? I sure don't!







Fortunately I have years of practicing self-control under my belt (no pun intended).


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
Answering this question is going to make the point I wanted to say....

I think that there doesnt' have to be a separation between "non-coercive" parenting, and having some situations where the child really can't make the decision. I would say I do not practice coercive parenting at all, but I also am not running my day based on the whims of a toddler or preschooler.

In the above scenario, this is what I say "Hey DD, do you want to go to the park?" (in a nice, excited sort of voice). "Yeah!" she says "Okay, well we need to put on our clothes first.". I say this in a matter-of-fact way. If she protests about the clothes I'll just repeat myself "well, I'd love to go to the park but we need clothes" and then might try to distract her a bit with "would you like to wear your blue pants?" or I'll ask her what she wants to bring with her (because she NEVER leaves the house without a couple of fave-trinkets-of-the-day).

But honestly, most of the time just stating something as a fact, as if I were saying "well, you must heat water before it will boil"...this works the vast majority of the time. There is no sense of coercion, no sense of conflicting wills. In fact, by starting out by emphasizing what SHE wants "shall we go to the park?" the whole tone of it becomes "I want what YOU want, and here's what we need to do".

I have found this approach to work really well for us. So while there are aspects of our day that she has no real control over, my goal as a parent is to never make the situation appear to be one of me controlling her. I try to frame all such situations in the sense of the two of us working together to a common goal.

So far, it's worked really well for us. I don't have to coerce or force my kids, but I also don't let them dictate the day's schedule (though of course there are times when they can, and I think that's healthy and educational).

ITA wth your whole post, Piglet - wish I could have said it as succinctly as you did instead of rambling on and on like I did!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

There was a previous post (I dnt remember who or even if it was this thread so please bear with me) where the poster recognized that their rebellious temperament was a bad fit for authoritative parents while her sister's easy going temperament was a pretty good for authoritative parents.
I think that it is perhaps less an overall parenting goal that everybody is interested in to be less coercive or not at all coercive. But a reaction to traditional parenting by individuals with particularly rebellious personalities.
I did not want to obey as a child. I do not want my child to obey anybody.
I do not feel that as a child I was respected by society. I dont want my child to grow up to be a "worker bee" for society.
I have yet to see an example of a parent who chose this type of parenting based on the soundness of the philosophy who was not influenced by their own rebellious nature. Is it a philosophy based on a reaction to authoritative parenting by adults who were spirited and rebellious as children?
Is it this dynamic which makes it so difficult for those of us with different temperaments to grasp the value of? I have a very easy going temperament, as do three of my children. I simply did not feel disrespected or rebellious or whatever as a result of my parents efforts to control me. In fact I had a sister and brother who were rebellious by nature and for the life of me I couldnt figure out what was so hard about following a few simple and logical rules. It never once occurred to me that there was anythign wrong with my parents parenting style. And yet this did not distort me into a "praise junkie" or somebody desparately seekign the approval of others. Or somebody with no creativity or problem solving skills or independance.
In fact I think my parents must have done somethign remarkably right.

This is so interesting to me. . .
Joline


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
This isnt really different I think than any of us do it in practice although our theories are behind it.

<snip>

If I give 2 choices, there are implied choices I might have not thought of mentioning. But there are still many definite "no's" .
<snip>

If you know your child would really prefer a banana split for breakfast and you choose not to purchase those items when you are at the store you are doing the exact same thing. You are dictating the choices your child has to choose from.
Joline

Joline, I agree that what you describe is coercive.







However, our son's choices do not end with what *I* choose to buy. There are no "definite no's" for breakfast or on the grocery list. Same with dh. Dh's food choices are not coerced either. And ds chooses more wisely than dh oftentimes.







We discuss what he would like on the grocery list and we discuss what other things we need and we discuss which items are priorites to both of us and we meet both his needs for banana splits and mine for cereal. It really isn't a budgetary issue to meet both of these needs. And neither do we create an artificial control by not buying things that he prefers once he has a preference. I don't introduce things that I don't want in the house. But he is welcome to expect them in our home for his consumption. We also have foods that have artificial colors that dh eats and ds chooses not to eat them. Sometimes, he chooses to try them. So, our practice is very different.

And banasplits are a perfectly welcome breakfast choice, as is spaghetti. Or cereal and chicken salad on crackers for dinner. I prepare meals, offer choices proactively and our son has food choices *unlimited* by me. He makes wise choices because he listens to his body and understands when he is hungry and sweets are freely available so they are not binged. It is a different paradigm of Trusting one's child about their own body. And respecting another's autonomy about their own body in both theory and practice.

Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I know that there are many tcs parents who practice this. But I was particularly referring to Crunchy because she stated it wasnt really an issue because she kept these foods out of her house.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
<snip>
I have yet to see an example of a parent who chose this type of parenting based on the soundness of the philosophy who was not influenced by their own rebellious nature. Is it a philosophy based on a reaction to authoritative parenting by adults who were spirited and rebellious as children?
<snip>

I have several friends who parent without coercion. They each have multiple children and all had generally respectful childhoods. No hitting, shaming, yelling, etc. in their childhood families. Their parents used coercion at times. However, several of their parents have a sense of 'Wow, we wish we had done it this way (without praise, rewards, bribes, privileges, restrictions). We just thought we were supposed to be in charge.' So, no. I don't believe choosing to live in consent with others is a reaction or rebellious response to coercive upbringings. It is a philosophical choice of how to promote and model less use of force to another's will in this world. And frankly, if it doesn't start at home, where will it begin?

Pat


----------



## lisac77 (May 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
There was a previous post (I dnt remember who or even if it was this thread so please bear with me) where the poster recognized that their rebellious temperament was a bad fit for authoritative parents while her sister's easy going temperament was a pretty good for authoritative parents.
I think that it is perhaps less an overall parenting goal that everybody is interested in to be less coercive or not at all coercive. But a reaction to traditional parenting by individuals with particularly rebellious personalities.
I did not want to obey as a child. I do not want my child to obey anybody.
I do not feel that as a child I was respected by society. I dont want my child to grow up to be a "worker bee" for society.
I have yet to see an example of a parent who chose this type of parenting based on the soundness of the philosophy who was not influenced by their own rebellious nature. Is it a philosophy based on a reaction to authoritative parenting by adults who were spirited and rebellious as children?
Is it this dynamic which makes it so difficult for those of us with different temperaments to grasp the value of? I have a very easy going temperament, as do three of my children. I simply did not feel disrespected or rebellious or whatever as a result of my parents efforts to control me. In fact I had a sister and brother who were rebellious by nature and for the life of me I couldnt figure out what was so hard about following a few simple and logical rules. It never once occurred to me that there was anythign wrong with my parents parenting style. And yet this did not distort me into a "praise junkie" or somebody desparately seekign the approval of others. Or somebody with no creativity or problem solving skills or independance.
In fact I think my parents must have done somethign remarkably right.

This is so interesting to me. . .
Joline

It's interesting to me, too. In fact, I see a parallel of this in my own parenting. The reason I cosleep is because I was forced to sleep alone as a child and I remember feeling sad and lonely about it. Therefore, I could never not cosleep because I don't want my child feeling sad and lonely. I really understand the feeling of not wanting to put your child through something that made you miserable.

I also understand the point of the poster above who spoke about her high needs child's need not to be coerced. My son is very high needs, but we've actually reached a level of almost normalcy by being fair and using non-coercive tactics. I jokingly describe it as "my son was born a terrorist and made our lives hell until we gave in to his demands." We are not 100% non-coercive, but I do try to understand his problem with a given situation and address it specifically. Like the other poster, I noticed that when my son resisted the most, he actually had a good reason to put up a fight (physical discomfort, etc.). It's a matter of being able to pinpoint the issue and deal with it that's the trick, and it's not something that becomes evident overnight.

So as far as understanding and provding for the child's needs in a framework of respect for all parties, I'm in total agreement with a large part of this philosophy.

However I simply don't see the need to manage and negotiate every little interaction. I suppose if one had the time and the inclination and the micro-managing skills to do that it would work well for them. I am not that type of person. Additionally, I do not have the time to let my son dictate every situation according to his will. I don't like it when I have to override him, but I do occasionally because I have to. Yes, I have to.

Total non-coerciveness, to me, is idealistic. I simply cannot allow all of my time to be dictated by one other person, because there are a lot of demands on my time. If a pair of parents has all the time in the world to negotiate, please, do it and enjoy! But don't look down on me for not doing so.

I also don't think a parent who makes her child wear a coat outside when it's cold, or putting shoes on so that they can go out to be coercive. Yes, by definition that is coercion, but not in reality. IRL, kids simply can't make all the decisions they need to protect their health and safety. That's what parents are for.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Scuba, thank you for sharing the example of your friends.
My experience with this type of parenting is limited to this board and one acquaintence IRL and so my view certainly has laregely been forged by the posts here which often have "I hated it when my parents controlled me" or "it made me feel more rebellious" etc.. tied in with the philosophy. or "they couldnt control me , I always did whatever I wanted anyway"

And lisa cc77, yours is a very good example of somebody who chose a style similar to this for reasons based on the child's need and not reactionary to the style of your parents.

Joline


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisac77*
It's a matter of being able to pinpoint the issue and deal with it that's the trick, and it's not something that becomes evident overnight.

So as far as understanding and provding for the child's needs in a framework of respect for all parties, I'm in total agreement with a large part of this philosophy.

However I simply don't see the need to manage and negotiate every little interaction. I suppose if one had the time and the inclination and the micro-managing skills to do that it would work well for them. I am not that type of person. Additionally, I do not have the time to let my son dictate every situation according to his will. I don't like it when I have to override him, but I do occasionally because I have to. Yes, I have to.

Total non-coerciveness, to me, is idealistic. I simply cannot allow all of my time to be dictated by one other person, because there are a lot of demands on my time. If a pair of parents has all the time in the world to negotiate, please, do it and enjoy! But don't look down on me for not doing so.

I also don't think a parent who makes her child wear a coat outside when it's cold, or putting shoes on so that they can go out to be coercive. Yes, by definition that is coercion, but not in reality. IRL, kids simply can't make all the decisions they need to protect their health and safety. That's what parents are for.

Your assumption is that this process is micro-managing and time consuming. Frankly, it is easier to create cooperation when one knows what the issue of objection is and address it. Rather than having the same issue repeat itself again and again; it can be resolved. Little issues don't become big issues because there is communication and discussion throughout the day. When one relies on words rather than forced compliance, information can be exchanged. Why do you believe that a child is dictating if you are getting your needs met *and* he is getting his needs met? The control matrix just does not exist in our home as something that anyone dictates or imposes on others.

I am sorry that you feel that you have a lot demands on your time that you "have to" do. That sounds like you are subjected to a lot. We choose not to be "subjected" to things we do not want to do; nor do we subject our son to things he does not want to do. We are happier this way than when we do choose to subject ourselves to a lot of demands on our time.

Best wishes,

Pat


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Joline, very intersting question about reactions to our own parenting.

I spent pretty much most of my adolescent and childhood years desperately craving independence. My parents were not overly punitive, they were good parents I think. But they did use punishment as a means of discipline and I still recall clearly how I felt when punished. I felt angry, unjustly treated, I felt as though my reasons, my thinking, my "story" didn't matter to anybody. I felt angry and resentful - it did NOT make me sit and "think about what I did" but rather I dreamed up some pretty interesting ways to get what I wanted and avoid the punishment. I can still remember lying in bed at night as a teenager and thinking that the simple act of being able to pick up the phone and call someone in the middle of the night was some amazing privelege that I longed for (now god help anybody who calls me after 9 pm, lol). I moved out of the house as soon as I could and absolutely revelled in my freedom.

I think I came to the "non-punishment" side of parenting partly because I could so relate to the negative consequences of punishment. And, I suppose one could assume that my children have a good chance of reacting to punishment as I did since they share my genes (I'm quite sure my DD would react as I did). I was also convinced of the benefits of GD from a more scientific perspective.

But yes, I do think that parenting style can be greatly influenced by one's own inherent nature. Which is not to say that I don't think GD applies to every child - I do. But as we can see from our own forum here, GD encompasses a range of styles to suit all parent personalities.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
Joline, very intersting question about reactions to our own parenting.

I spent pretty much most of my adolescent and childhood years desperately craving independence. My parents were not overly punitive, they were good parents I think. But they did use punishment as a means of discipline and I still recall clearly how I felt when punished. I felt angry, unjustly treated, I felt as though my reasons, my thinking, my "story" didn't matter to anybody. I felt angry and resentful - it did NOT make me sit and "think about what I did" but rather I dreamed up some pretty interesting ways to get what I wanted and avoid the punishment.

Maybe this is why I am so abled to creatively discover solutions that ds agrees with. I understand his pov; but I also had lots of creative practice overcoming obstacles to get my way as a teenager.
















Pat


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:

No one has a perfect childhood. As much as we try, no one has it perfect, that is not reality. However, I will be damned if my daughter takes 10 years like I have, to heal from her childhood.

The very act of her being alive, in our house, was not a choice she made. She didn't choose any of it. She is basically "stuck" with us until she moves out. My goal for her as she grows, to feel as if she had had a choice, she would have chosen us.
Thank you for posting this. Someone on another list recently said that her goal is to make her kids' childhoods so full of joy that they would chose to live them over and over again. That's a pretty wonderful goal! And a big paradigm shift for those of us who wouldn't ever want to go back.

Re: "Have To." I used to be a big Have To person. And then I realize how much of a victim that made me. There really is a choice in every situation. EVERY single one. Sometimes it's a rock and a hard place, but the choice is there.

I think the repeatedly coercing another person damages the relationship. Who would choose to be coerced, if they could compromise instead?

It's been my experience that kids who are used to consensus and compromise are incredibely generous and willing to problem solve--they're not needy in a "if I don't get my way over this, I might not get it again!"


----------



## Rigama (Oct 18, 2005)

scubamama said:


> Why do you believe that a child is dictating if you are getting your needs met *and* he is getting his needs met?
> 
> Sometimes meeting the immediate needs of the child is neglecting your own needs or is counter to the safety of you and your child...It's not always possible to meet everyone's needs right away. Let's say you are driving alone down a highway in the bad part of a big city...there is no place to safely pull over and your child is screaming and crying. You assume the reason is quite valid, yet YOUR reasons for not pulling over, taking you kid out and walking down the road with him are pretty valid too.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
Someone on another list recently said that her goal is to make her kids' childhoods so full of joy that they would chose to live them over and over again. That's a pretty wonderful goal!

I don't know about this. I mean, I want my dc to be happy, but relive their childhood? I think this implies that adulthood is inherently joyless, which is not what I want my dc to think.

My dad told me his parenting philosophy was, "Let children be children, but teach them how to be an adult." That's what I want for my children.


----------



## lisac77 (May 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Your assumption is that this process is micro-managing and time consuming. Frankly, it is easier to create cooperation when one knows what the issue of objection is and address it. Rather than having the same issue repeat itself again and again; it can be resolved. Little issues don't become big issues because there is communication and discussion throughout the day. When one relies on words rather than forced compliance, information can be exchanged. Why do you believe that a child is dictating if you are getting your needs met *and* he is getting his needs met? The control matrix just does not exist in our home as something that anyone dictates or imposes on others.

I am sorry that you feel that you have a lot demands on your time that you "have to" do. That sounds like you are subjected to a lot. We choose not to be "subjected" to things we do not want to do; nor do we subject our son to things he does not want to do. We are happier this way than when we do choose to subject ourselves to a lot of demands on our time.


See, this is where you lose me. I think it's really great that you were able to free up your life so that you could focus on a non-coercive family situation. I don't think that's the case for the majority of the population. It is certainly not the case for me. I'm not going to get into specifics here, but for you to assume that people are just in denial about things they "have to" do is kind of off-putting.

For the record, I don't think there is a problem when both mine and my child's needs are met and everyone is happy. I'm saying that I think it's hard to focus on that 100%. I do pick my battles, and, as I said, my son does not react well to coercion, so it's not something I employ on a regular basis. I just don't see the absolute need to be non-coercive in every aspect of our relationship.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Wow, there is so much to respond to in the time I was caring for our daughter, watching a movie, and taking a wee nap!

Anyway, in regard to what we buy at the grocery store...of course up until a certain age I have to make the food decisions. I mean, would you have me put my daughter on the floor of the grocery store to crawl towards various items until she finds a box, and buy whichever boxes of things she gums the most or what? However, if she is 4 or 5 and says to me one morning, "I would like a banana split for breakfast mommy." I would kindly tell her we don't have everything it takes to make one, but we usually do have bananas and tofutti...and I could make her a "make-shift" one....but next time we went to the store I would buy the things she wants for a banana split if she chooses to have one again. You said that it is controlling because the food your child wants may not be in the house. Well, of course! Do you think I have every food option available in my home at all times? If my daughter made a request though, I would attempt to fill it... if not that moment, but the next time we shopped.

As for the poster who said that they are teaching their children that not everyone is going to jump at their requests, that they are teaching them about "the real world." I don't plan on jumping to my daughter's every request. However, I do believe when you surround yourself with people who care for you, share a similar morla code, and are generally respectful of you as well as themselves-- it creates an environment where people WANT to help you get the things you want and need in life, as you help them...whether it be emotionally or what. I would hate for my daughter to marry a man (or woman) who, if asked for something reasonable, said to my daughter "No, the world isn't going to jump to your requests lady." I want her to surround herself with people she loves and who love her, who she is willing to help and vice versa, in a consentual agreement of friendship or lover or whatever.

Will my daughter have an asshole boss someday? Probably, but I hope she has enough respect for herself or of a higher goal she wants to attain, to either shrug it off as them being a terribly unhappy, power-trippy person with nothing better to do than to treat her badly, or use the skills and education she has to seek other employment with someone more respectful to the person she is.

Life is a choice. Everything is a choice. Unless someone is holding a gun to your head threatening to pull the trigger, you have a choice in everything you do. Even then you have a choice, to scream or not. To try to live, or risk dying, whatever.

I am so sick of people thinking that life is full of things that other people, things, and situations that are "making" them do or not do something. Everything you do or don't do is directly related to a choice you made, and directly related to whether or not you are willing to suffer or benefit (whichever the case may be) from making other choices that change where you are, how you do things, what situation you are in.

People use the excuse that they are raising adults, and this is why they parent the way they do. I could say the same thing. I am raising someone who is going to have a say, who is going to be making every single choice that is going to affect the outcome of her life. No way am I going to raise a child, a daughter especially, who looks to someone else for the answers because she is so used to someone making her decisions for her that she can't be confident in any decision she makes herself because she never got the opportunity to make one.

I think offering two things that you are willing to "let" your child have, then feeling really good when they choose one of the things you wanted them to choose anyway...patting yourself on the back because you "let" them have a choice. That isn't a choice at all.

When I said we usually don't have certain things in our home, we don't. That is a fact. I am not going to stock up on a bunch of crap we haven't eaten for like 7 years "in case" my daughter decides she wants to try something. However, if she expresses interest in trying something, at a friend's house, grandmom's, birthday party, whatever...and comes to me and says "Oh.My.God. They have this stuff called cheetos, and I LOVE THEM...can we buy some????" I would, and let her regulate her consumption of them.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I don't know about this. I mean, I want my dc to be happy, but relive their childhood? I think this implies that adulthood is inherently joyless, which is not what I want my dc to think.

My dad told me his parenting philosophy was, "Let children be children, but teach them how to be an adult." That's what I want for my children.

I don't think that a joyful time that you would willingly go back to means that the rest of your life is joyless or that you don't wish to experience that, too. It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

I think part of giving my kids a joyful childhood means that I'm giving myself a joyful adulthood. And they can see how a life based on respect and give and take creates a joyful experience for everybody.

I don't get how making a joyful environment free of coercion and bullying isn't teaching kids how to be adults?


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

I am so sick of people thinking that life is full of things that other people, things, and situations that are "making" them do or not do something. Everything you do or don't do is directly related to a choice you made, and directly related to whether or not you are willing to suffer or benefit (whichever the case may be) from making other choices that change where you are, how you do things, what situation you are in.
Do you mean this as a global approach to life? Because, to depart from the child raising aspect, I don't think it's as simple as us:

1) Being victims of circumstances
or
2) Being masters of our destiny

The truth is in between, and varies according to circumstance.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rigama*
Sometimes meeting the immediate needs of the child is neglecting your own needs or is counter to the safety of you and your child...It's not always possible to meet everyone's needs right away. Let's say you are driving alone down a highway in the bad part of a big city...there is no place to safely pull over and your child is screaming and crying. You assume the reason is quite valid, yet YOUR reasons for not pulling over, taking you kid out and walking down the road with him are pretty valid too.

But that's OK. My older son is almost 4 and we've been able to explain lots of situations like this. Because there are not arbitrary or countless limits imposed upon him, he understands that we're telling him the truth and still working as a team and/or on his behalf.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Do you mean this as a global approach to life? Because, to depart from the child raising aspect, I don't think it's as simple as us:

1) Being victims of circumstances
or
2) Being masters of our destiny

The truth is in between, and varies according to circumstance.
Of course, if my daughter was born in a war-torn, third world country, sold into slavery and had to work countless hours at a sweat shop under the threat of death, that part of my post would not apply. Obviously, none of us here fit that bill and I would hope that most people would get that from my post and realize I was not speaking of people in those very sad, unfortunate circumstances.


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

Of course, if my daughter was born in a war-torn, third world country, sold into slavery and had to work countless hours at a sweat shop under the threat of death, that part of my post would not apply. Obviously, none of us here fit that bill and I would hope that most people would get that from my post and realize I was not speaking of people in those very sad, unfortunate circumstances.
I still don't think it applies as an absolute way to evaluate life. I don't need the dramatic circumstances above to know that life is to complex to assert complete powerlessness *or* complete control.

My mother's battle with cancer and recent death is just one common life situation which necessitated choices that were neither completely coerced or able to be responded to with complete choice.

I'm not presenting this as an arguement for coercion in child rearing, btw. Or as an arguement for the imposition of "real world" circumstances on children to prepare them.

I do, however, completely disagree that we have complete power and free choice in all circumstance.


----------



## lisac77 (May 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Of course, if my daughter was born in a war-torn, third world country, sold into slavery and had to work countless hours at a sweat shop under the threat of death, that part of my post would not apply. Obviously, none of us here fit that bill and I would hope that most people would get that from my post and realize I was not speaking of people in those very sad, unfortunate circumstances.

Captain Crunchy, this precise point is why I feel that the argument of "you don't have to do anything, you choose to do everything" is a reduction to absurdity. Clearly, there are people in this world who do NOT have choices in their personal scenarios. In my opinion, the argument is a classist statement brought about by people who have personal and economic freedom. When you feed the argument back through Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - the basic things people need to survive - the biological imperative to live will trump choice.

Of course, none of this really has anything to do with gentle discipline.


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

But that's OK. My older son is almost 4 and we've been able to explain lots of situations like this. Because there are not arbitrary or countless limits imposed upon him, he understands that we're telling him the truth and still working as a team and/or on his behalf.
Just a point of clarification.







Just as a non coercive approach to living does not mean your needs and desires get sacrificed, a parenting paradigm that includes an authorative style does not mean we have "countless limits imposed" or "arbitrary" limits.


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Maybe this is why I am so abled to creatively discover solutions that ds agrees with. I understand his pov; but I also had lots of creative practice overcoming obstacles to get my way as a teenager.

And, incedentally, it is why when my parents divorced I chose to live with my less-coercive father who taught me the subtleties of consequence with GD -whether or not he acknowledged there was even a term for what he did. So now that I know there is, I can see why I relate to it so. Instead of those of you chosing to parent _differently_ because of your uprbringings, I chose to use my well-fathered teen years as example to bounce off of rather than avoid. But as I said earlier, those that use their parents' approach to their teen years as example of what to avoid as a parent can easily take it to the extreme. So, how do we maintain a balance that works for everyone in the family? It isn't possibly 100% of the time, and shouldn't be expected to be.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
We had this issue until I realized that our son just gets too hot in the car, and doesn't like the feel of clothing when sitting idle. Even in the house, he strips down to the bare minimum. He has some sensory acuity issues. And he is highly sensitive. And is very hot natured. (unless it is about 35-40 degrees, he doesn't get cold without a coat. I am the opposite so I think he must be freezing but he is perfectly articulate and just is not cold.) He wears the necessary loose clothing to cover his body and he puts his clothes on in the car when we arrive. Same with shoes. He prefers a blanket in the car for when the car is first cold and then throws it off when he gets too warm. I of course have a coat on and heat.









How old is your daughter? I would think the above would work until age 5ish and then naked children in a car might be an issue.







But our son is perfectly agreeable to put clothes on to go into an establishment or event. You might try that. It is much easier to dress a willing participant, I imagine.

Pat

My daughter is 2.5. We're usually walking, not driving and when we do drive, it's unlikely that she's too hot in the car, as it's usually a 5 minute drive or less. We live very close to the grocery store, her aunt's place, her grandma's place, three playgrounds, a movie theater, her brother's school, several restaurants, etc. Plus, I like cooler temperatures than anybody else in my family, including dd. She just won't get dressed. If I try to dress her, she runs away. But, if I catch her and put her clothes on, she'll usually sit still for it. If not, I usually cancel the outing.

And, telling her that she needs to get dressed to go to the farm or the park or whatever doesn't work, either. She then claims she doesn't want to go to wherever. But, if I say that's okay...she starts crying that she does want to go. _She_ wants to go wherever it is, but she does not want to get dressed to go. She'll usually put up with me putting her clothes on for her. I don't get it. I'm not totally non-coercive, but I certainly do try to give reasons for things and let my kids know how things work. I don't think they learn anything about life by being told "go here...go there...don't touch that... stop...go...don't eat that", with no explanation of _why_ they should stop, go or avoid touching something. But, generally with dd, less coercion = more chaos. She seems to prefer the approach of "we're going shopping - here's your clothes. Do you want to put them on or should I do that?". And..presto - we're out the door.

I wonder if ds1 was highly sensitive. He hated socks, because the seams never felt right, and he was _always_ naked.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
But that's OK. My older son is almost 4 and we've been able to explain lots of situations like this. Because there are not arbitrary or countless limits imposed upon him, he understands that we're telling him the truth and still working as a team and/or on his behalf.

This is true in my home as well and I do not believe in non coercive parenting.
While I do not have the goal to never be coercive. I DO have the goal to never be arbitrary. And that any rule or limit is wellthought out and considered truly important before applying.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

What if, what if, what if, what if... this is usually the arguement people resort to in discussions like this.

I don't think any of us here are living in the dire circumstances that would prevent someone from having choices. I would have hoped people wouldn't insult my intelligence so much as to imply that I feel for instance, little girls in Africa can make a decision not to be genitally mutilated, or sold into marriage at 8 or whatever.

I think though, that resorting to those arguements, when most reasonable people would come to the conclusion that I wasn't speaking of those circumstances, is a clever maneuver to get away from the point.

So I will clarify and bring it a bit closer to home. Everyone on this site has choices If you are living well enough to have an internet connection, even if you are living modestly (as our family is) you have choices.

Of course things like terminal cancer isn't a choice. Neither is walking down the street getting hit by a bus. I was silly to assume that most people would get that I have enough brains to not claim that people "choose" cancer, or to get hit by a bus. That is ridiculous.

However, getting back on topic, my child can certainly choose whether she wants to work under an @sshople boss, or what rules and laws are important enough for her to follow, or what she wears when she leaves the house, or where she lives, who she lives with, where she works, how she looks, what she eats, where she goes, what she does, who she interacts with...

So why would I want to create an environment when she is a child that eliminates most choices she has, or limits them to only the choices *I* find acceptable?

I don't want to raise her to think she has to follow orders or be mistreated because hey, that is just how the world works. Gee, sure glad people like Rosa Parks and the like didn't think so.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
What if, what if, what if, what if... this is usually the arguement people resort to in discussions like this.

I don't think any of us here are living in the dire circumstances that would prevent someone from having choices. I would have hoped people wouldn't insult my intelligence so much as to imply that I feel for instance, little girls in Africa can make a decision not to be genitally mutilated, or sold into marriage at 8 or whatever.

I think though, that resorting to those arguements, when most reasonable people would come to the conclusion that I wasn't speaking of those circumstances, is a clever maneuver to get away from the point.

So I will clarify and bring it a bit closer to home. Everyone on this site has choices If you are living well enough to have an internet connection, even if you are living modestly (as our family is) you have choices.

Of course things like terminal cancer isn't a choice. Neither is walking down the street getting hit by a bus. I was silly to assume that most people would get that I have enough brains to not claim that people "choose" cancer, or to get hit by a bus. That is ridiculous.

However, getting back on topic, my child can certainly choose whether she wants to work under an @sshole boss, or what rules and laws are important enough for her to follow, or what she wears when she leaves the house, or where she lives, who she lives with, where she works, how she looks, what she eats, where she goes, what she does, who she interacts with...

So why would I want to create an environment when she is a child that eliminates most choices she has, or limits them to only the choices *I* find acceptable?

I don't want to raise her to think she has to follow orders or be mistreated because hey, that is just how the world works. Gee, sure glad people like Rosa Parks and the like didn't think so.

I dont think anybody here is thinking that only people in extreme circumstances have no choices though.
when it comes to meeting our basic needs, survival dictates we do not have a choice. And when we have children that goes double.

Can your daughter choose whether or not to work for a boss as you describe? Does she have bills? How is the economy? Is her rent or mortage dependant on that income? Does she have children to support? If she gets fired will she lose her insurance? If she does quit is her "choice" working for McDonalds instead. Does she have seniority or years of experience she would be sacrificing?
This is what most people face when they have a situation as you describe. And is a choice between working for a jerk of a boss and losing your home really a choice? I would say no. Is it a choice to work or have your electric turned off? How about not having money for groceries for your child?
You say these are all choices. Well, when the alternative is a choice nobody would ever pick, it really isnt a choice?
She might choose that laws against shoplifting are stupid because the object she wants is only a few dollars. But that would also be choosing to spend up to 5 years in jail. Some choice.

Ok so maybe you say you want your dd to have the freedom of all these choices. The freedom to choose to be destitute or imprisoned.
Great.
I'd rather my kids know that some things really arent a choice. YOu just do what you gotta do.
Joline
ETA(corrected some snarky sounding language, I didnt mean to come off so strong)


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

I would have hoped people wouldn't insult my intelligence so much as to imply that I feel for instance, little girls in Africa can make a decision not to be genitally mutilated, or sold into marriage at 8 or whatever.
That was not my intent, CC. I'm sorry that I took words out of context and used them to prove an obscure point. That was unfair.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I dont think anybody here is thinking that only people in extreme circumstances have no choices though.
when it comes to meeting our basic needs, survival dictates we do NOT have a choice. And when we have children that goes double.

Can your daughter choose whether or not to work for a boss as you describe? Does she have bills? How is the economy? Is her rent or mortage dependant on that income? Does she have children to support? If she gets fired will she lose her insurance? If she does quit is her "choice" working for McDonalds instead. Does she have seniority or years of experience she would be sacrificing?
This is what MOST people face when they have a situation as you describe. And is a choice between working for a jerk of a boss and losing your home really a choice? I would say NO. Is it a choice to work or have your electric turned off? How about not having money for groceries for your child?
You say these are all choices. Well some when the alternative is a choice nobody would EVER pick, it really isnt a choice now is it?
She might choose that laws against shoplifting are stupid because the object she wants is only a few dollars. But that would also be choosing to spend up to 5 years in jail. Some choice.

Ok so maybe you say you want your dd to have the freedom of all these choices. The freedom to choose to be destitute or imprisoned.
Great.
I'd rather my kids know that some things really arent a choice. YOu just do what you gotta do.
Joline


Here's the choice, and it's one I made. I had a bad boss. I didn't feel like I had to continue working for her - I looked into things and found another job. I didn't allow her telling me I was "disloyal" to keep me there. I made a choice to leave a job. I had rent to pay and bills that needed to be paid but I made the choice to leave one employer. I found another job first, but it's amazing how many people stay with bad employers without even trying to find anything else because they feel like they have to. I had to get creative about the job I took but I was determined to get out of there.

Same thing with relationships. People stay in bad relationships all the time because they have an external rule that "marriage has to last forever." I'd never stay in a bad relationship for any reason. I'd find some way to get out no matter how creative I had to get.

People who jump through hoops and follow unjust laws because it will help them at work might also be people who jump through hoops and follow unwise paths because it will help them become more popular with peers, or get the boyfriend they want, or hold onto the boyfriend/girlfriend they want, etc.

I don't like debate and I'm trying not to come across that way. I'm just trying to present how this is working in my mind to try to let you understand my perspective.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HappyHSer*
Just a point of clarification.







Just as a non coercive approach to living does not mean your needs and desires get sacrificed, a parenting paradigm that includes an authorative style does not mean we have "countless limits imposed" or "arbitrary" limits.

No, no of course not. But, I do think that the majority of kids out there do. And that parents are applauded for teaching their kids important life lessons by doing so.

Quote:

And is a choice between working for a jerk of a boss and losing your home really a choice? I would say NO. Is it a choice to work or have your electric turned off? How about not having money for groceries for your child?
You say these are all choices. Well some when the alternative is a choice nobody would EVER pick, it really isnt a choice now is it?
I think those are all real choices. There are a lot of choices betw. working for a jerk and losing your house.

Some people (including some on MDC) have chosen to live off the grid. That's a valid choice.

Some people choose to sell their belongings and quit thier jobs to sail around the Bahamas.

Choosing to work at McDonalds is still a choice--and given the number of McDonalds that are fully staffed in this country, it would seem that plenty of people have made that choice.

I chose to live in extreme poverty for awhile. It was better and offered more freedom than living in my parents house.

eta: I think that seeing our lives as full of choices is the surest way to feeling autonomous and fulfilled. As, I said earlier, I used to not see my life this way and I felt pretty put upon. Now, I can see that I can really do anything. My situation is never hopeless.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee*
Here's the choice, and it's one I made. I had a bad boss. I didn't feel like I had to continue working for her - I looked into things and found another job. I didn't allow her telling me I was "disloyal" to keep me there. I made a choice to leave a job. I had rent to pay and bills that needed to be paid but I made the choice to leave one employer. I found another job first, but it's amazing how many people stay with bad employers without even trying to find anything else because they feel like they have to. I had to get creative about the job I took but I was determined to get out of there.

Same thing with relationships. People stay in bad relationships all the time because they have an external rule that "marriage has to last forever." I'd never stay in a bad relationship for any reason. I'd find some way to get out no matter how creative I had to get.

People who jump through hoops and follow unjust laws because it will help them at work might also be people who jump through hoops and follow unwise paths because it will help them become more popular with peers, or get the boyfriend they want, or hold onto the boyfriend/girlfriend they want, etc.

I don't like debate and I'm trying not to come across that way. I'm just trying to present how this is working in my mind to try to let you understand my perspective.

Oh I completely understand and I guess my boss example was incomplete I would never suggest anybody continue to work for a jerk of a boss. But until you have something else lined up you really have no choice but to do what he says. But still yes of course, do what you can to get out as quick as you can. I do not mean people do not have the choice to leave overall. I Only mean that when it comes to right this second, do what he says/put up with him or be unemployed until you find another job.
Sometimes we "have no choice" until we are able to change our circumstances enough to give ourselves a choice.
And I am 100% all for changing ones circumstances.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Wow, there is so much to respond to in the time I was caring for our daughter, watching a movie, and taking a wee nap!

Anyway, in regard to what we buy at the grocery store...of course up until a certain age I have to make the food decisions. I mean, would you have me put my daughter on the floor of the grocery store to crawl towards various items until she finds a box, and buy whichever boxes of things she gums the most or what? However, if she is 4 or 5 and says to me one morning, "I would like a banana split for breakfast mommy." I would kindly tell her we don't have everything it takes to make one, but we usually do have bananas and tofutti...and I could make her a "make-shift" one....but next time we went to the store I would buy the things she wants for a banana split if she chooses to have one again. You said that it is controlling because the food your child wants may not be in the house. Well, of course! Do you think I have every food option available in my home at all times? If my daughter made a request though, I would attempt to fill it... if not that moment, but the next time we shopped.

As for the poster who said that they are teaching their children that not everyone is going to jump at their requests, that they are teaching them about "the real world." I don't plan on jumping to my daughter's every request. However, I do believe when you surround yourself with people who care for you, share a similar morla code, and are generally respectful of you as well as themselves-- it creates an environment where people WANT to help you get the things you want and need in life, as you help them...whether it be emotionally or what. I would hate for my daughter to marry a man (or woman) who, if asked for something reasonable, said to my daughter "No, the world isn't going to jump to your requests lady." I want her to surround herself with people she loves and who love her, who she is willing to help and vice versa, in a consentual agreement of friendship or lover or whatever.

Will my daughter have an asshole boss someday? Probably, but I hope she has enough respect for herself or of a higher goal she wants to attain, to either shrug it off as them being a terribly unhappy, power-trippy person with nothing better to do than to treat her badly, or use the skills and education she has to seek other employment with someone more respectful to the person she is.

Life is a choice. Everything is a choice. Unless someone is holding a gun to your head threatening to pull the trigger, you have a choice in everything you do. Even then you have a choice, to scream or not. To try to live, or risk dying, whatever.

I am so sick of people thinking that life is full of things that other people, things, and situations that are "making" them do or not do something. Everything you do or don't do is directly related to a choice you made, and directly related to whether or not you are willing to suffer or benefit (whichever the case may be) from making other choices that change where you are, how you do things, what situation you are in.

People use the excuse that they are raising adults, and this is why they parent the way they do. I could say the same thing. I am raising someone who is going to have a say, who is going to be making every single choice that is going to affect the outcome of her life. No way am I going to raise a child, a daughter especially, who looks to someone else for the answers because she is so used to someone making her decisions for her that she can't be confident in any decision she makes herself because she never got the opportunity to make one.

I think offering two things that you are willing to "let" your child have, then feeling really good when they choose one of the things you wanted them to choose anyway...patting yourself on the back because you "let" them have a choice. That isn't a choice at all.

When I said we usually don't have certain things in our home, we don't. That is a fact. I am not going to stock up on a bunch of crap we haven't eaten for like 7 years "in case" my daughter decides she wants to try something. However, if she expresses interest in trying something, at a friend's house, grandmom's, birthday party, whatever...and comes to me and says "Oh.My.God. They have this stuff called cheetos, and I LOVE THEM...can we buy some????" I would, and let her regulate her consumption of them.

Ok, since we are saying the same things, maybe we really are the same person posting under two names.





















Have you read Ayn Rand? You sound like an objectivist too.







We "have to" meet!









Pat


----------



## PaxMamma (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I have yet to see an example of a parent who chose this type of parenting based on the soundness of the philosophy who was not influenced by their own rebellious nature. Is it a philosophy based on a reaction to authoritative parenting by adults who were spirited and rebellious as children?


i have thought about this a lot since reading all kinds of posts here. it does seem to come up a lot that people here are GD b/c their parents were authoritative, bad parents, whatever. i often wonder if there is a board out there somewhere full of people who were GD'd and thought it was horrible and are now raising their children authoritatively







.

but off of this board, i have had the opposite experience. i can't tell you how many people i have heard say, "I was spanked and I turned out good, so i'm going to spank." i can only cringe. i can't very well say, you were devalued, humiliated, disrespected, etc. i certainly can't tell them i think they're abusing their children. kwim?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Deleted due to snarkiness. ( I shouldn't have had that second glass of wine last night.














)

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HappyHSer*
I still don't think it applies as an absolute way to evaluate life. I don't need the dramatic circumstances above to know that life is to complex to assert complete powerlessness *or* complete control.

My mother's battle with cancer and recent death is just one common life situation which necessitated choices that were neither completely coerced or able to be responded to with complete choice.

I'm not presenting this as an arguement for coercion in child rearing, btw. Or as an arguement for the imposition of "real world" circumstances on children to prepare them.

I do, however, completely disagree that we have complete power and free choice in all circumstance.

I am sad to hear about your mother's illness and death. I am sure that was a life event of feeling powerlessness. However, the point of "having to" do things you don't want to do is in relation to being *made* to do so by some outside imposed force. And this doesn't occur unless *initiated* by someone. Life certainly "imposes" itself on us, _fortunately_. But, no one is stating we have complete power and free choice in all circumstances of life. The issue is whether it is necessary for one person to impose their will over another's will because the (little) person "has to" do what the parent wants. What alternative means of accomplishing the goal that doesn't require taking away someone's autonomy exists? And I maintain there are many alternatives that do not include the act of force.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisac77*
Captain Crunchy, this precise point is why I feel that the argument of "you don't have to do anything, you choose to do everything" is a reduction to absurdity. Clearly, there are people in this world who do NOT have choices in their personal scenarios. In my opinion, the argument is a classist statement brought about by people who have personal and economic freedom. When you feed the argument back through Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - the basic things people need to survive - the biological imperative to live will trump choice.

Of course, none of this really has anything to do with gentle discipline.









Just philosophically from an anthropological and socio-economic interest, I disagree. The events listed are due to the *imposition* of force upon another by man. Precisely, one person making another "have to" do something at the threat of a gun (war, slavery, indentured servents) against their will. Life doesn't "owe" choices, imo. But by what principle does one person *take choice away* from another except by the philosophy of "might makes right"? This is exactly relevant to gentle discipline. As we are modeling this philosophy or rejecting it. How does inner discipline develop when one is controlled by extrinsic force?

Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Just philosophically from an anthropological and socio-economic interest, I disagree. The events listed are due to the *imposition* of force upon another by man. Precisely, one person making another "have to" do something at the threat of a gun (war, slavery, indentured servents) against their will. Life doesn't "owe" choices, imo. But by what principle does one person *take choice away* from another except by the philosophy of "might makes right"? This is exactly relevant to gentle discipline. As we are modeling this philosophy or rejecting it. How does inner discipline develop when one is controlled by extrinsic force?

Pat

Parents mediate between the harsh realities of life and the child. If life doesnt "owe" choices, the parent chooses whether or not to offer them. It is not the parent taking away choices. But the parent offering more choices than life would without their mediation.
Just because children have their parents mediate between them and the harsh realities of life and the lack of choices that sometimes happens does not automatically entitle children to a free range of choices not availible to adults. Mom must go to work because of economic reality although nobody is holding a gun to her head. But because mom must go, in order to provide for dc. Dc must go to preschool. She does not have a choice in the scenario because it is her mother who is mediating between her and the world. To her mom is making her go to preschool. In reality the economic situation which necessitates mom to work is the same situation that necessitates the child to go to preschool. But the parent mediates and it is the parent who in actuality "makes" the child go to preschool.
If the parent has resources and creativity she might be able to offer an alternative choice, maybe a daycare or a home based daycare. But the choice the child wants , which is that mom stays home, is not an availible choice.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
My daughter is 2.5. We're usually walking, not driving and when we do drive, it's unlikely that she's too hot in the car, as it's usually a 5 minute drive or less. We live very close to the grocery store, her aunt's place, her grandma's place, three playgrounds, a movie theater, her brother's school, several restaurants, etc. Plus, I like cooler temperatures than anybody else in my family, including dd. She just won't get dressed. If I try to dress her, she runs away. But, if I catch her and put her clothes on, she'll usually sit still for it. If not, I usually cancel the outing.

And, telling her that she needs to get dressed to go to the farm or the park or whatever doesn't work, either. She then claims she doesn't want to go to wherever. But, if I say that's okay...she starts crying that she does want to go. _She_ wants to go wherever it is, but she does not want to get dressed to go. She'll usually put up with me putting her clothes on for her. I don't get it. I'm not totally non-coercive, but I certainly do try to give reasons for things and let my kids know how things work. I don't think they learn anything about life by being told "go here...go there...don't touch that... stop...go...don't eat that", with no explanation of _why_ they should stop, go or avoid touching something. But, generally with dd, less coercion = more chaos. She seems to prefer the approach of "we're going shopping - here's your clothes. Do you want to put them on or should I do that?". And..presto - we're out the door.

I wonder if ds1 was highly sensitive. He hated socks, because the seams never felt right, and he was _always_ naked.

It sounds like

1. She doesn't like clothes.







: I'd try less clothed child in the backpack with a blanket. Or skip the clothes going to wherever in the car. And don't go if she really doesn't want to go at that time. Or make going more fun during the transition (take along toys, snack, etc.). I found waiting for a natural break in ds's play where he finished one activity and then engage him and move us out the door before a new activity began worked. Because he enjoyed the engagement as much as any activity.

2. She wants choice. So when she doesn't want to go "ok"; when she (immediately) subsequently does want to go "ok". Trying to get her to go when she is resistant creates the struggle for choice, from my experience. When the choice is available, there is nothing to struggle over. For either of us. And we just move on to what we both want to do without struggling.

Sounds like you are doing it. It is hard when others are waiting though. Having family that is respectful of children helps. Just as it helps for us to be patient and respectful with my grandfather who is indecisive, slow to get ready and out the door and changes his mind.









Pat


----------



## mommaJ (May 3, 2005)

I've enjoyed reading through the whole thread. I most definitely want to be less coercive than I am currently. I know it will make our days run more smoothly. Most things in our daily life I can absolutely let DD make her decisions about. One particular thing comes to mind, though, as this has been a recent battle........brushing her teeth. I don't feel like that is an optional task.

I certainly do not want to reduce this thread to a question regarding personal hygiene, but I am sincerely curious.....do you "make" your children brush their teeth. BTW, I offer suggestions such as laying in the recliner to "play" dentist, standing on the step-stool in the bathroom, etc. Somedays its no struggle at all and we have fun with it. Other days she simply does not want to. When this happens, I sometimes just let it go, other times I force it. Not sure how to handle this. Minor, I know, but on my mind. WWYD, non-coercive mamas?

TIA!


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Neat discussion.

One point that I've always found puzzling is this idea that we must impose on our children the "harsh realities" of life in order to best prepare them for it.

But I honestly feel that you don't prepare your children for 'real life' by imposing real life situations on them. In fact, I think in some ways it would be more effective to do the exact opposite. For example, how do you raise a child to be able to withstand teasing, gossiping, bullying...that sort of emotional abuse? Well, you don't do it by teasing and bullying them at home, with the idea that "well, she knows we love her so it's a safe way to teach her what real life will be like". On the contrary, we know that the best way to combat such bullying is high self-esteem. By raising a child to love themself, believe in themselves, to trust their feelings as being valid and right, all those things build up a child who can better withstand assaults on their personality: with strong self-esteem, the bully-ers are seen for what they are; inconsequential and insecure.

Similarly, I think children who are raised to be part of the solution are better able to own up to their responsibilities, instead of being of the 'blame everyone else' persuasion. That also makes me think of the above debates about whether or not we really have choices. I like looking at the glass as 'half full' and believing I do have a choice, because otherwise I feel it's too easy to blame everybody else for your shortcomings or mistakes.

I think children who take part in decision making and problem solving just may do better at dealing with overbearing bosses, or tough life choices, than children who are raised in an authoritarian manner. So rather than saying "we need to exert control because that is what real life is like sometimes", I think we should say "I need to teach them about owning the problem so that they can decide the best course of action...which just may be, in certain circumstances, to 'obey'. But at least they are choosing that route conciously and with forethought".


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommaJ*
I've enjoyed reading through the whole thread. I most definitely want to be less coercive than I am currently. I know it will make our days run more smoothly. Most things in our daily life I can absolutely let DD make her decisions about. One particular thing comes to mind, though, as this has been a recent battle........brushing her teeth. I don't feel like that is an optional task.

I certainly do not want to reduce this thread to a question regarding personal hygiene, but I am sincerely curious.....do you "make" your children brush their teeth. BTW, I offer suggestions such as laying in the recliner to "play" dentist, standing on the step-stool in the bathroom, etc. Somedays its no struggle at all and we have fun with it. Other days she simply does not want to. When this happens, I sometimes just let it go, other times I force it. Not sure how to handle this. Minor, I know, but on my mind. WWYD, non-coercive mamas?

TIA!

We laugh because it always comes down to brushing teeth, bedtimes, eating vegetables and the car seat.







No we do not make ds brush his teeth. We model, explain, offer alternatives. We have about six different tooth brushes, his choice varies according to the moon (apparently). We have several types of tooth paste, we have floss (several types and methods), we have electric tooth brushes, we don't have a water pic but that helps, we have tongue brushes, little tooth pics, little dental mirrors, etc. He brushes about five times per week. Somedays 2-3 times. Mostly daily. He brushes in the morning, in the car, in bed, in front of the tv, at the table, in front of the mirror. Whenever and wherever he chooses. He requests brushing and refuses brushing. We eat plenty of raw vegetables, little candy, plenty of sweets, diluted juice, takes vitamins and calcium. And his teeth are fine. But we do not have a battle about what goes into his mouth.

I brushed well as a child. Several times a day and had many cavities. We also ate much more candy, etc. Mostly cavities are genetic. So, we shall see over time.

Pat


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
I don't think that a joyful time that you would willingly go back to means that the rest of your life is joyless or that you don't wish to experience that, too. It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

I think part of giving my kids a joyful childhood means that I'm giving myself a joyful adulthood. And they can see how a life based on respect and give and take creates a joyful experience for everybody.

I don't get how making a joyful environment free of coercion and bullying isn't teaching kids how to be adults?

Oh, sorry, I guess I didn't see what you were saying, I agree with you here.

But I also think a little coercion doesn't prevent a joyful environment.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Pat: I think it's more a choice thing than a clothes thing. She likes to wear clothes - she just doesn't like to put them on to go out. I'll think about a blanket in the pack, but I worry about the rain - it gets pretty heavy here. The time it gets really ugly is when it's "okay - we won't go", then her brother gets hungry...I sit down to nurse..."I want to go to the farm". ARGGH!

Of course, as soon as I'm finished nursing, she doesn't want to go again...and putting her clothes on so we can go as soon as he finishes isn't an option.

Ah, well - I know from ds1 that this time is all too brief. I'll enjoy all there is to enjoy and try not to let the rest of it cause my head to explode.


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

We laugh because it always comes down to brushing teeth, bedtimes, eating vegetables and the car seat.
You forgot running into the street and learning math.









The usual list for challenges to positive parenting/discipline questions is similar:

running into the street, touching the stove, backtalk and the big, undefined: outright defiance.


----------



## moma justice (Aug 16, 2003)

i am glad i read every post!
my dd is THe MOSt spirited child i could have ever dreamed of...and i was a teacher, nanny, and child from a large family...so i have been around a lot of kids in my time thus far.
and to maek it worse (MUCH WORSE) my dh is by nature very up tight and controling.....he has germ phobias for instance, so my dd likes to pick up his shoes and lick the soles.....in his face...
does she do that for me?
no not anymore, b/c i let go...unless her safety is involved.....i try and just stay out of her way. and she does pretty well most of the time...
i AM guilty of trying to force my will on her, sometimes it is needed for extream reasons....some times i am just tired and not my best momma self (she will be ok despite these instances)

this means i only buy her used clothes, tath way i do not even FEEL stress when she wants to paint her body with blueberries.

this means i end up keeping a lot of shoes and clothes in the car....b/c she is often hard to get dressed....but, when she gets cold outside or she agrees that they will NOt allow her in the store naked (laws or rules not made by me...) she complies easily...."this is not our store, they are sharing it with us. that is nice, we have to respect their rules."

this means i keep a lot of her favorite foods on her table so SHE can come and eat what and when she wants (other wise she would starve, she does not do meal times)

this means i try and run chase games up and down our yard for hours each evening so that SHE WANTS to eat, drink, potty, and then go to sleep...

now in the future i am already cringing about her wanting to eat sugary junk for breakfast (something we don't EVER have in our house period)
what will i do? i will i feel?
i can' t say, b/c the thing i have learned via mothering my spirited child is to never say "i'll never"

and OP i just have to say that your dd is ONLY 5 months.......it is hard for you to imagine all the things she could do and say and how they will make you feel or react.

i find myself having this gut reaction (learned via my childhood) of saying NO to something and then having to go back and say, "i am sorry honey, i did not realize X was so important to you. i should not have tried to make you X" or what ever.

at least she will learn to admit when she is wrong!!!!

but just saying, keeping a spirited, highly sensitive, high needs toddler ALIVE and HEALTHY are harder than i ever dreamed.

oh and ps.
i also have to teach my daughter to respect herself by respecting myself, that means i don't let her hurt me, i don't let her needs overide mine or my dh's all the time...we try and discuss it. but sometimes, i coudl talk till i am blue and she would not agree/compromise...

she does not want me to pee, b/c she wants me to read a book RIGHt then, she does not want me to eat a snack b/c she wants me to play chase.....etc.
if i do not comply to her demands, on certain days or moods she has, she can SCREAM like someone is beating her the entire time i am peeing, and then smile and be happy when i am done and we are sitting on the couch with the book.

but i agree with OP's point: if you allow your child to make their own choices, they will make good ones, even if you don't see it that way at the time, they are figuring it all out in their own way....and that is the point.


----------



## mommaJ (May 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
We laugh because it always comes down to brushing teeth, bedtimes, eating vegetables and the car seat.







No we do not make ds brush his teeth. We model, explain, offer alternatives. We have about six different tooth brushes, his choice varies according to the moon (apparently). We have several types of tooth paste, we have floss (several types and methods), we have electric tooth brushes, we don't have a water pic but that helps, we have tongue brushes, little tooth pics, little dental mirrors, etc. He brushes about five times per week. Somedays 2-3 times. Mostly daily. He brushes in the morning, in the car, in bed, in front of the tv, at the table, in front of the mirror. Whenever and wherever he chooses. He requests brushing and refuses brushing. We eat plenty of raw vegetables, little candy, plenty of sweets, diluted juice, takes vitamins and calcium. And his teeth are fine. But we do not have a battle about what goes into his mouth.

I brushed well as a child. Several times a day and had many cavities. We also ate much more candy, etc. Mostly cavities are genetic. So, we shall see over time.

Pat

Sounds good to me. I will happily adopt this philosophy as well.









My mom is a dental hygentist and will have to be none the wiser









Thanks for the quick response.

As a first time mom and long-time rebelious spirit, I long for a way to connect with and guide my child rather than command her, as I've felt myself doing lately. Thank goodness for MDC and all of you.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
We laugh because it always comes down to brushing teeth, bedtimes, eating vegetables and the car seat.







No we do not make ds brush his teeth. We model, explain, offer alternatives. We have about six different tooth brushes, his choice varies according to the moon (apparently). We have several types of tooth paste, we have floss (several types and methods), we have electric tooth brushes, we don't have a water pic but that helps, we have tongue brushes, little tooth pics, little dental mirrors, etc.

This is a good illustration, to me, of values and priorities. I read this and thought, "How wasteful! One person does not need all those things to keep their teeth clean!" But Pat and her son must feel that he does.

So I guess, for me, while it's important for my child to be happy and have as much choice as possible, it's not important enough for me to participate in or contribute to behavior that I am opposed to, and therefore I will coerce my children to follow my rules.


----------



## wildmonkeys (Oct 4, 2004)

Great thoughts from everyone.

As I mentioned in another thread on this subject, I am really interested in ideas from p's of more than one child. Most all of our issues arise when my children have different needs or voice different desires at the same moment...

BJ
Bareny & Ben


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Well, I'm not _non_-coercive, but I do have three kids. DS1 isn't usually a huge factor in this kind of thing, as he's 12, and usually understands that the little ones have to come first in some ways. But, dd and ds2 definitely have conflicting needs sometimes.

I try to figure out what's more urgent...not more important, but more urgent. If ds2 is hungry, and dd's diaper is dripping down her leg, I change her diaper and sing to ds2 (or something to try to keep him occupied). I know he's hungry, but I can't have pee leaking all over the house. If dd is hungry, and ds2 is poopy...same logic - get the gunky breastmilk poop contained _first_, then feed dd, then clean up from the diaper change. I try to explain to dd why she has to wait a few minutes for her yogurt, nuts, apple or whatever. Sometimes she understands, and sometimes she doesn't. But, it's getting better all the time (ds2 is only 3.5 months old).

If it's "just" a matter of both needing my attention...well...can be more complicated. I do a fair bit of singing/reading to dd while holding ds2 on my lap and making funny faces at him. I engage dd wilth ds2...she likes to make him smile and laugh. Or, I put ds2 down on the floor (he's learning to roll over and do baby "pushups") and he watches (and giggles) while dd and I dance or do some yoga.

I don't really have any tips, I guess. I just try to improvise all day, and fall into bed exhausted. But, you know...after ds1, it took me 10 years of infertility and miscarriages to have dd. When things are completely insane, I remind myself of how much richer my life is now than it was a few years ago. This will pass...all too quickly...


----------



## happeeevraftr (Mar 27, 2005)

Well, I was going to ask about brushing teeth, but I see that that has already been addressed. How about this one: putting a diaper on for bed. Is that a pretty common question too?

I try to be non-coercive. I have read several books recommended here and loved them, including Kids are Worth It and stuff by Anthony Wolf. I had a not-good childhood and I am determined to make things better for my kids.

I think I have been doing pretty well, up until the last few weeks. DD has always been an angel, a joy, so sweet and considerate. She is a little over 2 now. She still is all of those things, but lately, I have become the wicked witch of the west! Maybe it's pregnancy hormones, I don't know. But I am finding myself wanting to control her quite often, and it's really bothering me. Reading this thread is helping.

Back to my specific question: DD is potty learning (has been for months, we're going slowly, at her own pace) and she loves wearing panties--she's always hated diapers (any kind). It is only an issue at bedtime, when she HAS TO wear a diaper OR I have to wash the sheets everyday AND buy a waterproof mattress pad, AND she'd have rashes and wake up every time she peed (which is a TON at night). So, at least half the time, it is not a big issue. She is happy enough, or distracted enough playing with mom or dad, or whatever, and she happily gets her diaper on. But sometimes, like tonight, oh MY! She will wiggle, scream, and run around like you wouldn't believe. And I can't figure out why. She wasn't over tired--she got her nap and we were putting her down at the regular time. I did everything I normally do, talked to her about the stories we're going to read, and how we're going to cuddle and sing songs (which we do for at least 30 minutes, or however long it takes for her to be content for me to leave), etc. But she would not have it. And with the way I have been lately, I didn't react well today, and I eventually was able to force the diaper on her. She cried and thrashed for 10 minutes, and eventually she settled down enough and wanted me to leave, but then called for me and I came back and we cuddled and she was happy and all was well. But oh man, what can I do to avoid what we went through?

I can see not making her brush her teeth everynight. But surely you wouldn't let her go without a diaper every night? Surely that IS a HAVE TO, kind of like right now I HAVE To get up and go pee (again, for the 5th time this HOUR!) OR I will pee on this chair, all over the floor and myself. I suppose it is still a choice by definition... but it's not something I'm willing to negotiate on. I WILL NOT let her sleep without a diaper all night every night just like I WILL NOT pee in my own bed just because I don't want to get up and go to the bathroom 20 times a night.

So? Help?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

and OP i just have to say that your dd is ONLY 5 months.......it is hard for you to imagine all the things she could do and say and how they will make you feel or react.
Yes, I realize that. However, I really don't buy into the whole "you just wait" mentality. I mean, if I listened to the "you just waits" I would have not had a homebirth, would have let her cry it out, would have not attempted breastfeeding, wouldn't be co-sleeping, wouldn't be doing most of the things I do beause "you just wait....they will never leave your bed, sometimes they have to cry, you are going to scream for epidural, they will be attached to your breast all the time etc...

I can't control how my daughter will act, how she will "test" me, how I will feel inside if and when she does certain things, that is all true and you have a point there. However, I am very much in control of how I ACT. That is a choice. It is also one of the reasons I came here when pregnant, come here now with her being only 5 months, so when situations do arise, I won't be standing there at a loss of what course I want to take. Preparedness goes a long way, as well as the concious choice to act a certain way instead of making your actions contingent on what another person is doing or not doing.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

When thinking about "what if" situations like brushing teeth, eating well, learning math, etc. Keep in mind that non-coercive parenting involves lots of teaching and creative problem solving. I believe that if I just make my kids brush their teeth they will hate doing it and avoid it if they can. If they understand the importance of tooth brushing, and are provided with fun, pleasant ways to brush their teeth, they will adopt the theory that tooth brushing is good and do it willingly.

Quote:

I can see not making her brush her teeth everynight. But surely you wouldn't let her go without a diaper every night? Surely that IS a HAVE TO
What about the diaper does she not like? Would she wear absorbant training pants that she could pull on herself? What if you bought some cute training pants that she could pick out? Or maybe laying some cloth diapers under her?


----------



## Rigama (Oct 18, 2005)

Happee,

I'm right there with you on the night time diaper situation! DS is 3.5 and has been using the toilet accident free for about 6 or 8 months now, but night time has been a different issue entirely. There were times that he would scream bloody murder at the mere sight of a diaper. I found that buying a few pairs of underwear that are slightly large and letting him choose which ones he'd like to wear OVER his diaper helped a great deal. We also made a deal with him when he was about 3.25...That if he could go a whole week without peeing his diaper at night, he could wear underwear to bed. We never marked "Dry Night" on a chart or gave him any stickers, just reminded him that if he'd like to wear undies to bed, he'd need to not pee his diaper at night. We made sure he went pee before bed, reiterated that it's 100% OK to get up and pee at any time, day or night, and never made an issue of wet diapers. I'm so pleased to say that he has been in undies that last 2 nights, which translates to 9 nights dry!!!!

Some other thoughts on your issue...

*Take her to the store and let her choose the diapers she'd like

*We played the "Guess" game...The routine was comforting to him. I'd have the diaper upside down and I'd say "guess who's on your diaper tonight". He'd give a guess "Cookie Monster?" and I'd say "Nope...Someone who...(is red, is a girl, has feathers)" He'd make another guess (the whole time I'm putting the diaper on. Usually he'd guess and i'd say "YEAH! You guessed right!" At which point he'd stand up and try and see who it was. Diaper on, tantrum avoided.

*Perhaps the diapers are too small or itchy? Try going up a size. According to the boxes, DS should have been in a size 4 but was more comfy in a 5.

*Maybe she'd like pull-ups. We never used them because I just don't like the mixed message I feel they send, but your DD may very well enjoy having Daytime and Nighttime undies.

HTH,
Rigama


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Well, I missed a good part of this thread. A few points:

On the children being sacrifices. I did not really say that right. What I meant is that in order to have a child, I made the choice that sometimes my needs and wants might have to change. This was a choice though. Whatever the case, I do not see non-coersive parenting as a sacrifice and actually see it as the opposite. I get to do MORE of what I want by having a mutually respectful relationship with my dd.

On the wasted resources (too many toothbrush materials)...... That bothers me too. Do I think it is grounds for coersion? No. I cannot impose my values on my dd. She is very young so most of this has not come up. But if she were older and we crossed this path, I am quite sure that environmental concerns would be discussed frequently in our house as they are now between dh and I. Dd will hear these conversations and might even participate in them if she chooses. But despite that, she may not hold the same beliefs I do just as my neighbors and family do not. I cannot make my neighbors or family use less of anything and I really do not think I could achieve that with my dd either, even with very coersive methods. Yes, for a while I could by simply refusing to buy things or throwing out things while she sleeps. But one day she will be an adult and it will not matter what I did "for her" rather than "with her consent". And she will use however many toothbrushes as she chooses. Besides, it is really not a waste when you think about it. A child might have 5 toothbrushes and 5 types of toothpaste. No one says that they all get thrown out after two months (like the dentist recommends). Since there are 5 of them I would imagine they get thrown out when each has been used for a total of 2 months which really works out to the same thing.

Around here we do not fret about toothbrushing. Call me a bad mom but every night dh and I brush our teeth. Sometimes dd feels compelled to brush hers too and sometimes not. We discuss dental health but she really is too young to grasp much of it so I do not expect that to sink in for at least another year. Until then, it really is up to her. I do not see how forcing her to brush her teeth is going to do anything except make her not want to do it once she is too big for me to force.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wildmonkeys*
Great thoughts from everyone.

As I mentioned in another thread on this subject, I am really interested in ideas from p's of more than one child. Most all of our issues arise when my children have different needs or voice different desires at the same moment...

BJ
Bareny & Ben

Pat has summoned me







I have 2 kids (almost 6 and 8). We live consensually with no coercion. We value everyone's input and search for common preferences. (In case that word reminds you of TCS, I HATE TCS, not a fan AT ALL!) I've found the critical thinking and problem solving skills needed to find common preferences are so valuable in many arenas. I've also found we just get better and better at it the more we practice. I've seen families in the midst of power struggles and it doesn't look easy! I believe where we focus our energy is what grows, so I choose to work at living consensually and having a joy filled home. And we really do, it can work, it does work and it is so worth the time and effort.

Since there wasn't a specific question, I'll stop now. Just letting you know that indeed there exists people with multiple children that live consensually.







I don't post here much but will try to keep up with the discussion.

Anna

PS. My kids brush their teeth everyday, they don't run into traffic







They eat a balanced diet - without coercion, learn math and go to bed when they are tired


----------



## Rigama (Oct 18, 2005)

The toothbrush song I made up

(to the tune of Camptown races)

Cavity monster go away
Get out...of ethan's mouth
Cavity monster go away
Oh get out of ethan's mouth!

Cavity monster Go!
Cavity monster Leave!
Cavity monster go away,
Don't give ethan a cavity.

Okay, it's hokey and lame, but it works! And I can sing it fast or slow or a mixture of both. Or i can sing it fast and then say "Oh no! I see it! It's on your top left molar, let's get it! Hurry, it's on your bottom left molar now!"

Fun fun fun!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

All of my kids love to brush their teeth. In fact they remind me! They get so excited when they see their toothbrushes.
And this is all despite the fact that they have to do it.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ambdkf*
Pat has summoned me







I have 2 kids (almost 6 and 8). We live consensually with no coercion. We value everyone's input and search for common preferences. (In case that word reminds you of TCS, I HATE TCS, not a fan AT ALL!)

What's the distinction between TCS, and living consensually, if you don't mind my asking? Is there more to TCS?


----------



## Rigama (Oct 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
What's the distinction between TCS, and living consensually, if you don't mind my asking? Is there more to TCS?


And while we're at it (since i'm a relative newbie here) what is TCS?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
What's the distinction between TCS, and living consensually, if you don't mind my asking? Is there more to TCS?









:
Yeah Id kinda like to understand more about that too.


----------



## Wugmama (Feb 10, 2005)

I haven't read all of the posts. Not actually in a good state of mind lately to be reading this stuff, but do have one very basic question.

I am getting what some, like Pat and cc, are saying about non-coercion. But what about denying a request - that isn't coercion. Like what about if a 3 year old wants to watch TV all day and the doors to the TV are kept closed and locked? What is the take on that? This non-coercive parenting doesn't mean complying with every request, does it?

Thanks,
Tracy


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
Pat: I think it's more a choice thing than a clothes thing. She likes to wear clothes - she just doesn't like to put them on to go out. I'll think about a blanket in the pack, but I worry about the rain - it gets pretty heavy here. The time it gets really ugly is when it's "okay - we won't go", then her brother gets hungry...I sit down to nurse..."I want to go to the farm". ARGGH!

Of course, as soon as I'm finished nursing, she doesn't want to go again...and putting her clothes on so we can go as soon as he finishes isn't an option.

Ah, well - I know from ds1 that this time is all too brief. I'll enjoy all there is to enjoy and try not to let the rest of it cause my head to explode.









It sounds like she needs more choices and more opportunity for control in her life, imo. The going, the clothes, the changing her mind are all the same need for autonomy, from my pov. Intentionally offering choices such as 'do you want the green one or the blue one (without limiting 'the purple one', if that is her stated preference, of course) honors her autonomy and offers opportunities to exert her will. I am being very specific in that the choice is *NOT limited* to the two choices offered, just that this provides a template for perceiving that one has autonomy over themselves. This is different than 'do you want cereal or eggs for breakfast?' (a limitation of choice) when 'a banana split' is a "definite no", or the purple one is a "definite no". Choice A or B is offered, but choice C,D,E,F,G, etc. *are available* if realistically available (ie. available in the house, possible to provide without hardship, negotiable if related to concerns, etc.)

These types of opportunites for making choices do help honor her need autonomy; but refusing realistically available choices for her own body is coercive, imo. When one's choices are not artificially limited then it is easier to accept real life limitations, from my observation. Precisely because I am seen as an advocate and partner rather than a limitation imposing gatekeeper to our son's natural autonomy, this less adversarial relationship allows me to support our son when Real Life limitations occur. And we move through them with more ease, together. And I haven't caused a built up level of frustrated autonomy that puts our son over his frustration limit as quickly as if *I* were artificially (abet logically and non-arbitrarily







) creating obstacles to his autonomy.

Pat


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

I am loving this discussion! For a while the replies were coming in faster than I could read them (over the weekend)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moma justice*
and OP i just have to say that your dd is ONLY 5 months.......it is hard for you to imagine all the things she could do and say and how they will make you feel or react.

That is true.

But if there is a will, there is a way.

If the way parents see and percive their lives, their kids lives, their interactions with this world and other people is along the lines of mutual agreement, there are many things that can be done.

It is very hard to find the solution for *every* possible challenge here on the spot, when OP or anybody else has not evaluated many things that come into play (like the temperament/personality of the child, minute variables of any given situation, previous experience, age, etc.., etc., etc., ) but when the time comes and the firm believe in finding the mutual solution is in place - it can be done.

I have gone through 18 years of being a "democratic" parent, so I can speak for the age factor. My younger one is only 5, so somebody may argue that "oh, but you might have lucked out with your first one, and your younger one will show you!" or "hey, you first one is a boy, just you wait until you are parenting a teenage *girl*"

And I will not claim that I have it all figured out in advance for many years to come... I do not. But I know I will. I have in the past. Situations will not be the same, but I think I am "armed" with more knowledge now


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
All of my kids love to brush their teeth. In fact they remind me! They get so excited when they see their toothbrushes.
And this is all despite the fact that they have to do it.

Some people like vegetables despite being coerced to eat them as kids too. Does that mean it is a good idea to coerce kids to eat veggies?

Many people here are quick to defend non-coersion when it comes to food (to avoid eating disorders and such) but I do not see any difference between coersion with food or with tooth brushing or getting dressed or bedtime or anything else.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I also want to know what the difference between TCS and non-coersive parenting is. I do not put a label on what I do but it would be good to know when reading......


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
It sounds like she needs more choices and more opportunity for control in her life, imo. The going, the clothes, the changing her mind are all the same need for autonomy, from my pov. Intentionally offering choices such as 'do you want the green one or the blue one (without limiting 'the purple one', if that is her stated preference, of course) honors her autonomy and offers opportunities to exert her will. I am being very specific in that the choice is *NOT limited* to the two choices offered, just that this provides a template for perceiving that one has autonomy over themselves. This is different than 'do you want cereal or eggs for breakfast?' (a limitation of choice) when 'a banana split' is a "definite no", or the purple one is a "definite no". Choice A or B is offered, but choice C,D,E,F,G, etc. *are available* if realistically available (ie. available in the house, possible to provide without hardship, negotiable if related to concerns, etc.)

A short summer dress isn't a realistic option in this weather. Her light clothes aren't available right now. Some of her clothes are okay on day like this (sunny but cold) but not when it's pouring rain. She can wear whatever she wants. She can choose her clothes every single day. Yes - I'm coercive in that if she wants to go to the farm in the pouring rain, I have to okay what she wants to wear. But, she won't pick something. Usually, she wants me to pick something...but she still won't put it on. And, if she does put it on, she changes her mind after she's dressed. Or, she'll pick something - I'll say "great", and go to change her baby brother. Then, I say, "okay - let's go" and find that she's taken all her clothes back off.

How do you reconcile the two things she wants,when they contradict each other? That's what I'm really getting at. I've left it alone a few times. When she's dressed, we'll go out...but she doesn't get dressed. Then, hours later, it's "I want to go to the farm". And, she can't, because it's closed and there's a meltdown. The _only_ time this doesn't end up in a meltdown is if _I_ put her clothes on and we leave. Every other way I've tried to deal with this has ended up with screaming, crying and tantrums.

I'd like to leave this with her. I'm not interested in forcing an outing that's supposed to be for fun!


----------



## wildmonkeys (Oct 4, 2004)

Abmdkf - thank you for your response, I really appreciate it because we try to live that way and avoid power struggles between all of the members of our family, but have really struggled with situations between my dss lately. The big factor is that ds1 started K and ds2 frequently does not want to go to the bus to get him. I can not let my five year old get off the bus by himself and walk home (nor do I want to!) nor do I want to force ds2 to go to the corner twice a day when he doesn't want to (nor would I leave him in the house alone). I have made many attempts to make going to the bus more fun (I'll carry you, we'll play follow the leader, you can ride your bike, carry on umbrella, pick up leaves on the way, do you want to pass out stickers to all of our friends at the bus, etc. etc. etc.) but somedays he just really doesn't want to go and I literally pick him up and carry him to the corner explaining that we have to go because brother needs us there.

Regarding the age of the OP child - I don't think that those who mentioned it were doing a "just you wait" (Or at least I didn't read it that way) I think folks are trying to explain how things have come in their lives with their children that they didn't anticipate and explaining how that has impacted their parenting.

Anyway, I think this has been a great discussion. Something to think about and interesting how different families have drawn the line in different places. My parents gave us flexibility around the "petty" stuff but made many of the big choices for us (where we went to school, what sort of food we had in the house, whether or not to have a TV) Their balanced approach has left me with bitterness to work through in adulthood







It was nice to have some things decided - I never even really thought about the options that weren't offered and enjoyed the freedom of not having every move controlled. That is what I strive for.

Thanks again for sharing.
BJ
Barney & Ben


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
Some people like vegetables despite being coerced to eat them as kids too. Does that mean it is a good idea to coerce kids to eat veggies?

Many people here are quick to defend non-coersion when it comes to food (to avoid eating disorders and such) but I do not see any difference between coersion with food or with tooth brushing or getting dressed or bedtime or anything else.

I am not arguing that coercion is a "good idea" . I am only arguing that in my experience children who are coerced dont "hate brushing and avoid it when they can." And that if this is the premise by which coercions is negative but non coercive methods are positive. It is an argument that simply doesnt hold true with experience.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Originally Posted by scubamama
We laugh because it always comes down to brushing teeth, bedtimes, eating vegetables and the car seat. No we do not make ds brush his teeth. We model, explain, offer alternatives. We have about six different tooth brushes, his choice varies according to the moon (apparently). We have several types of tooth paste, we have floss (several types and methods), we have electric tooth brushes, we don't have a water pic but that helps, we have tongue brushes, little tooth pics, little dental mirrors, etc.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
This is a good illustration, to me, of values and priorities. I read this and thought, "How wasteful! One person does not need all those things to keep their teeth clean!" But Pat and her son must feel that he does.

So I guess, for me, while it's important for my child to be happy and have as much choice as possible, it's not important enough for me to participate in or contribute to behavior that I am opposed to, and therefore I will coerce my children to follow my rules.

__________________________

Natensarah, Ummm....toothbrushes are $2.49 at Target.







He uses the same amount of toothpaste, (maybe less since it is only 5/7 of the week







); Same amount of floss, (just a choice of types)???; the Bob the Builder electric tooth brush was a gift and his electric tooth brush head was maybe $1.00.







The tongue brushes are free from the dentist; the tooth pics were a splurge from Costco (a life time supply was $4); the little dental mirror was part of a set, $5 maybe. So, that is about maybe $20-30 for a year's supply of tooth apparel. What is excessive or wasteful???? I guess my only choice is our son's teeth and $30 vs. coercion?? The rules are not necessary, is the point. Nor is the coercion.

And autonomy of a person's own body space integrity has much more value to him (or her) in the teen years, than now while he is learning *to expect for others to honor his body boundaries*, imnsho.

Pat


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I am not arguing that coercion is a "good idea" . I am only arguing that in my experience children who are coerced dont "hate brushing and avoid it when they can." And that if this is the premise by which coercions is negative but non coercive methods are positive. It is an argument that simply doesnt hold true with experience.

It does not hold true in the experience of your dcs. And I do not think anyone said every single child that is forced to brush their teeth will hate it, just as not every single child that is forced to eat veggies hates them. But I do think it is more likely to hate brushing your teeth if you are forced to do it against your will. Since your dcs like brushing thier teeth, it sounds as though you did not have to coerse them to do it. They "HAVE to" but they like to so it is not a coersive situation. But there are people here who do have trouble getting thier kids to brush their teeth and are asking for advice. Are you suggesting that children who do not want to brush their teeth should be forced to?

I mean haven't you experienced something like this? A good example from my life is school assignments that require reading books. I HATED most of those books. As an adult I have gone back and read them and found them quite enjoyable. I am quite sure I hated them because I was coersed into reading them (for a grade) when in actuality I like almost any book I pick up and am not picky at all.


----------



## Rigama (Oct 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Originally Posted by scubamama
We laugh because it always comes down to brushing teeth, bedtimes, eating vegetables and the car seat. No we do not make ds brush his teeth. We model, explain, offer alternatives. We have about six different tooth brushes, his choice varies according to the moon (apparently). We have several types of tooth paste, we have floss (several types and methods), we have electric tooth brushes, we don't have a water pic but that helps, we have tongue brushes, little tooth pics, little dental mirrors, etc.

__________________________

Natensarah, Ummm....toothbrushes are $2.49 at Target.







He uses the same amount of toothpaste, (maybe less since it is only 5/7 of the week







); Same amount of floss, (just a choice of types)???; the Bob the Builder electric tooth brush was a gift and his electric tooth brush head was maybe $1.00.







The tongue brushes are free from the dentist; the tooth pics were a splurge from Costco (a life time supply was $4); the little dental mirror was part of a set, $5 maybe. So, that is about maybe $20-30 for a year's supply of tooth apparel. What is excessive or wasteful???? I guess my only choice is our son's teeth and $30 vs. coercion?? The rules are not necessary, is the point. Nor is the coercion.

And autonomy of a person's own body space integrity has much more value to him (or her) in the teen years, than now while he is learning *to expect for others to honor his body boundaries*, imnsho.

Pat

So when I was in jr. High and High school, I had this friend whose mother NEVER made him brush his teeth if he didn't want to. As a result, this guy never did. His teeth were gross, his breath was bad, and he took PRIDE in the fact that it had been "4 days" since he last brushed. Needless to say, his circle of friends was limited and he didn't exactly have unlimited girls pounding down his door asking him to the prom. I'm not saying that all kids who are left to brush/not brush at their whim will follow the same path as my friend but I do think that kids need to learn that some things just have to be done. That or face social ailienation. I make my son brush his teeth EVERY day. Sometimes he doesn't like it so we shorten the time...but it is still a necessary thing in my book. That doesn't make me a spirit squashing tyrrant. And my son certainly isn't a morose depressed child because if it either.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

yoopervegan: I won't say you're wrong that you hated them because you had to read them. But, that might not be it. I'm a book-a-holic (I mean that - I don't have a healthy relationship with the printed word), and I also hated most of the books we had to read in school. Some of them, I just plain didn't like, and still don't. Some of them I like quite well. I didn't dislike them because I had to read them, although I didn't like having my time taken away from books I _did_ want to read. I disliked them, because I couldn't just read them.I had to read one chapter, then answer a bunch of questions, most of which I thought were stupid, then there'd be a class discussion, then I got to read another chapter (yippee), etc. I couldn't treat it as a _book_and just read it - it was a lesson.

Anyway, I don't know about the end results of all of this. I know a couple of guy who _weren't_ made to brush their teeth as children, because their parents didn't want to battle with them. And, they don't brush them as adults, either (the condition of their teeth has to be seen to be believed). But, neither of these guys had parents with a non-coercive philosophy - they had parents who just couldn't be bothered. I have to think that makes a difference.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rigama*
So when I was in jr. High and High school, I had this friend whose mother NEVER made him brush his teeth if he didn't want to. As a result, this guy never did. His teeth were gross, his breath was bad, and he took PRIDE in the fact that it had been "4 days" since he last brushed. Needless to say, his circle of friends was limited and he didn't exactly have unlimited girls pounding down his door asking him to the prom. I'm not saying that all kids who are left to brush/not brush at their whim will follow the same path as my friend but I do think that kids need to learn that some things just have to be done. That or face social ailienation. I make my son brush his teeth EVERY day. Sometimes he doesn't like it so we shorten the time...but it is still a necessary thing in my book. That doesn't make me a spirit squashing tyrrant. And my son certainly isn't a morose depressed child because if it either.

I don't think there has to be a "cut-and-dry" approach to any situations.

It's not a war between "making" your child to do something and "not making" and the child ends up being a slob.

It's about teaching, explaining, persvading. It's not like non-coercive parenting means "just let things flow". If you see something as important (brushing teeth in this example) - deliver the message. Why do you think it's important? What will happen if the important thing is not done? Do you (generic "you") model the important behaviour? Did you deliver the message efficiently? (show the cases of bad hygine and the result, read articles about it, talk about social implications)

It's true, at the end it *is* childs choice (IMO). So if the boy in your examples *choses* this type of life style, it is not because his parents made or not made him do stuff. How do we know that even if the parents "made" him brush his teeth during childhood, he will not stop immediately after the "parental control" is no longer there?


----------



## Rigama (Oct 18, 2005)

there is no reading articles and expressing the concerns of bad hygene to a 20 month old. Or even a 3 year old! That kind of discussion is more appropriate for a 5 year old. In the meantime, I tell him he can have his spidey tooth brush or his race car toothbrush and he knows that NO toothbrush is not an option.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I guess my only choice is our son's teeth and $30 vs. coercion?? The rules are not necessary, is the point. Nor is the coercion.

Right. Totally agree with you. But when my dd and I play like she's a badger and I have to get all the mealy worms out of her teeth, I just can't see it as "coercion". Sure, initially she refuses, but instead of spending $30 on dental supplies, which, BTW, is pretty much my children's ENTIRE yearly toiletry budget, I just make it a little more fun. Is the lesson learned here that she has no body boundaries, no autonomy or body space integrity? Or is it that sometimes "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down?" It's not like I'm holding her down and forcing the toothbrush in her mouth while she screams and kicks.

Also, Pat, I've always really enjoyed your posts, and I think it's great if this is a way some families choose to parent. What I take umbrage at is the assertion by you and CaptainCrunchy that I am consistently disrespectful to my children because we don't parent this way.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rigama*
there is no reading articles and expressing the concerns of bad hygene to a 20 month old. Or even a 3 year old! That kind of discussion is more appropriate for a 5 year old. In the meantime, I tell him he can have his spidey tooth brush or his race car toothbrush and he knows that NO toothbrush is not an option.

True, examples I gave had to do with the example you gave of an older child.

When both of mine were little, I did:

modeling
making it a game
brushing together
getting rid of "cavity monsters"
choosing your own toothbrush in the store
explaining the necessity in a child appropriate manner
other stuff that I don't remember now









I never "made" them. Both of them brush on their own accord now.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Not all babies who are left to cry it out are emotionally disturbed. Not all kids who are spanked become violent or hate their parents. But, if you wanted (perversely for some reason) to create a child who was detached and violent, there are a number of practices, like CIO or abuse, that will greatly improve the liklihood of that outcome.

For me, coercion seems like a way to improve the liklihood of subversion, rebellion, and obedience. It also seems like a pretty good way to damage the attached and harmonious relationship I have with my kids.

Not a gaurantee, either way--obviously there are kids who are not damaged--but if I were a betting woman, that's the way I would lean.

Other people have different goals and priorities. The toothbrush and paste example, for instance. The price of 50 toothbrushes, the resources that went into making them, the pollution that they created during manufacturing, the space they will take up in the landfill--none of that is even in the same ballpark of the relationship I have with my kids.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
But when my dd and I play like she's a badger and I have to get all the mealy worms out of her teeth, I just can't see it as "coercion".

I don't see it as a coersion either







For some of the things like diaper changes and tooth brushing, the playfull approach "worked" wonders for us


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
Other people have different goals and priorities. The toothbrush and paste example, for instance. The price of 50 toothbrushes, the resources that went into making them, the pollution that they created during manufacturing, the space they will take up in the landfill--none of that is even in the same ballpark of the relationship I have with my kids.

Yes, because it has to be one or the other, right? We can either have unlimited toothbrushes, paste, etc, and a great relationship w/our kids, or we can have one toothbrush and nightly power struggles w/our children over brushing their teeth.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
But when my dd and I play like she's a badger and I have to get all the mealy worms out of her teeth, I just can't see it as "coercion".

Dood! I'm laughing so hard I can't see straight! Mealy worms....good stuff.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
It's not like I'm holding her down and forcing the toothbrush in her mouth while she screams and kicks.

No, I agree with you. As long as she's into the game and agrees, what's the harm?

But, let's not forget that the holding and screaming situation probably goes on in lots and lots of households across the US. And for lots more than teethbrushing, you know? That's what I have problem with.

Mealy worms.........LOL


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
What's the distinction between TCS, and living consensually, if you don't mind my asking? Is there more to TCS?

Well, I am not an expert regarding TCS (Taking Children Seriously). When I first heard of it, I thought I would like it. Upon reading more, I don't. It isn't what happens in my house. All 4 of us are important in our home, not just the children. I found the website and followers somewhat dogmatic and the examples just didn't make sense. It didn't apply in my home and really turned me off. I realize there are those that love it, and I'm not trying to offend them. It just isn't for me. My goal is to live in community - first in my home and then the greater community. Respecting people as equals and looking for solutions that work for everyone. I try to treat all people as I would want to be treated and the next step even is treating them how they want to be treated.

I've found giving information, sharing my perspective and hearing their thoughts and perspectives (as just as valid) has served us in a variety of situations over the past 8 years. I also believe they are well equipped to make decisions when I'm not there because I see how their thought process works when I am there. As opposed to me saying when to cross the street, how high to climb, etc. They learn their own boundaries while seeking information from those they trust and themselves.

I don't go around thinking "I'm not going to be coercive today" I just find it isn't necessary and really isn't something that comes up. We talk and solve problems just like I would with my spouse or other adult. Our focus is on joy and it really has played out that way.

OK sorry off on a tangent







Hope that answered your question about TCS.

Anna


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
No, I agree with you. As long as she's into the game and agrees, what's the harm?

OK, so we're on the same page here. But what about the fact that she initially refuses? I think if I were truly "non-coercive", I would just have to let it go at that.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I have yet to see an example of a parent who chose this type of parenting based on the soundness of the philosophy who was not influenced by their own rebellious nature. Is it a philosophy based on a reaction to authoritative parenting by adults who were spirited and rebellious as children?

Me! Me! lol. My upbringing was probably very close to most gd principles. My mom did spank for "safety issues" though, but that was really rare. She was- from the time I can remember- very considerate of us 2 kids. Not non-coercive, but definitely explained stuff, and respected us as people. She found creative ways to make us want to do stuff. I like the idea of non-coercive, and I am most of the time, but sometimes I don't quite make it.

Dp too- his parents were pretty much respectful and all that (they didn't spank, they let him make choices they didn't think were the best). I guess he's not non-coercive, but he's very close. And I bet he'd be on board (at least mostly) if we talked about it.

As far as the "preparing for the real world" and "have to" do stuff, the difference between home life and the outside world is that there is a love, trust, and respect in the home that isn't present in other relationships.
Doing something to "prepare" your dc for the "real world" is kinda like getting a fish, and letting it die, to prepare dc for death he may see in the future.

And I was wondering about the diaper thing at night too. I like the theory of non-coercive parenting. I just don't understand how it works in practice for all situations. Ds is 15 mos, and pees A LOT at night, so not wearing one is not an acceptable option to me. He doesn't seem to mind much, but its obvious he would prefer to NOT get his nighttime clothes on. He'd rather play. We give him chances to come on his own, and after a while (in between activities), we get him dressed standing up or whatever he prefers. He doesn't fight it or cry or seem upset at that point, but like I said, its coersion for the fact that HE would not have chosen to get nighttime clothes on at all. It's not a hot thing, or a dislike of clothes- I think its just a "like" of being naked, and not wanting to stop what he's doing to get dressed.
What to you all make of that situation?


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Ok, I had to "dig" for this one (was too lazy to go to the online dictionary myself







)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
*Coerce-v: 1. to restrain or dominate by nullifying individual will; 2. to compel to an act or choice; 3. to enforce by force or threat. syn: see FORCE. (Webster's Dictionary, 1972, pg. 160.)*

Pat

So, I guess playfull approach *may* fall under #2, but then even offering a boob to an infant may (as in compelling him/her to eat)









I gotta think about that one...


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
Yes, because it has to be one or the other, right? We can either have unlimited toothbrushes, paste, etc, and a great relationship w/our kids, or we can have one toothbrush and nightly power struggles w/our children over brushing their teeth.









No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. I think you might be reading things into these posts and getting defensive--I hope you can hear this in the spirit it's intended.

I was just saying that someone (I don't remember who) said that they thought someone else's buying a bunch of different toothbrushes and pastes was wasteful and not something that they would do. The jist I got was that they would just tell their kid that it was non-negotiable and enforce daily brushing.

To me, that's putting conserving toothbrushes over the kids' happiness. That's not my choice. If that's someone else's choice then I feel bad for their kid b/c I know what that felt like to me growing up. Maybe they don't even realize that that's what they're doing. I don't think most people realize that they don't even treat children like people. If that doesn't apply to you, then who cares? If it does, then maybe it's a good thing for someone to point out.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Jesus people! Stop posting so fast!!! LOL

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
OK, so we're on the same page here. But what about the fact that she initially refuses? I think if I were truly "non-coercive", I would just have to let it go at that.

I dunno...I don't see anything wrong with convincing people to do something. Once they've decided to go along, you're not coercing them anymore, you know.

In my house, it's not a just ask once and drop it kinda deal. We all present our needs or case or reasoning behind it. But, most of the time, people are ultimately just allowed to say 'no' and be done with it. But there is lots of dialogue and suggestions and problem-solving ideas thrown around in between.

I don't think "truly non-coercive" exists!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
It does not hold true in the experience of your dcs. And I do not think anyone said every single child that is forced to brush their teeth will hate it, just as not every single child that is forced to eat veggies hates them. But I do think it is more likely to hate brushing your teeth if you are forced to do it against your will. Since your dcs like brushing thier teeth, it sounds as though you did not have to coerse them to do it. They "HAVE to" but they like to so it is not a coersive situation. But there are people here who do have trouble getting thier kids to brush their teeth and are asking for advice. Are you suggesting that children who do not want to brush their teeth should be forced to?

I mean haven't you experienced something like this? A good example from my life is school assignments that require reading books. I HATED most of those books. As an adult I have gone back and read them and found them quite enjoyable. I am quite sure I hated them because I was coersed into reading them (for a grade) when in actuality I like almost any book I pick up and am not picky at all.

Absoultely. I have forced my children to get their teeth brush at the rare times they have resisted. Usually they realize they like the taste of the toothpaste anyway.

I do agree about the book thing. I was exactly the same way. However I loved reading. So while I was forced to read, I still developed a love for reading. I may have resented having to read one particular book. And I have gone back and reread just about every one I hated (or refused to read) as a child or teen and loved it.
But reading , like food is about unique tastes and appetites.
I might hate the type of toothpaste I was forced to use as a child (a taste) but that doesnt mean I hate brushing my teeth.
So forcing me to read particular books made me resist those particular books, and not reading itself.
Joline


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:
Originally Posted by johub
I have yet to see an example of a parent who chose this type of parenting based on the soundness of the philosophy who was not influenced by their own rebellious nature. Is it a philosophy based on a reaction to authoritative parenting by adults who were spirited and rebellious as children?

I guess I would be an example that you haven't seen







My parents were AWESOME! We (there were 3 of us) were always treated with respect and my mom always says how much she loved our teen years. We were not "rebellious" at all. I loved my parents and trusted them. I could talk to them about anything and they would listen and offer advice but they were not coercive, never hit or even yelled - heated discussions maybe







but we were all given equal say.

So I am parenting this way, in part, because of my parents and in part because it is what feels right in my heart.

Anna - need to go call mom and tell her I love her!


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Absoultely. I have forced my children to get their teeth brush at the rare times they have resisted. Usually they realize they like the taste of the toothpaste anyway.

Joline

On that note, I think we have to agree to disagree. I do not think I have the right (let alone the resposibility) to force anyone to do anything. If my dh decided not to brush his teeth, I might give him my opinion as to why it think he should but I certainly would not force him to do it. I would probably call the cops on anyone that forced me to brush my teeth. And I feel that I should respect my dc in the same way. It is a basic human dignity thing IMO.

However, I do understand where you are coming from. I would have never believed that I would argue this side of the discussion a year ago









Happy debating


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Parents mediate between the harsh realities of life and the child. If life doesnt "owe" choices, the parent chooses whether or not to offer them. It is not the parent taking away choices. But the parent offering more choices than life would without their mediation.
Just because children have their parents mediate between them and the harsh realities of life and the lack of choices that sometimes happens does not automatically entitle children to a free range of choices not availible to adults. Mom must go to work because of economic reality although nobody is holding a gun to her head. But because mom must go, in order to provide for dc. Dc must go to preschool. She does not have a choice in the scenario because it is her mother who is mediating between her and the world. To her mom is making her go to preschool. In reality the economic situation which necessitates mom to work is the same situation that necessitates the child to go to preschool. But the parent mediates and it is the parent who in actuality "makes" the child go to preschool.
If the parent has resources and creativity she might be able to offer an alternative choice, maybe a daycare or a home based daycare. But the choice the child wants , which is that mom stays home, is not an availible choice.

Given your example earlier that children choose their parents, is your perspective that no matter what the parent does to the child, the child chose it?

I consider my act of choosing to procreate initiated the process, prior to a child choosing me. Perhaps, I am stuck on my autonomous act of procreating separate from the act of the Universe providing for me to want to procreate. Who knows. But since I perceive responsibility for bringing a dependent being into the world by my direct actions, I am choosing to fulfill my (perceived) responsibilities to provide for his dependent needs in a manner to which he does not object due to my actions. My goal is to create mutually agreeable solutions such that my needs and our son's dependent needs are met without either sacrificing to the other.

So, if ds did not want to go to preschool. He would not *have to*. We would work together to meet his dependent needs in a manner to which he (nor I) object. Certainly, I would not force him to go against his will. At which time our son is independent, my responsibility to meet dependent needs is fulfilled, imo. As the voluntary caregiver, I would find a way to provide for his dependent needs to his satisfaction. If a time comes where, I no longer desire to be a voluntary caregiver, I believe I could relinquish that responsibility to an alternate voluntary caregiver to which our son is agreeable. My responsiblity being to find such alternate.

For instance, my husband and I like to go out in the evening for a dinner date, on occasion. At the time when our son was not agreeable for me to leave him with an alternate caregiver, I did not. As it is my active choice to be his voluntary caregiver of his dependent needs. When he was comfortable with my sister as an alternate caregiver, we began having dates every Wednesday. Unless ds did not choose to be left with her on a rare occasion. And we came back at any need expressed for us as his primary caregivers. Additional alternate caregivers have been developed and he is happy to stay with them and we have a date on most Sunday evenings too.

I have several friends who are practicing AP/unschooling as single parents. It is very hard. I am fortunate to have created a support system that is agreeable to our son and who treat him with the same degree of respect as he expects to be treated. If our son did not want to go to preschool, just as he did not care for several different alternate caregivers, we sought to identify the underlying needs and create different alternatives which met both his needs and my needs. Sometimes, my needs are postponed because I do not impose fulfilling my needs onto our son. And we have found alternative means of having couples time which does not create "have to" expectations on our son. But since we consistently work to meet all of our needs, we each are aware and considerate of eaches' needs and create mutually agreeable alternatives.

With the work and preschool, nitpicking whether it is coercive or not is not the point. *Finding a solution that works for each member agreeably is the point.* If our son doesn't want mama to leave, I would find a way to keep that from happening and meet our family's needs for financial resources. I imagine that would be challenging. But we have several friends with children who live consensually with only one income. Imposing coercion is a choice, imo.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Moma Justice,

Life with an autonomy seeking 2 year old can be exhausting and constantly demanding. However, two issues in your note stood out to me. From my point of view, not "having to" do anything you don't want" is not the same as "getting to do anything you want". With the shoes, Dh can just put them away elsewhere and engage your daughter in some more constructive way. It sounds like she wants dada's attention, interaction, reactions, engagement. He could provide that in some mutually agreeable manner, instead of ignoring the behavior which seems to be attention seeking. Meet the underlying need for positive attention.

The other issue is that your daughter does not have authority over you either. So when your daughter is distressed about you peeing, eating, bathing, etc, I would comfort her and just explain that you empathize that she is upset and let's sing a song and just meet your need. Doing what you need to do, doesn't mean that something is being done to her against her will. This is different than *"making" her* do something she doesn't want to do. I would still work to create a mutually agreeable alternative. Such as giving her a snack while you run to the bathroom in peace.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happeeevraftr*
How about this one: putting a diaper on for bed. Is that a pretty common question too?

I understand that your need is for the bed to remain dry at night and her need is to not wear those diapers. She does or doesn't want underpants on? I'd try the idea of waterproof cloth diapers, pullups, underpants over diaper, diaper cover over cloth training pants, wool waterproof pads (wicks away moisture even with large volumes), padding half the bed, double sheeting the bed (pad, sheet, pad, sheet), going without diapers, choosing diapers with different characters, walking her in to pee in the toilet at night several times, avoiding drinks after 6pm, eliminating dairy (like 60% of children with enuresis resolved with the elimination of dairy products, iirc), using Flander's Butt Creme (cures and prevents rash), post for more ideas as I am sure this isn't a novel problem.

Edited to add making the diaper fun as was suggested; put diaper on while standing and engage with something else, like toys on the couch, a show, a snack, putting diapers on babydolls, putting it on after she is asleep if this isn't upsetting in the am.

HTH, Pat


----------



## angela&avery (May 30, 2002)

ok, i have a what if... what if your child (i have discovered that i have a very spirited two year old and need to go get myself some books.....) what if that child wants to color on everything but paper. What if you have a small place and not enough high places to pu things out of her reach...... (ugh she keeps getting into the art buckets) im trying to meet her creative needs.... im going ot attempt to allow her time at the table as often as i can to create.. but she wants crayons, or markers or pencils all the time and she wants to color with them and she does not want to sit. So ic an let her run around and color all over everyting when she gets a hold of them, i can get rid of all of our art stuff ( we live in a two bedroom apartment.. im working on getting a cupboard that i can lock), or i can take it away when she doesnt want to stay and color on paper. I always end up taking it away because she wont stay put them or let her have a chance to run around with her notebook only to fin dthat she has colored on the wall, mirror, her toys.

edited to add..... this results in a temper tantrum as does everything in which half them time my completely potty trained toddler ends up having an accident........... we seriously need some input on working with her....lots of tantrums ever since seh turned one.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

For *angela&avery* - bath tub crayons were my DD's favorite (she still plays with them in the tub now and then)

She can color on the bathroom mirrors too - they wash off easy.

Just one of many suggestions that I am sure will come


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Given your example earlier that children choose their parents, is your perspective that no matter what the parent does to the child, the child chose it?

In a way. Yes. But that is still no excuse for poor treatment, neglect abuse etc. . . I do believe that we choose the basic circumstances of our birth in order to progress in spiritual growth. If that is the case I do believe that we choose our parents and it may be based on waht they can do for us, or it may be because of the challenge they provide to the spiritual growth of the human that is born to the family as a child.
However, the child born is not in the same state of knowing as they are in their spirit selves and are innocent of this world. In addition, our spirit selves are not all knowing. They may choose unwisely. Or as human beings are not static, they may choose parents for one reason, and the parents change and become something other than what the child chose.
It is also possible that some of these decisions are hasty and not truly well thought out.
So while I do believe that children do choose their parents. I do not believe it gives parents license to treat their children as they will. I also believe children deserve our protection, even if they made a mistake in choosing their parents.
I understand if this seems bizarre to most, and brilliantly OT! LOL But since my belief that my children knowingly chose me, and knew what I would offer them at the time of that choice, I believe that this is the type of parenting they have chosen. Not everybody gets the privilege of knowing their children before they are conceived so this is not an argument that is likely to apply to many.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*

I have several friends who are practicing AP/unschooling as single parents. It is very hard. I am fortunate to have created a support system that is agreeable to our son and who treat him with the same degree of respect as he expects to be treated.

YOu are fortunate indeed.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angela&avery*
ok, i have a what if... what if your child (i have discovered that i have a very spirited two year old and need to go get myself some books.....) what if that child wants to color on everything but paper.

Can you paint your place? If so, what about that chalk-board paint? The tub and tile bath is a great place to go crazy and cleans up fast.

What about taping up big pieces of paper down the hallway walls?

Can you go outside and do sidewalk chalk?

Can you throw down thin plastic painters drop cloths in the kitchen and set up stuff in there?

What about getting a couple of different easels (cheap, at yard sales or ebay) and setting them up with different materials?

They have new window paint or markers or something out now, I think.

Sliding glass doors make great canvases.

Hope that helps...gotta run.


----------



## Rigama (Oct 18, 2005)

Oh, and you know what's great fun? Dry erase markers. They erase right off windows and mirrors with no problems at all. I don't know if you want to go the route of "some markers and crayons are okay to write on the mirrors with and some aren't" but I thought i'd put it out there just the same.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
What's the distinction between TCS, and living consensually, if you don't mind my asking? Is there more to TCS?

From my understanding TCS is a religion.









Actually, I understand it to be an educational philosophy about how children optimally learn to use their judgement within their environment when they can freely act on their own perceived best interests through making theories, acting on them and evaluating the consequences without coercive obstruction and interference (but provided extensive opinions, information and moral authenticity) from others. It acknowleges that children are fallible as are adults. There are several HUGE threads in the GD archives and there is a website telling _all about it_,







for those who are interested in the details. Basically, when common preferences can not be found, the choice defaults to the youngest child according to the TCS gods.







The site is dogmatic, dictatorial and most perceive it as very judgemental, imo. The irony is that TCS preaches _not_ to be dogmatic, dictatorial or judgemental of one's child.

Living consensually is living by consent. No one acts against another, nor makes another do anything without their agreement and consent (irrelevant of age, sex, religion, yada, yada). It is a process of relating with others based upon decision making (and conflict resolution) by mutual consent. The process is facilitated by identifying underlying needs in order to create solutions which are mutually satisfactory to all involved. It is not compromise, nor democracy. The compromise implies someone (or many) are less satisfied with the solution than their preference. Democrisy is dependent upon majority rule. Mutual consent implies all are satisfied with the identified common preference, without sacrifice.

Pat


----------



## angela&avery (May 30, 2002)

my biggest problem is that she colors on everything.. in books, on the couch, on walls, my rocker, on toys .. and i think it is somewhat destructive and not so much creative to be doing those things. Im a little worried about her thinking she can color on the walls without paper if we let her color on ones with paper, and then there is the issue of storage if i buy a big roll of newsprint or easels ro whatnot...we just dont have a lot of room..i have no problem with her doing anything in the kitchen as far as creating, coloring on paper... its the creating on eveyrhting else. Are all these things suppost to curb her desire to color everywhere? We have bath paints that kind of stink and we had the crayons but i had a terrible time getting them off my tub wall....... we do rent and we cannot paint the walls, also giving us the issue of her coloring on the walls, we can paint to fix it, and wash off (its mostly crayons) but she did get a hold of a permanent marker ( i swear the child is part monkey) and they are all now on top of hte fridge..... she colored on a bunch of stuff in her room with it....... i just dont know what to do iwth her except take it away when she wont stay put with them, which gives us way to a tantrum, but i am def going to try to help her find a better choice more, rather than just take it away.. i just.. when she wont listen... i dont know what to do.


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

I can't read all seven pages of posts on this topic but I will add this-

I was raised by very permissive parents. My mother's father was abusive and so she responded to the abusive level of control in her childhood home by becoming very permissive in our home. It was all my choice. I could eat what I wanted when I wanted and she never told me no. She did many of the parenting things I read here but she was abusively too far the other way- there were no boundaries anywhere- push and reach for them as hard as I tried there were no rules or boundaries.

As a child in elementary school I would decide I didn't want to go to school and so I didn't have to go. I would leave school for days. Until I choose to go back. This didn't serve my educational goals I will tell you!

As a young adult I would try to find her boundaries by doing things like having sex in her house (she got me on bc and tried to discuss my sex life like a girlfriend) and smoking pot openly (she had never done drugs so she pretended to believe I was smoking oregano). I don't think it served me at all to be promiscuous or to use drugs.

In fact as an adult I found the worlds rules with cruel pain when I went to college and suddenly no one took my bull anymore. I failed out of college...I ran out of money...I ended up in collections.

And I thank god for that. I spent two years in heck in college and I learned that life has rules. I got my life together and got on with it.

My parents learned and protected my brothers from even this and they never had this experience in college but now they are thirty and still living at home. They still haven't learned. What a tragedy that is!

Now I Look back and I am angry- I have even talked to my parents about it. I am angry. They hurt me by their failure to be parents. They cost me a lot. I am in pain by choices I made as a child- choices I should never have had access to make because I didn't understand them! I never understood the ramifications of sex at 14 - not really. I didn't understand what I was missing when I skipped elementary school and how it would hurt me for years....I think they failed me and I think their permissiveness was as abusive as beating...just different.

I will never do that to my children.

There is middle ground. There is loving guidance and rules. Rules make kids feel safe. I see my Step son, when he isn't provided with rules he is out of control. When he understands clearly the rules he is happy and safe feeling. I let him participate in deciding on the rules, I can let the consequences be either logical or ones he has chosen but I owe it to him to provide clarity as to the rules. So he can know what to expect and he doesn't have to flail for the edges.

My children are babes and too young to choose everything for themselves. For example my son doesn't know that in the morning he need protein to get his system started and that carbo loading for breakfast can start a lifetime of weight issues. But he might well prefer carbos. He doesn't know that drinking too much milk can deprive his body of nutrients found only in solid foods he is not eating when he drinks too much milk. I have to help him make choices that are good for him.

He doesn't know that it took two months to get this doctor's appointment and we have to get to it on time or pay $50 cancellation fee and wait another two months. I know this. I have to act to help it happen.

I don't have to beat him. I don't have to deny his will to make these things happen. I don't have to be mean or evil or abusive. But I do have to be in charge. If my children were able to be in charge at this age they would be more like horse babies and come out able to talk and feed themselves and be sexually mature 6m after birth. My children are human children- they are not ready to be in charge right away. They depend on me.

Humans are the only animal who worries about our young's happiness. The rest of the animals worry about making sure their young are competent. I worry that so many moms today are so worried about happiness they forget that competent people are usually very happy- being competent makes one happy. I love doing things well, I love feeling like I know how to do things. I want my children to be happy and competent to survive this world. I want them to know how to do things.

And I do things that I don't want to do...sure there are false choices...perhaps I choose to pay taxes so I don't go to jail but that is the same false choice as my son choosing to share so he doesn't loose his toy or get a time out. I mean there really isn't much of a choice there is there? You can call it a choice but face it you would have to be a masochist to choose wrong.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Wait, I don't get it. A child "chooses" their parents, they are that sophisticated even before they are a spirit inside an infant body, yet they are not capable enough to make their own tiny decisions like what they eat or whether or not they brush their teeth?

Doesn't make sense to me, seriously.


----------



## katallen (Jan 4, 2005)

There are things that need to be done and not everything can be fun and playful, sometimes my dd is absolutely against doing something that needs to be done, like getting her shoes and socks on for school or picking only one stuffed toy for school, but we still have to get these things done so I help her do them. You don't have to be punitive, hurtful, or angry in order to make your child do something they don't want to do, and I don't think that a calm person who helps a child complete a task should be thought of in the same sphere as a person who smacks their child in order to make them do things, but that is what these kinds of threads seem like they are doing. I can't imagine a parent who never has anything that their child has to do. Perhaps there are people that never have to push things in order to get things done or who have easy going kids really who always want to do everything if only the parents can always make it fun, but not everyone has those kinds of kids or those kinds of lives.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Wugmama*
I haven't read all of the posts. Not actually in a good state of mind lately to be reading this stuff, but do have one very basic question.

I am getting what some, like Pat and cc, are saying about non-coercion. But what about denying a request - that isn't coercion. Like what about if a 3 year old wants to watch TV all day and the doors to the TV are kept closed and locked? What is the take on that? This non-coercive parenting doesn't mean complying with every request, does it?

Thanks,
Tracy

Obstructing her will when it doesn't impact others is coercive, imo. Finding a mutually agreeable alternative may mean engaged play, going to the park, baking cookies, having playmates over, lunch with dada, dancing around the room, throwing a ball outside, reading books, playing hopscotch, finger painting, etc. Complying with a request is different in that it requires _your_ consent too. Finding mutually agreeable ways for her request to be met and your need to be met is often possible. Just as there are ways for your request to be met and her need to be met is often possible. But non-coercion does not mean doing anything you want, not if it impacts others or requires another's compliance or agreement.

Non-coercive parenting is not the same as consensual living though. NCP is not using coercion as a process of parenting. Living consensually (with or without children) requires more critical thinking and creative problem solving in order to create consensual decision making and conflict resolutions.

So, technically, I would believe it probably isn't coercive to have a locked TV cabinet, refuse to buy banana split ingredients, or refuse to change a wet bed. But it is not mutually agreeable either. And certainly without effort to meet the underlying needs of a child, it is adversarial, imo. But, preventing her from climbing up and opening the cabinet physically would be coercive, imo. Hiding the key? Not sure. But not what I would advocate either.









I am sorry you all are struggling so lately. We do when I have PMS. Evening Primrose oil tablets help my conflict resolution skills and my patience.









Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Ok, I am drowning here. I am only up to post 102 of 137 or so and I haven't left this thread!!!!

What is for dinner?









Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

What is for dinner?
My hubby is having tvp and brown rice with vegetables, I am making myself asian rice noodles with vegetables and this fake chicken stuff that is nummy...

my 5 month old is having a banana split...







kidding of course.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

I don't equate what goes on in our home with "permissive" or what I would call "hands off" parenting. What we do requires lots of work, involvement and thought. It is completely different. I think my children are incredible well served to operate in the 'real world', one because we live in it every day and two because we seek solutions to all of life's problems and that will always be a valuable skill.

Not meaning to sound defensive but just wanted to clarify that it is quite different than "permissive" parenting - in fact I think it's the polar opposite.

There is a book called "Kids are Worth it" she proposes that there are 3 types of families, jellyfish, backbone and brick wall. It's an interesting book, it is a bit different from this conversation but is an interesting perspective to consider.

Anna


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ambdkf*

There is a book called "Kids are Worth it" she proposes that there are 3 types of families, jellyfish, backbone and brick wall.

I for one agree- love and logic calls it drill seargent, helicoptor and I can't recall what they call the one who uses love and logic.

I do agree that there is a ton of middle ground. I know for a fact my mother never would have considered and stilld doesn't consider her parenting permissive. She would say she was inclusive or allowed me to have my own mind- she would say "self determining" or such.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
How do you reconcile the two things she wants,when they contradict each other? That's what I'm really getting at. I've left it alone a few times. When she's dressed, we'll go out...but she doesn't get dressed. Then, hours later, it's "I want to go to the farm". And, she can't, because it's closed and there's a meltdown. The _only_ time this doesn't end up in a meltdown is if _I_ put her clothes on and we leave. Every other way I've tried to deal with this has ended up with screaming, crying and tantrums.

I'd like to leave this with her. I'm not interested in forcing an outing that's supposed to be for fun!

It sounds like you are trying to solve the consequences of making choices in life. Sometimes that is not possible and empathy is all that we can offer. If I choose not to go before someplace closes, I can't go later. Que sara sara. I would provide as much notice and information and opportunity as I was comfortable providing and try to find an alternative that was as satisfactory as possible. Like going the next time it was open, going to pet the dog down the street, and reminding that if we don't want to miss the chance, we go now. Giving information over which one has no control is not limiting or restricting her in anyway, imo.

Comfort is what you can do. The meltdown is her expression of distress; but some distress in life is not preventable. But imposing things that cause it are not necessary either, imo.

HTH, Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
And I was wondering about the diaper thing at night too. I like the theory of non-coercive parenting. I just don't understand how it works in practice for all situations. Ds is 15 mos, and pees A LOT at night, so not wearing one is not an acceptable option to me. He doesn't seem to mind much, but its obvious he would prefer to NOT get his nighttime clothes on. He'd rather play. We give him chances to come on his own, and after a while (in between activities), we get him dressed standing up or whatever he prefers. He doesn't fight it or cry or seem upset at that point, but like I said, its coersion for the fact that HE would not have chosen to get nighttime clothes on at all. It's not a hot thing, or a dislike of clothes- I think its just a "like" of being naked, and not wanting to stop what he's doing to get dressed.
What to you all make of that situation?

Let him sleep naked. Change diaper after asleep. Put clothes on sleeping child. Our son is hot natured and sleeps without pjs or covers. I sleep with pjs, a blanket and down comforter right next to him.







Dh with pjs, no blanket.

Pat


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Wait, I don't get it. A child "chooses" their parents, they are that sophisticated even before they are a spirit inside an infant body, yet they are not capable enough to make their own tiny decisions like what they eat or whether or not they brush their teeth?

Doesn't make sense to me, seriously.









This is a deliberate misinterpretation of Johub's post, if you ask me.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. I think you might be reading things into these posts and getting defensive--I hope you can hear this in the spirit it's intended.

I was just saying that someone (I don't remember who) said that they thought someone else's buying a bunch of different toothbrushes and pastes was wasteful and not something that they would do. The jist I got was that they would just tell their kid that it was non-negotiable and enforce daily brushing.

To me, that's putting conserving toothbrushes over the kids' happiness. That's not my choice. If that's someone else's choice then I feel bad for their kid b/c I know what that felt like to me growing up. Maybe they don't even realize that that's what they're doing. I don't think most people realize that they don't even treat children like people. If that doesn't apply to you, then who cares? If it does, then maybe it's a good thing for someone to point out.

I was getting defensive, because it was me that thought it was wasteful. And I think it's a little bit ridiculous, to assume that a certain toothbrush will ensure my kids' happiness. I think that would be VERY worrisome, if it really was that big of a deal, and I would be convinced I was teaching them the wrong lesson.

Instead, I think by treating toothbrushing as a non-issue relegates it to its appropriate place. It's just something you do and it has very little impact on your life.

Anyway, sorry to be defensive.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
It sounds like you are trying to solve the consequences of making choices in life. Sometimes that is not possible and empathy is all that we can offer. If I choose not to go before someplace closes, I can't go later. Que sara sara. I would provide as much notice and information and opportunity as I was comfortable providing and try to find an alternative that was as satisfactory as possible. Like going the next time it was open, going to pet the dog down the street, and reminding that if we don't want to miss the chance, we go now. Giving information over which one has no control is not limiting or restricting her in anyway, imo.

Comfort is what you can do. The meltdown is her expression of distress; but some distress in life is not preventable. But imposing things that cause it are not necessary either, imo.

HTH, Pat

But, if she doesn't get out, she makes _everybody_ miserable, including herself.

I don't know. I think if I avoided being coercive (ie. didn't get her dressed and say "we're going now"), I'd be making everybody _more_ miserable. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. That seems to be causing real-life distress in order to avoid theoretical distress. I try to take her out every day...and it's the same thing 99% of the time. (I was going to say "always", but for the first time in my memory, she actually put on her own pants and boots and went and _chose_ a shirt today! My goodness would life be a lot easier for everybody if she chose this tack more frequently. Maybe it's the beginning of a good thing.)


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
It is a process of relating with others based upon decision making (and conflict resolution) by mutual consent. The process is facilitated by identifying underlying needs in order to create solutions which are mutually satisfactory to all involved. It is not compromise, nor democracy. The compromise implies someone (or many) are less satisfied with the solution than their preference. Democrisy is dependent upon majority rule. Mutual consent implies all are satisfied with the identified common preference, without sacrifice.

Pat

What if there is no common preference?
I guess that's the real root of the "coercive" vs. "non-coercive" thing. What happens when there is no common preference? If you and ds (or me and dd) can't find a common preference, do you just do what ds wants or what you want or compromise or...what?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
Also, Pat, I've always really enjoyed your posts, and I think it's great if this is a way some families choose to parent. What I take umbrage at is the assertion by you and CaptainCrunchy that I am consistently disrespectful to my children because we don't parent this way.

I am sorry that you are feeling defensive. I truely am not judging anyone's parenting. One's children are the only ones able to do that. And no one but the individual can know all the variables, obstacles and challenges of one's life choices. I believe each adult is the expert and authority about himself. Just as I believe each child is the expert and authority about himself. Others disagree. I presume everyone is doing the best they can at any point in time. However, I don't believe parenting is a static dynamic in which one is inherently aware of all the alternatives; and certainly, most parents do not consider the child's pov about what is respectful or not (even about the child's own body integrity). I believe whether one treats others "disrespectfully" or "respectfully" is determined by he who is impacted by their actions. In the act of parenting, the child determines, imo. Certainly, not me or CC.

Personally, I would find it exceedingly disrespectful of me (and a violation of my body) if someone forces a toothbrush into my mouth, won't allow me to eat if I leave the table, takes food away from me if I play with it, forces a coat on me, requires me to eat vegetables, forces me into a car, locks me in a room, takes things from my hands, leaves me places I don't wish to be against my will, etc. And as such I would consider it disrespectful to do the same to any other person, including any child, even if they had a joyful life otherwise. However, choosing to respect people 'in the manner to which we prefer to be treated' is not something people "have to" do.







And our culture sanctions treating children with far less respect than these issues above.

So, I don't see how feeling judged by others has any utility, benefit, or relevance to your choices in how you parent. Unless, you believe that treating your child like you would like to be treated is respectful, and it isn't occuring. Or, if you believe that treating your child like he wishes to be treated is respectful, and it isn't occuring. But most people don't want to think about these things for obvious reasons. Please don't shoot the messenger.







I am glad this perspective was shared with me when our son was quite young. Treating our son in the manner that he wishes to be treated is important to me in order to be consistent with my value system. Just as treating my husband in the manner that he wishes to be treated is important to me. Learning ways to do that was the thing I "had to" figure out.







I sure didn't have it modelled in my childhood and had limited resources for information









Non-coercive parenting and living consensually have provided practical tools for respecting others, even children, imo. The key aspect to me is 'go to the source' of he who is impacted to understand his perspective of my actions. My perspective is not the same as others. Nor is my child's perspective the same as mine. Finding mutually agreeable solutions which consider *both perspectives as equally valid* has been a process, a journey of "having to" figure out how to do that.







The crux of it all seems to be 'what does the other feel and perceive?' So, my opinion is not the one to consider.....it is one's child's feelings and perception.

Pat

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't think my response was a deliberate misinterpretation of her post. Honestly, I can't reconscile with myself how a child is capable of choosing their parents...unless she was speaking of something purely metaphorical, like God or the Universe or whatever one believes spiritually, sends us exactly what we need.

My understanding of the post though, was that it was not God or anyone that chose parents for children and vice versa, but that the children's spirits, or souls, or whatever, chose them to specifically be their parents.

My question was, how then, if a child, or their spirit before entering a body, can make such a heavy, life-changing, or life bringing experience....how then, do you explain to yourself that they are not capable of choosing what they like for breakfast.

I am honestly not trying to be snarky, but such a question comes across that way regardless of the wording... I am trying to understand how such a spirit so capable of choosing their destiny as it relates to who their parents will be, should not be able to choose whether they brush their teeth?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I was getting defensive, because it was me that thought it was wasteful. And I think it's a little bit ridiculous, to assume that a certain toothbrush will ensure my kids' happiness. I think that would be VERY worrisome, if it really was that big of a deal, and I would be convinced I was teaching them the wrong lesson.

Instead, I think by treating toothbrushing as a non-issue relegates it to its appropriate place. It's just something you do and it has very little impact on your life.

Anyway, sorry to be defensive.

But what if your kids don't agree that toothbrushing is "just something you do and it has very little impact on your life"? What if they refuse? If you don't believe it is right to force your child to comply with your rules (how would you force this? hold them down?) then a parent might try to come up with other ways to help make toothbrushing more interesting to the child-- maybe by buying new toothpaste or a new toothbrush. Why would that be a problem? I'm sure most parents want this to be a non-issue, but for some kids it is an issue.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Originally posted by Scubamama

Quote:

Personally, I would find it exceedingly disrespectful of me (and a violation of my body) if someone forces a toothbrush into my mouth, won't allow me to eat if I leave the table, takes food away from me if I play with it, forces a coat on me, requires me to eat vegetables, forces me into a car, locks me in a room, takes things from my hands, leaves me places I don't wish to be against my will, etc. And as such I would consider it disrespectful to do the same to any other person, including any child, even if they had a joyful life otherwise. However, choosing to respect people 'in the manner to which we prefer to be treated' is not something people "have to" do. And our culture sanctions treating children with far less respect than these issues above.
I completely agree. I am not judging your parenting either NateNsarah, I actually think most of us here are probably really wonderful parents...especially compared to other forms of parenting, we should all get some kind of award in my book









...but I do agree with what scubamama said about how she (or I) would feel about the above mentioned situations...

I think EVERYONE is a work in progress.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
What if there is no common preference?

For us, we just go into it with the confidence that we can find a common preference. Sometimes we just have to be really creative and try really hard, but most times it's really pretty easy. And we have found the more we practice the easier it gets. We really listen to each other to get at the underlying need, then we brainstorm, sometimes we say really crazy, silly stuff to lighten the mood (if it's tense) then that frees us up to focus on the task at hand. I think if you went into it saying there are times when there is no common preference, you might be doomed to failure or it would appear to those involved that it's 'find it quick fix' or else mom will step in and force her will. My kids just don't have that in their mind because it doesn't happen so we are all really open and flexible to finding solutions. I think the fact that they know they have choices, always, really frees them to be contributing members of the family. We've never had an issue where something was pressing and important and someone said "no way I'm not going". I think they are flexible because they feel safe in their right to choose.

In case your wondering, I don't have what people call "easy children". My girls are polar opposites. One is incredibly physical and the other doesn't want to be touched! One wants to always be with people, one likes to be alone. One likes to go out, one likes to stay in. One is "highly sensitive" (Elaine Aron's term) and one isn't. One had a severe brain injury and resulting issues, the other younger one can do things she can't. Even with all of these things, we still make it work joyfully.

Anna


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
OK, so we're on the same page here. But what about the fact that she initially refuses? I think if I were truly "non-coercive", I would just have to let it go at that.

I agree, I wouldn't put the tooth brush in someone's mouth. I wouldn't "let it go at that" though without giving information about my concerns, discussing the objections, understanding what might make it more agreeable and work to create that alternative. For instance, perhaps timing, taste, texture, etc. might make it more agreeable.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *irinam*
Ok, I had to "dig" for this one (was too lazy to go to the online dictionary myself







)

So, I guess playfull approach *may* fall under #2, but then even offering a boob to an infant may (as in compelling him/her to eat)









I gotta think about that one...

Playful enticement wouldn't be coercive in my book. Convincing and persuading are in some (TCS) books considered coercive. I believe the fine line is crossed when "talking at" (nagging) rather than "talking with" (discussion) occurs. Or if refusal occurs and one doesn't quit pushing the boob in the mouth. I personally assume a crying infant wants a boob unless it is refused once offered. It isn't compelled to nurse. Do offer, may refuse.

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't really get the toothbrushing thing that much. It is fact that if you even swish plain water around in your mouth that it kills about 50-60% of the germs in your mouth...coupled with a diet that isn't crazy sweet laden, nevermind the crazy flouride they are pumping into the water that even our uber cool filter doesn't remove....I don't think a child's teeth will fall out of their head if they brush well like 5 days a week out of 7.... or even 4 out of 7....

Now if you have a child who is dead set refusing, lays on floor screaming and flailing, every single time toothbrushing is even mentioned -- I would wager that has something to do with either sensory issues ... trying to gain control over one aspect of a life which may be too controlled ... fear of something (bad tasting toothpaste, toothbrush might scratch, fear that teeth like hair, might *hurt* when brushed) ...

I honestly don't think children are just trying to give us a hard time for the hell of it when they act out, I really truly do not believe that.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Playful enticement wouldn't be coercive in my book. Convincing and persuading are in some (TCS) books considered coercive. I believe the fine line is crossed when "talking at" (nagging) rather than "talking with" (discussion) occurs. Or if refusal occurs and one doesn't quit pushing the boob in the mouth. I personally assume a crying infant wants a boob unless it is refused once offered. It isn't compelled to nurse. Do offer, may refuse.

Pat

I knew the explanation can be worded! Just not by me









Thank you again, Pat!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

ambdkf: I get what you're saying, and it does make sense. But, I have a dd who can't even find a common preference with herself! She's very...contrary. I don't like to call it that, but it suits the best. She's a delight - believe me that I'm not complaining at all. She's the miracle baby that I waited 10 years for, and she's wonderful to have in my life. She's just...contrary.

She generally won't accept my help, but doesn't want to do whatever it is by herself. If she says she wants help, she yells at me when I try to help and says "I'll do it myself". Round and round.

And, anything that involves dd going to bed is never going to be solved by a common preference. We want her to sleep when she's tired. She doesn't - ever. It's a problem every night and every nap. She's been fighting sleep since the day she was born. Actually - does anybody have any suggestions for that one?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angela&avery*
ok, i have a what if... what if your child (i have discovered that i have a very spirited two year old and need to go get myself some books.....) what if that child wants to color on everything but paper. What if you have a small place and not enough high places to pu things out of her reach...... (ugh she keeps getting into the art buckets) im trying to meet her creative needs.... im going ot attempt to allow her time at the table as often as i can to create.. but she wants crayons, or markers or pencils all the time and she wants to color with them and she does not want to sit. So ic an let her run around and color all over everyting when she gets a hold of them, i can get rid of all of our art stuff ( we live in a two bedroom apartment.. im working on getting a cupboard that i can lock), or i can take it away when she doesnt want to stay and color on paper. I always end up taking it away because she wont stay put them or let her have a chance to run around with her notebook only to fin dthat she has colored on the wall, mirror, her toys.

edited to add..... this results in a temper tantrum as does everything in which half them time my completely potty trained toddler ends up having an accident........... we seriously need some input on working with her....lots of tantrums ever since seh turned one.


Our son draws on and "decorates" his toys at will. I willingly provide him the tools (markers, crayons, stickers, pencil, pens, etc.). Furniture, walls, etc. are requested not to be drawn on. They aren't. Except a couple of inadvertant spots that were accidents while drawing on agreed upon objects. Apparently, it is quite a different sensory experience to draw on textured objects in addition to drawing on paper. We have Magnadoodle, construction paper, large drawing paper, white board, chalk board, outdoor paint, etc. I have placed LARGE paper on the wall, but that is when the accidental wall markings occured.







: I would like to do the chalkboard paint. I have heard of magnetic paint too. And I believe some kind of 'white board' paint. He has a playroom with free access to all drawing implements and has since about age 3. Before that I watched him like a hawk and redirected.

Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Wait, I don't get it. A child "chooses" their parents, they are that sophisticated even before they are a spirit inside an infant body, yet they are not capable enough to make their own tiny decisions like what they eat or whether or not they brush their teeth?

Doesn't make sense to me, seriously.

It doesnt have to. It makes sense to me. I am not trying to convince you of anything. Just sharing how I feel.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I understand if this seems bizarre to most, and brilliantly OT! LOL But since my belief that my children knowingly chose me, and knew what I would offer them at the time of that choice, I believe that this is the type of parenting they have chosen. Not everybody gets the privilege of knowing their children before they are conceived so this is not an argument that is likely to apply to many.

Is not our journey to also grow from the point of their birth through the experience of parenting? So, neither parent nor child is static; and perhaps we do have free will to make different choices than those "that your children knowingly chose". I certainly know that our son has taught me a great deal. Much more than I have taught him, I would surmise. Much of what I believe today is diametrically different than I believed before he was conceived, before his birth and after his birth. Every day we learn together how to understand another's perspective. That is what he has most taught me.









Believing "that this is the type of parenting they have chosen" seems static, imo. I wouldn't say that my childhood hasn't served me or that I wouldn't have chosen it. But I wouldn't choose it now. Perhaps your children's perspective isn't static either? Is holding tightly to "the type of parenting they chose" at the time of their choosing, what they choose now?







Or did they make their bed and have to lay in it? Perhaps, we dynamically choose together how we are in relationship with others? Or does that only happen before conception/birth and at the age of majority of 16 or 18? That seems a rather convenient "excuse" for treating others as one chooses without regard to how *they choose* between conception/birth and age 18. And believing the children "have to" do things because they chose one as their parent to make their choices for them (irrelevant of their choices in the present) and therefore the parent will make them comply during that time of *no choice* seems paradoxical and inconsistent with honoring their choices for themselves.







:

Enjoying the OT conundrum.

Quote:

YOu are fortunate indeed.
Yes, it was also effort and choice of my free will to create a support system that honors and respects us as we wish to be treated. It is an active process of creating one's own reality.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angela&avery*
my biggest problem is that she colors on everything.. in books, on the couch, on walls, my rocker, on toys .. and i think it is somewhat destructive and not so much creative to be doing those things. Im a little worried about her thinking she can color on the walls without paper if we let her color on ones with paper, and then there is the issue of storage if i buy a big roll of newsprint or easels ro whatnot...we just dont have a lot of room..i have no problem with her doing anything in the kitchen as far as creating, coloring on paper... its the creating on eveyrhting else. Are all these things suppost to curb her desire to color everywhere? We have bath paints that kind of stink and we had the crayons but i had a terrible time getting them off my tub wall....... we do rent and we cannot paint the walls, also giving us the issue of her coloring on the walls, we can paint to fix it, and wash off (its mostly crayons) but she did get a hold of a permanent marker ( i swear the child is part monkey) and they are all now on top of hte fridge..... she colored on a bunch of stuff in her room with it....... i just dont know what to do iwth her except take it away when she wont stay put with them, which gives us way to a tantrum, but i am def going to try to help her find a better choice more, rather than just take it away.. i just.. when she wont listen... i dont know what to do.

Meeting the underlying needs for drawing and your engagement seem to be the issues, imo. Doing more to meet these needs so that she isn't trying to meet them in less constructive methods. Actively encouraging her to draw in mutually agreeable places with a variety of implements. By rationing or restricting her explorations she is actively attempting to still explore with the drawing implements, only away from you instead of with you, it seems.

Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I don't think my response was a deliberate misinterpretation of her post. Honestly, I can't reconscile with myself how a child is capable of choosing their parents...unless she was speaking of something purely metaphorical, like God or the Universe or whatever one believes spiritually, sends us exactly what we need.

My understanding of the post though, was that it was not God or anyone that chose parents for children and vice versa, but that the children's spirits, or souls, or whatever, chose them to specifically be their parents.

My question was, how then, if a child, or their spirit before entering a body, can make such a heavy, life-changing, or life bringing experience....how then, do you explain to yourself that they are not capable of choosing what they like for breakfast.

I am honestly not trying to be snarky, but such a question comes across that way regardless of the wording... I am trying to understand how such a spirit so capable of choosing their destiny as it relates to who their parents will be, should not be able to choose whether they brush their teeth?


Ithought I had explained it in my post but I will be happy to explain.
What I said was "However, the child born is not in the same state of knowing as they are in their spirit selves and are innocent of this world."

And I never said or implied that a child is incapable of choosing what they like for breakfast. But the societies one can be born into on this planet are numerous. Each has different culture, values, cuisine, habits etc. . . So even if we remain our spiritual knowledge and understanding at birth it does not prepare us for the society we live in. And if that child has lived before on this planet his experiences still might not prepare him because the breakfast choices as a !Kung! Bushman are different breakfast choices than the average American.

Oh and I dont think spirits have teeth. Just my opinion though.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I was getting defensive, because it was me that thought it was wasteful. And I think it's a little bit ridiculous, to assume that a certain toothbrush will ensure my kids' happiness. I think that would be VERY worrisome, if it really was that big of a deal, and I would be convinced I was teaching them the wrong lesson.

Instead, I think by treating toothbrushing as a non-issue relegates it to its appropriate place. It's just something you do and it has very little impact on your life.

Anyway, sorry to be defensive.

Ok, I certainly don't assume that a certain toothbrush will ensure my child's happiness.







The issue is to find a mutually agreeable way to get his teeth brushed on a regular basis. For some reason, smaller ones feel better sometimes, softer ones sometimes, blue ones sometimes








. What is the "wrong lesson"? That his perception of what happens to his body matters?

If toothbrushing is such a "non-issue" how is it worthy of forcing? I am confused.

Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Is not our journey to also grow from the point of their birth through the experience of parenting? So, neither parent nor child is static; and perhaps we do have free will to make different choices than those "that your children knowingly chose". I certainly know that our son has taught me a great deal. Much more than I have taught him, I would surmise. Much of what I believe today is diametrically different than I believed before he was conceived, before his birth and after his birth. Every day we learn together how to understand another's perspective. That is what he has most taught me.









Believing "that this is the type of parenting they have chosen" seems static, imo. I wouldn't say that my childhood hasn't served me or that I wouldn't have chosen it. But I wouldn't choose it now. Perhaps your children's perspective isn't static either? Is holding tightly to "the type of parenting they chose" at the time of their choosing, what they choose now?







Or did they make their bed and have to lay in it? Perhaps, we dynamically choose together how we are in relationship with others? Or does that only happen before conception/birth and at the age of majority of 16 or 18? That seems a rather convenient "excuse" for treating others as one chooses without regard to how *they choose* between conception/birth and age 18. And believing the children "have to" do things because they chose one as their parent to make their choices for them (irrelevant of their choices in the present) and therefore the parent will make them comply during that time of *no choice* seems paradoxical and inconsistent with honoring their choices for themselves.







:

It is not static at all because deep down my self stays the same and even when my perspective does change it is in ways that simply are truer to my self than I previously had been. Sometimes we find new ideas and they really speak to us. And I do then change my acts and my perspective but all within a stable and cohesive outlook.
So while I originally did spank my oldest because I thought I should. It did not feel right and I sought other ways of doign things. But my heart and the type of parent I wanted to be remained the same. And that is what my children chose.
I am in a state of learning. And of course we dynamically choose how we relate to each other throughout the course of our lives together. THe way I parent my 13 year old NOW at age 13 is really quite different than when she was 3 or 8 because her needs are different.
But I am fundamentally the same deep down. I might have more knowledge of myself and what it means and how better to reach my goals.
I never meant to imply that I decided to parent in x way and that is why my children chose me. But that in choosing me they knew my heart. And what they found they were satisfied with. And with that heart I have made a progression of different parenting decisions as I have matured. But the heart is the same. Experience and knowledge have changed however.
And I believe my children have endowed upon me a sacred trust to make decisions for them, then help them make decisions until they are fully capable of making decisions themselves 100%. It is neither paradoxical nor inconsistent. THey chose to entrust me with their power and it is my sacred duty to be a good steward of that power until they are ready to take it for themselves.
Joline


----------



## jenmk (Apr 28, 2005)

I have not read this entire thread, so perhaps this will not entirely apply. Forgive me if that is true.

However, I just read a reply to someone about "not making a child do something that they do not want to do." I agree with this idea . . . mostly. My 3yo suddenly decided he didn't want to go to playgroup. When we arrived, he walked into the building, but would not go into the room. I asked if he didn't want to be there, if he wanted to go home. He said he wanted to go home. So we did. I would have loved to stay and chat with the other parents, but I was not about to force him to stay. However, once in a great while I do have to make him get into his car seat. Neither of us like this experience, but it happens. 99.99% of the time I do not force him to do things. I do talk him into going along with me a lot of the time when he resists.

What struck me, however when I read that line about not making a child do something they do not want to do, is the behavior of my DH. There have been times when he very rudely did not do something that he didn't want to do, and it has hurt the feelings of my family or friends and me. Something as simple as going to dinner with my parents after they spent the day helping us move into our apartment. We didn't have much food, needed to go out to dinner, and when asked where he wanted to go, he stated that he wasn't going because he wasn't really hungry. In reality he just needed some space. I understand that feeling. But the hour or two spent having dinner would not have hurt him, though he didn't want to be there. It would have been the right thing to do. However, I had to go to dinner with my parents by myself and try to explain my DH's rudeness. I was so embarrassed by him and upset that he would do that. But it was just a case of him not wanting to do something that he really should have done, and since he didn't want to do it, he didn't do it. From the almost 8 years I've known him, this has come up from time to time, and I've realized that he and his siblings grew up in a family where they didn't ever have to do anything they didn't want to do. So they approach life that way: if I don't want to do something, no matter what it is, I don't have to do it. Now there are other issues at work in this family, and very self-centered people, but the underlying theme of not ever having to do anything they don't want to do is prevalent.

So, perhaps there is a negative side to this idea.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
But, if she doesn't get out, she makes _everybody_ miserable, including herself.

I don't know. I think if I avoided being coercive (ie. didn't get her dressed and say "we're going now"), I'd be making everybody _more_ miserable. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. That seems to be causing real-life distress in order to avoid theoretical distress. I try to take her out every day...and it's the same thing 99% of the time. (I was going to say "always", but for the first time in my memory, she actually put on her own pants and boots and went and _chose_ a shirt today! My goodness would life be a lot easier for everybody if she chose this tack more frequently. Maybe it's the beginning of a good thing.)

I am not in your home but it sounds like she just wants to have the choice for her own coming and going. Perhaps, providing that choice more often. Providing more choices about her body more transparently. (do you want to red spoon or the blue one, the big bowl or the small one, this chair or that, sit here or there, read this book or this book, etc.) Providing a choice of where to go, when to go, when possible etc. (now or after the show, now or after we nurse, now or after a snack, now or after the nap, etc.)

And making the choice when she states no preference is perfectly logical, imo. And altering the choice when it affects her and she objects. If she doesn't want to go when you offer, perhaps offer when dh is home so that she has a real choice of coming or not. Perhaps create other physical outlets inside where her clothing choice doesn't matter. Race in circles, jump on a mattress on the floor, there are indoor swings for older children that fit in a door way, water play helps tons (in the tub several times a day with measuring cups, things to pour from, floating objects, etc.), create a game of stepping up and down a stool, make a place for doing summersaults, jumping in a circle on paper taped to the floor, jumping from a chair holding your hands, jumping up into the air holding your hands, a drum set for large motor movement, a little indoor stationary tricycle or rocky horse, or bouncy horse, or sit and spin, etc.

HTH, Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
What if there is no common preference?
I guess that's the real root of the "coercive" vs. "non-coercive" thing. What happens when there is no common preference? If you and ds (or me and dd) can't find a common preference, do you just do what ds wants or what you want or compromise or...what?

This has rarely happened and subsequently I have realized multiple options which I was unable to conceive in the moment. So, I don't believe that mutually agreeable alternatives can not be found. In the heat of the moment, I try to understand 'what is the issue, objection, obstacle, need, desire, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE!!???' Not only from his perspective but also from mine. What is the big deal to doing xyz NOW to me? What are the issues, objections, obstacles, needs, desires related to doing it differently, later, not at all? And I discuss my issues/problems with differently, later or not at all and I inquire about ds or dh's issues/problems with differently, later, not at all or NOW. And we just try to work it out through discussion and that has worked except for about once every few months we have some obstacle that we delay until we find a mutually agreeable alternative.

Pat


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jenmk*
So they approach life that way: if I don't want to do something, no matter what it is, I don't have to do it. Now there are other issues at work in this family, and very self-centered people, but the underlying theme of not ever having to do anything they don't want to do is prevalent.

So, perhaps there is a negative side to this idea.

This hasn't been my experience. There is a subtle, or maybe not so subtle difference I don't seem to be communicating very well. We don't make the focus "you can do whatever you want", it is never communicated that way. We just search for solutions so in the scenario you mentioned we would talk about my feelings, my parent's feeling. We would acknowledge that dh needed some time alone and see if we could meet that AND meet the need of my parents.

So my children are not under the illusion that their behavior has no impact. In fact, I find they are much more aware of that impact than most. They are constantly thinking about how to make situations work for all. That seems really different from what you are describing with your dh and his family - of course I don't know them at all







But just wanted to say that doesn't really ring true here.

Anna


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
But what if your kids don't agree that toothbrushing is "just something you do and it has very little impact on your life"? What if they refuse? If you don't believe it is right to force your child to comply with your rules (how would you force this? hold them down?) then a parent might try to come up with other ways to help make toothbrushing more interesting to the child-- maybe by buying new toothpaste or a new toothbrush. Why would that be a problem? I'm sure most parents want this to be a non-issue, but for some kids it is an issue.

Yep, ds has sensory issues with oral defensiveness. He is very orally sensitive and opinionated about what goes in his mouth. Very.

Pat


----------



## jenmk (Apr 28, 2005)

Anna:

I'm glad it doesn't ring true to you! It's not pleasant to experience. And there is the factor of not really being aware of how your actions affect others (or perhaps not caring).

Your family sounds VERY different from my ILs!! My family (kids and DH, and my parents and sibs for that matter) is too. Thankfully! Though issues like this come up from DH's childhood. I just gotta hope they don't get passed on to my kids.

Back to topic . . .


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
ambdkf: I get what you're saying, and it does make sense. But, I have a dd who can't even find a common preference with herself! She's very...contrary. I don't like to call it that, but it suits the best. She's a delight - believe me that I'm not complaining at all. She's the miracle baby that I waited 10 years for, and she's wonderful to have in my life. She's just...contrary.

She generally won't accept my help, but doesn't want to do whatever it is by herself. If she says she wants help, she yells at me when I try to help and says "I'll do it myself". Round and round.

And, anything that involves dd going to bed is never going to be solved by a common preference. We want her to sleep when she's tired. She doesn't - ever. It's a problem every night and every nap. She's been fighting sleep since the day she was born. Actually - does anybody have any suggestions for that one?









That will take a whole thread of its own. Do post it with particulars and I'd be glad to chime in. Btdt, doing it still. Mostly the "problem" is when I create expectations that are unrealistic. Dairy is another big issue, corn syrup, artificial colors and flavors, wheat, soy all alter our son's activity and restfulness.

Lots of possibilities.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
And I believe my children have endowed upon me a sacred trust to make decisions for them, then help them make decisions until they are fully capable of making decisions themselves 100%. It is neither paradoxical nor inconsistent. THey chose to entrust me with their power and it is my sacred duty to be a good steward of that power until they are ready to take it for themselves.
Joline

Joline, thank you for sharing your beliefs. I trust our son with his own power of Self and am sharing this journey with him. Not as steward of his power, but as advisor and mentor. And as such am entrusted to honor his own power of Self, not make decisions for him for which he is abled. You and I disagree about which decisions those are. But, I find it is much easier to discover the Truth of which decisions our son is abled to make by not 'taking' his power, rather by observing and supporting his own power of self discovery. And I guard my role as advisor, so as not to negate my opportunity to fulfil that role, by not usurping his power and creating an adversarial relationship. Thus endangering him to use his power without considering my advisement.

The onus is on me to discover, not decide, when his power might endanger himself. I am able to do this because I trust his power of judgement for himself. Just as I trusted his judgement about himself when he was hungry, sleepy, wanted to be held, etc. I believe my trust in his power of judgement protects him more than my distrust in his power of judgement could convey and extinguish his self-trust. This process of supportive Trust has worked to protect our mentor relationship too, imo. And our son does not endanger himself. He does trust me as his advisor; but he trusts himself most. There is no one who makes him do things against his judgement. And I do not believe he "has to" do things against his judgement. We both act from a place of trust, not fear.

Our son has taught me this. I was not in this place as a child, nor as an adult. I was not parented from a place of trust of my Self. Our son has helped me to learn to trust mySelf. Just as he has been supported to learn to trust himSelf. But this is based upon trusting that his choices for himself will serve the best interests of himself. And they have. Just as I have learned that my choices for myself will serve my best interests if I trust myself. And they have. I trust that they will continue to do so.

It is much easier to observe when one trusts too much, than when one trusts too little and fears too much by not allowing another their power of self and choice.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jenmk*
I have not read this entire thread, so perhaps this will not entirely apply. Forgive me if that is true.

However, I just read a reply to someone about "not making a child do something that they do not want to do." I agree with this idea . . . mostly. My 3yo suddenly decided he didn't want to go to playgroup. When we arrived, he walked into the building, but would not go into the room. I asked if he didn't want to be there, if he wanted to go home. He said he wanted to go home. So we did. I would have loved to stay and chat with the other parents, but I was not about to force him to stay. However, once in a great while I do have to make him get into his car seat. Neither of us like this experience, but it happens. 99.99% of the time I do not force him to do things. I do talk him into going along with me a lot of the time when he resists.

What struck me, however when I read that line about not making a child do something they do not want to do, is the behavior of my DH. There have been times when he very rudely did not do something that he didn't want to do, and it has hurt the feelings of my family or friends and me. Something as simple as going to dinner with my parents after they spent the day helping us move into our apartment. We didn't have much food, needed to go out to dinner, and when asked where he wanted to go, he stated that he wasn't going because he wasn't really hungry. In reality he just needed some space. I understand that feeling. But the hour or two spent having dinner would not have hurt him, though he didn't want to be there. It would have been the right thing to do. However, I had to go to dinner with my parents by myself and try to explain my DH's rudeness. I was so embarrassed by him and upset that he would do that. But it was just a case of him not wanting to do something that he really should have done, and since he didn't want to do it, he didn't do it. From the almost 8 years I've known him, this has come up from time to time, and I've realized that he and his siblings grew up in a family where they didn't ever have to do anything they didn't want to do. So they approach life that way: if I don't want to do something, no matter what it is, I don't have to do it. Now there are other issues at work in this family, and very self-centered people, but the underlying theme of not ever having to do anything they don't want to do is prevalent.

So, perhaps there is a negative side to this idea.

Jen, my dh and ds are highly sensitive introverts. I am neither.







Dh and I have been married for almost 23 years. It took until about five years ago to realize it really, really does pain him to spend too much time with people. He physically needs to decrease the mental and emotional stimuli. I just thought, he was a stick in the mud at times.







Ds is highly sensitive to sounds. He can identify every instrument in the orchestra by sound. Music is a passion of his. But when we go to the symphony, the intensity of all the sounds that he can discern is overwhelming in an accoustic environment. In a restaurant, it is very distrubing to our son to hear the cacophony of sounds and voices and noise of everything going on. You might investigate "The Highly Sensitive Person" or "The Highly Sensitive Child". I know of many people with intense sensitivities and it is a gift of intense awareness. But it is also an overstimulating and overwhelming experience, especially when combined with introversion. And if spending time with your parents is like mine, a little goes a long way with dh. Even if they helped ya move, send them a Halmark card and a gift card to their favorite restaurant.







But scolding and discounting dh's experience won't help matters, from my experience.









We frequently use the phrase "I need some space". I consider this a polite and authentic way of expressing an emotional need. And this is what I request our son express when he needs time alone. We try to honor that need as equally valid as a need for food or a need to show appreciation.

The perpective of "right thing to do", "embarrassed by him", "rude", "would not have hurt him", "should have done", "self-centered" are a lot of judgement to apply to another's equally valid experience, imo. But, I learned this the hard way, myself with dh.









HTH, Pat


----------



## alamama (Mar 21, 2005)

Fascinating thread! I mostly lurk, but wanted to chime in.

Pat, I've read your posts on a number of threads and love the long lists of possible solutions to given conflicts. They so effectively illustrates how many possibilities there are if we think creatively. It is so easy to get trapped in either/or thinking.

Quote:

Dairy is another big issue, corn syrup, artificial colors and flavors, wheat, soy all alter our son's activity and restfulness
.

This really struck me because this is one area where I anticipate an internal struggle (ds is too young for it to be an issue now). We have very strong views about nutrition in our house (as I am sure others here do) and at home it will not likely be much of a problem, as we only keep healthy food in the house. But when we are out and about, junk food is everpresent. There are some so-called foods that I would prefer not to give to anyone, child or adult, because I truly believe they are harmful. So I imagine a grocery store scenario where ds is asking me to buy some such food...how do we reach a mutually beneficial resolution? Perhaps: offer to buy a healthier "treat," make muffins or cookies when we get home, suggest a fun activity or game instead...????

I'm just curious how you handle it when your son wants to eat foods that you know will adversely affect him. I would guess that the older a child gets, the more able you are to talk about foods and the impact they have on our bodies. With conversation, I think children could identify how they feel with a sugar high/crash, for example. So do you talk through these things but still purchase these kinds of food if he wants them?

I should add that I think children will often make healthy food choices when that is what they are exposed to, and I do wonder how making any food "off limits" foods simply increases its appeal.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alamama*
Fascinating thread! I mostly lurk, but wanted to chime in.

Pat, I've read your posts on a number of threads and love the long lists of possible solutions to given conflicts. They so effectively illustrates how many possibilities there are if we think creatively. It is so easy to get trapped in either/or thinking.

.

This really struck me because this is one area where I anticipate an internal struggle (ds is too young for it to be an issue now). We have very strong views about nutrition in our house (as I am sure others here do) and at home it will not likely be much of a problem, as we only keep healthy food in the house. But when we are out and about, junk food is everpresent. There are some so-called foods that I would prefer not to give to anyone, child or adult, because I truly believe they are harmful. So I imagine a grocery store scenario where ds is asking me to buy some such food...how do we reach a mutually beneficial resolution? Perhaps: offer to buy a healthier "treat," make muffins or cookies when we get home, suggest a fun activity or game instead...????

I'm just curious how you handle it when your son wants to eat foods that you know will adversely affect him. I would guess that the older a child gets, the more able you are to talk about foods and the impact they have on our bodies. With conversation, I think children could identify how they feel with a sugar high/crash, for example. So do you talk through these things but still purchase these kinds of food if he wants them?

I should add that I think children will often make healthy food choices when that is what they are exposed to, and I do wonder how making any food "off limits" foods simply increases its appeal.

Off to bed, but short answer is that we have always discussed it and he trys things occasionally to see if they are still an issue. He listens to his body and has free choice. We buy lots of "healthy" processed alternatives from EarthFare and I bake. He is 4.5 y/o almost.

Pat


----------



## Englishmummy (Sep 30, 2005)

:
great thread


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Scubamama said:

Quote:

I trust our son with his own power of Self and am sharing this journey with him. Not as steward of his power, but as advisor and mentor. And as such am entrusted to honor his own power of Self, not make decisions for him for which he is abled. You and I disagree about which decisions those are. But, I find it is much easier to discover the Truth of which decisions our son is abled to make by not 'taking' his power, rather by observing and supporting his own power of self discovery. And I guard my role as advisor, so as not to negate my opportunity to fulfil that role, by not usurping his power and creating an adversarial relationship. Thus endangering him to use his power without considering my advisement.

The onus is on me to discover, not decide, when his power might endanger himself. I am able to do this because I trust his power of judgement for himself. Just as I trusted his judgement about himself when he was hungry, sleepy, wanted to be held, etc. I believe my trust in his power of judgement protects him more than my distrust in his power of judgement could convey and extinguish his self-trust. This process of supportive Trust has worked to protect our mentor relationship too, imo. And our son does not endanger himself. He does trust me as his advisor; but he trusts himself most. There is no one who makes him do things against his judgement. And I do not believe he "has to" do things against his judgement. We both act from a place of trust, not fear.

Our son has taught me this. I was not in this place as a child, nor as an adult. I was not parented from a place of trust of my Self. Our son has helped me to learn to trust mySelf. Just as he has been supported to learn to trust himSelf. But this is based upon trusting that his choices for himself will serve the best interests of himself. And they have. Just as I have learned that my choices for myself will serve my best interests if I trust myself. And they have. I trust that they will continue to do so.

It is much easier to observe when one trusts too much, than when one trusts too little and fears too much by not allowing another their power of self and choice.
I completely agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! (per usual)


----------



## jenmk (Apr 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Jen, my dh and ds are highly sensitive introverts. I am neither.







Dh and I have been married for almost 23 years. It took until about five years ago to realize it really, really does pain him to spend too much time with people. He physically needs to decrease the mental and emotional stimuli. I just thought, he was a stick in the mud at times.







Ds is highly sensitive to sounds. He can identify every instrument in the orchestra by sound. Music is a passion of his. But when we go to the symphony, the intensity of all the sounds that he can discern is overwhelming in an accoustic environment. In a restaurant, it is very distrubing to our son to hear the cacophony of sounds and voices and noise of everything going on. You might investigate "The Highly Sensitive Person" or "The Highly Sensitive Child". I know of many people with intense sensitivities and it is a gift of intense awareness. But it is also an overstimulating and overwhelming experience, especially when combined with introversion. And if spending time with your parents is like mine, a little goes a long way with dh. Even if they helped ya move, send them a Halmark card and a gift card to their favorite restaurant.







But scolding and discounting dh's experience won't help matters, from my experience.









We frequently use the phrase "I need some space". I consider this a polite and authentic way of expressing an emotional need. And this is what I request our son express when he needs time alone. We try to honor that need as equally valid as a need for food or a need to show appreciation.

The perpective of "right thing to do", "embarrassed by him", "rude", "would not have hurt him", "should have done", "self-centered" are a lot of judgement to apply to another's equally valid experience, imo. But, I learned this the hard way, myself with dh.









HTH, Pat

Pat:

I appreciate your perspective and experience on this. However, it sounds as if your DH and mine are very different. I guess it just hurts me when he acts this way because I HAVE TO spend time with his family and it's no picnic for me. I make the best of it, smile and make pleasant conversation, even when all I want to do is run to the car, lock the doors, and speed away. But I do it because they are important to him, and I love him. And, frankly, it's the right thing to do--be nice to my in-laws, make it a pleasant visit when we're there. I expect the same of him. Of course we do have very different families, and I do understand that it's not easy for him either. But you just don't be unneccessarily rude to people who are important in you or your partner's lives.

And in the example I gave about my parents . . . they were staying the night with us because they lived to far away to come help and go home the same day. Can't really hand them a thank you card and send them for a free dinner without us in that situation.

Thanks for your input, though. Gives me some things to ponder.


----------



## Wugmama (Feb 10, 2005)

Quote:

I am sorry you all are struggling so lately. We do when I have PMS. Evening Primrose oil tablets help my conflict resolution skills and my patience.
Thanks Pat.








Pulsatilla seems to be helping with my pg induced funk.
~Tracy


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Playful enticement wouldn't be coercive in my book. Convincing and persuading are in some (TCS) books considered coercive. I believe the fine line is crossed when "talking at" (nagging) rather than "talking with" (discussion) occurs. Or if refusal occurs and one doesn't quit pushing the boob in the mouth. I personally assume a crying infant wants a boob unless it is refused once offered. It isn't compelled to nurse. Do offer, may refuse.

This is interesting to me, because we're soooo close to this. We basically never force an issue, especially off of the list that you posted earlier. In fact, my dh has tried two things, dressing my dd and putting her in her carseat, w/o her consent, and it was impossible for him, she'd just squirm away.

I think where the difference is that I'm willing to tell her no. But I must respond to your other post...


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Ok, I certainly don't assume that a certain toothbrush will ensure my child's happiness.







The issue is to find a mutually agreeable way to get his teeth brushed on a regular basis. For some reason, smaller ones feel better sometimes, softer ones sometimes, blue ones sometimes







. What is the "wrong lesson"? That his perception of what happens to his body matters?

OK, I'm feeling less defensive today, but I really do have a different POV here. I promise I'm not just arguing for the sake of it!









First, let me reiterate that I don't "force" my child to brush her teeth. Sometimes she says she doesn't want to, I just explain why she should, and play some games while doing it.

So now I'm going to try to describe what I mean by the "wrong lesson." Say instead we started talking about why she doesn't like it, dissecting how it could be easier/better/more comfortable. I think Pat is proposing this teaches your child negotiation skills and respect for their own body and how to find a common preference.

What if, instead, it teaches your child that it should be unacceptable to ever feel slightly uncomfortable, irritated, or dissatisfied? That a small amount of personal discomfort should be avoided at all costs? That if we don't particularly relish part of our lives and daily tasks, no matter how small or insignificant, we should immediately search for a solution, or a product, that can remediate that discomfort? That we are INCAPABLE of enduring the daily grind?

Now I know this can be construed as "I'm teaching my kid a lesson here, and that lesson is XYZ," but I honestly think there's a lot of value in allowing your child to experience something slightly negative. They'll learn that they don't fall apart, that they're tough, that it's not that bad. And then, when there's something they want to do that requires these skills, they'll have practice.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

This is a great thread!

Here are my thoughts. I believe that things to happen to us and around us that we have absolutely no control over-for instance, we cannot control other people. I also believe that we always have a choice as to how to respond to those things that happen. Sometimes it doesn't feel like a choice, because we don't see more than two possible choices of action (or maybe there really are only two) and the consequence of one of those actions is intolerable to us. My dh sometimes hates his job. Does he HAVE to go to work? No. He could choose to one day just stop going. The consequences of that would likely include us losing our home, vehicles and health insurance along with an inability for us to provide adequate food and shelter for our children without help from family. Those consequences are intolerable for my dh. It is important to him that we have a place to live and reasonable financial security. So he chooses to go to work. Other possibilities could include finding a new job, but that would likely result in lower pay which is also unacceptable to him. It may seem like a non-choice because one set of consequences is unacceptable, but I think it's a real choice. Likewise, speeding in my car is illegal but obeying the speed limit is not something I HAVE to do-it's something I choose to do because I believe it's safer for me and others than speeding, and because I do not want to face the consequences for speeding that the law imposes.

I think many parenting situations are the same. We reject one possibility because it does not meet our needs, because it is intolerable, but that doesn't mean that we HAVE to do anything. We choose. Though it's horrifying and now everyone here will definitely think I'm weird, I have to say that I think that the child running into the street example is a choice. I could choose to not stop my child, but the consequences of that would be intolerable to me (and she wouldn't want that either if she understood the consequences). So I choose to stop her, and I will choose to use force (i.e. grabbing her) to do so if I believe it is necessary. It feels like a non-choice, but it isn't. KWIM? I have chosen to use coercion or force to get a toddler into a carseat quickly in order to pick up another child on time, after we're already running late, because it was important to me that the other child not be left waiting and possibly scared.

I can't right now think of a single time in my adult life when I was compelled to do something by....what? Some outside force? It always comes down to choosing between two or more actions and their likely consequences. Sometimes we chose things because we only see one other choice whose consequences we are uncomfortable with, sometimes we choose to do something because it has become a comfortable habit and we don't want to leave that comfort zone, sometimes we just don't stop to see the choices. But I think we always have a choice, even if it's a distasteful choice. I think it's uncommon in our culture to accept responsibility for all our choices, and common/habitual to instead say we HAVE to do things. I think it can be frightening to accept that responsibility. But I think it can also be liberating and empowering.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
What if, instead, it teaches your child that it should be unacceptable to ever feel slightly uncomfortable, irritated, or dissatisfied? That a small amount of personal discomfort should be avoided at all costs? That if we don't particularly relish part of our lives and daily tasks, no matter how small or insignificant, we should immediately search for a solution, or a product, that can remediate that discomfort? That we are INCAPABLE of enduring the daily grind?
.. but I honestly think there's a lot of value in allowing your child to experience something slightly negative. They'll learn that they don't fall apart, that they're tough, that it's not that bad.

I think that in the course of living with other people, children will learn to weather disappointments. Inevitably there will be times when they are disappointed/angry/whatever-when interacting with parents, siblings, friends, other family. I don't think that it's something we parents can prevent, but I also don't think it's something we have to go out of our way to teach them. I like to use certain kinds of toothpaste and toothbrushes myself. I make sure I have them. Why wouldn't I allow my child the same choices? And really, the bottom line is that it's important to me for their teeth to remain healthy (just as I believe it is for them even if they don't understand the consequences of not brushing as I do) so I don't mind helping them find a comfortable way to care for their teeth. KWIM? We go to the store, my child asks for lots of toys, I say no because of both monetary circumstances and my values, and he is disappointed-life didn't go his way. He cries, he survives. I don't need to use toothbrushing to teach him he can survive something unpleasant.

Along similar lines, I tend to find cleaning the house particularly unpleasant. I also find living in a messy house even more unpleasant. So I clean (I could choose not to clean), but cleaning doesn't have to be entirely unpleasant-I can choose to find ways of making it less unpleasant. I can ask my kids to help and we can talk or make a game of it, I can turn on some music, I can make a nice-smelling cleanser, I can use the time to think or "meditate". I think this is really no different from helping my child find a way to make toothbrushing more pleasant. We have so much ability to choose to find pleasant-ness and happiness in life. I would like my children to learn that, that they can create their own happiness so much of the time- it's more important to me than teaching them to endure misery.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

This thread had the nerve to get to ten pages when I was offline! I'm still reading through-- I'm struggling a lot with this stuff- I am learning a TON from reading these boards as well as some books recommended here. Basically I am really analyzing some of the feelings I think I have about needing to "control" my kid, and reframing how I see his "not listening". I think I started out way less controlling than the average mainstream parent out there, but that's still pretty controlling. I am really addressing my fears (that if he doesn't listen now, he'll be a monster in the future) and learning to parent more playfully, to look at my demands, my need to feel respected, and so on. Even when I was naturally doing a lot of the choices and distractions, I felt like I expected too much out of him at times, or got too bent out of shape if he didn't listen. So I'm really working to find a balance between not lording over him and having limits. But I do feel like a lot of times, there's just no way around some nonthreatening "coercion" if it can even be called that. I'm still avoiding battles, I'm still giving him choices, I'm still employing playful parenting. But as we know there are so many little situations that get hairy. And then sometimes I just feel like "No" should kind of mean No, without distraction. Like when safety is an issue. Like when he's hurting people. I know this very generalized post is a bit out of place when you are all getting into your parenting theories in great detail. I'm sort of thinking out loud.

Anyway, why I wanted to post before finishing this all- I was reading Jen's post, and it reminded me a lot of my experience with my dh. Yes, it's just anecdotal, but it's hard to ignore. Things were way laid back in his house, no bed time, nothing done by the clock, and so on. And what do you know, his family is late for everything to the point of sometimes just being disrespectful, and he's so laid back he has had trouble in his workplace. It's like he never learned that sometimes he has to do things on someone else's time frame. Now I don't want to drill this into a TWO year-old, but I do feel that his upbringing did him a disservice, on some levels. And yet, he aims to be way more controlling than I ever have. I don't know, I'm just thinking this out. Not a lot of time for the net right now, but I like this thread.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
What if, instead, it teaches your child that it should be unacceptable to ever feel slightly uncomfortable, irritated, or dissatisfied? That a small amount of personal discomfort should be avoided at all costs? That if we don't particularly relish part of our lives and daily tasks, no matter how small or insignificant, we should immediately search for a solution, or a product, that can remediate that discomfort?

Now I know this can be construed as "I'm teaching my kid a lesson here, and that lesson is XYZ," but I honestly think there's a lot of value in allowing your child to experience something slightly negative. They'll learn that they don't fall apart, that they're tough, that it's not that bad. And then, when there's something they want to do that requires these skills, they'll have practice.

Natensarah, I *swear* I was thinking about this issue myself last night, and was going to try to come up with a way to express it here today - you beat me to it, and said it way better than I would. I was thinking of how it might not be a good thing to never not get your way, to always look to make everyone happy in a situation.....I'm not sayign a parent should actively try to find situations where your child doesn't get their way so that they can 'learn the ways of the harsh world', but not shielding them from that all the time by trying to find mutual solutions, especially when it is a minor disappointment. - OK, I know, who am I to judge what is minor to my child since I'm not in their head? Well, for instance, having a shirt they want to wear in the laundry or being washed...OK yeah, that's too bad, but it's simply not going to scar them for life...that's a minor disappointment. You can empathize and give alternatives, but in the end I think it is probably good for a child to be able to get over minor things like that, instead of always trying to find a work around to make everyone satisfied all the time.

For me, compromise and sacrifice (not getting my way all the time) are sometimes a great way to express my love and caring for someone; making an extra effort to do something they like that I'm not particularly wild about, or watch a show they like but I don't...

For the record, I have just LOVED this thread.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I am not in your home but it sounds like she just wants to have the choice for her own coming and going. Perhaps, providing that choice more often. Providing more choices about her body more transparently. (do you want to red spoon or the blue one, the big bowl or the small one, this chair or that, sit here or there, read this book or this book, etc.) Providing a choice of where to go, when to go, when possible etc. (now or after the show, now or after we nurse, now or after a snack, now or after the nap, etc.)

And making the choice when she states no preference is perfectly logical, imo. And altering the choice when it affects her and she objects. If she doesn't want to go when you offer, perhaps offer when dh is home so that she has a real choice of coming or not. Perhaps create other physical outlets inside where her clothing choice doesn't matter. Race in circles, jump on a mattress on the floor, there are indoor swings for older children that fit in a door way, water play helps tons (in the tub several times a day with measuring cups, things to pour from, floating objects, etc.), create a game of stepping up and down a stool, make a place for doing summersaults, jumping in a circle on paper taped to the floor, jumping from a chair holding your hands, jumping up into the air holding your hands, a drum set for large motor movement, a little indoor stationary tricycle or rocky horse, or bouncy horse, or sit and spin, etc.

HTH, Pat

I appreciate the thoughts, Pat. She can use any bowl, any spoon, etc. She sometimes (like last night) picks what we have for supper. She picks her own clothes (within the aforementioned weather-related limits). Outings, aside from errands (which are, oddly, almost never a big issue) are very flexible, aside from the baby having to be fed, and they both need to be changed before we leave.

And, I'll think about the indoor swing. Most of the rest of it's not very practical for us. We don't have a lot of space here (no room for mattresses, rocky horse, etc. She does a _ton_ of running around and dancing and jumping throughout the day, and even an occasional somersault...but it doesn't settle her the way an actual "outing" does.

Ah, well - I'll definitely look into the swing. We could put one in the doorway to the living room.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Another thought that was floating around the old noggin last night (I had insomnia and was up from 1am on....







)...

I think at this point in the thread we're delving into the finer points of coercion vs noncoercion, but I have a feeling that a vast majority of us here, even if we're coercive at times, do in fact make an effort to comfort and give alternatives to our children when they are upset with a situation...I think what it comes down to is that some of us are not willing to play the trump card and make a unilateral decision, and some of us are if an alternative can't be thought of in a relatively short time frame (FTR, I am). This does not mean that I won't try to find a way to make my son more comfortable in situations where he's unhappy (a diaper change standing up, or letting him hold the wipes, or "in a few minutes", or "after you run around the room 3 times", or, 'after some naked time' or whatever, but ultimately it will get done within a few minutes). Today he brought a plastic tumbler we drink out of with a stuffed monkey shoved in it, and a maple leaf he found on the ground into my MW appt - we got some strange looks in the elevator and hallway on the way to the office, and it mde me think, "How sad is it that some parents would probably not let their kid bring this stuff to the office because they're "supposed" to be in the kitchen or outside? There are so many times when things just don't matter and we go with the flow, and I think many people on this board realize that.

I don't think it's as black and white on this message board, at least, that either you are totally noncoercive, or you are a controlling dictator. I think there is a TON of middle ground where children can be assured that they are loved, respected, and heard, but also handle that sometimes things just won't go exactly the way they want them to, BUT that in and of itself isn't necessarily a 'harsh reality' unless you make it one (and I think a calm parental reaction can go a long way in helping teach that). Again, not searching out situations where they won't get their way, but not avoiding them purposely either.

I think a majority of people here empathize, give alternatives, and try to make things easier for their child, which to me is a completely different dynamic than just saying, "tough noogies, kid, this is the way it is cause I said so."

I do believe that kids are savvy enough to pick up on the difference between, "mom doesn't care what I think and we always do what she says" and "mom cares what I think and listens to me, but this time it's not gonna be done my way...BUT another time it will."

I think the diference between those two dynamics is immense, and I think that many of us here, while not totally noncoercive, practice the latter rather than the former.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

OK, this is *totally* off topic, but you all "have to" see the pencil portraits in Jenmk's sig line. They are amazing!! I want to have this done since I know our son would never sit still for a photo drawing of him. And of course, he doesn't "have to".









Jen . . . mom of 2, wife of 1.
Pencil portraits drawn from your photographs! SAHM biz pencilportraitsplus

Well, that doesn't work.







: Check outJenmk's sig link. (No, I don't know the woman.







)

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
This is a great thread!

Here are my thoughts. I believe that things to happen to us and around us that we have absolutely no control over-for instance, we cannot control other people. I also believe that we always have a choice as to how to respond to those things that happen. Sometimes it doesn't feel like a choice, because we don't see more than two possible choices of action (or maybe there really are only two) and the consequence of one of those actions is intolerable to us. My dh sometimes hates his job. Does he HAVE to go to work? No. He could choose to one day just stop going. The consequences of that would likely include us losing our home, vehicles and health insurance along with an inability for us to provide adequate food and shelter for our children without help from family. Those consequences are intolerable for my dh. It is important to him that we have a place to live and reasonable financial security. So he chooses to go to work. Other possibilities could include finding a new job, but that would likely result in lower pay which is also unacceptable to him. It may seem like a non-choice because one set of consequences is unacceptable, but I think it's a real choice. Likewise, speeding in my car is illegal but obeying the speed limit is not something I HAVE to do-it's something I choose to do because I believe it's safer for me and others than speeding, and because I do not want to face the consequences for speeding that the law imposes.

I think many parenting situations are the same. We reject one possibility because it does not meet our needs, because it is intolerable, but that doesn't mean that we HAVE to do anything. We choose. Though it's horrifying and now everyone here will definitely think I'm weird, I have to say that I think that the child running into the street example is a choice. I could choose to not stop my child, but the consequences of that would be intolerable to me (and she wouldn't want that either if she understood the consequences). So I choose to stop her, and I will choose to use force (i.e. grabbing her) to do so if I believe it is necessary. It feels like a non-choice, but it isn't. KWIM? I have chosen to use coercion or force to get a toddler into a carseat quickly in order to pick up another child on time, after we're already running late, because it was important to me that the other child not be left waiting and possibly scared.

I can't right now think of a single time in my adult life when I was compelled to do something by....what? Some outside force? It always comes down to choosing between two or more actions and their likely consequences. Sometimes we chose things because we only see one other choice whose consequences we are uncomfortable with, sometimes we choose to do something because it has become a comfortable habit and we don't want to leave that comfort zone, sometimes we just don't stop to see the choices. But I think we always have a choice, even if it's a distasteful choice. I think it's uncommon in our culture to accept responsibility for all our choices, and common/habitual to instead say we HAVE to do things. I think it can be frightening to accept that responsibility. But I think it can also be liberating and empowering.

I think that in the course of living with other people, children will learn to weather disappointments. Inevitably there will be times when they are disappointed/angry/whatever-when interacting with parents, siblings, friends, other family. I don't think that it's something we parents can prevent, but I also don't think it's something we have to go out of our way to teach them. I like to use certain kinds of toothpaste and toothbrushes myself. I make sure I have them. Why wouldn't I allow my child the same choices? And really, the bottom line is that it's important to me for their teeth to remain healthy (just as I believe it is for them even if they don't understand the consequences of not brushing as I do) so I don't mind helping them find a comfortable way to care for their teeth. KWIM? We go to the store, my child asks for lots of toys, I say no because of both monetary circumstances and my values, and he is disappointed-life didn't go his way. He cries, he survives. I don't need to use toothbrushing to teach him he can survive something unpleasant.

Along similar lines, I tend to find cleaning the house particularly unpleasant. I also find living in a messy house even more unpleasant. So I clean (I could choose not to clean), but cleaning doesn't have to be entirely unpleasant-I can choose to find ways of making it less unpleasant. I can ask my kids to help and we can talk or make a game of it, I can turn on some music, I can make a nice-smelling cleanser, I can use the time to think or "meditate". I think this is really no different from helping my child find a way to make toothbrushing more pleasant. We have so much ability to choose to find pleasant-ness and happiness in life. I would like my children to learn that, that they can create their own happiness so much of the time- it's more important to me than teaching them to endure misery.

How come you didn't choose to post about 180 posts ago??







I am adding you to my buddy list.









Pat


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
Well, for instance, having a shirt they want to wear in the laundry or being washed...OK yeah, that's too bad, but it's simply not going to scar them for life...that's a minor disappointment. You can empathize and give alternatives, but in the end I think it is probably good for a child to be able to get over minor things like that, instead of always trying to find a work around to make everyone satisfied all the time.

I agree that we don't have to go overboard to keep our kids from being disappointed. But I think there is a difference between "sheilding them from minor disappointment" and working with them to find a happy solution.
if ds wants a certain shirt very much, I'd let him wear it if its not too dirty. If it were too dirty to wear, or wet in the washer, I'd wash and dry it right away, and make some kind of deal (do you want to go naked until its done?) then he could wear it when it was done. I'd do the same for my dp if he wanted certain clothes (ok, maybe not the "go naked" deal lol)
I see the toothbrush situation the same way. There's a difference between having all that stuff available for use, and, say, running out at 10pm because dc is insisting that he needs a RED toothbrush. Heck, I think I've had most of that stuff at one time or another- you test it out, learn what works and what you like, and go from there. If dp asked me to buy a tongue scraper the next time I'm at the store, I'd do it, and not think twice about it.

Wow donosmommy04- I just read your last post, and its an awesome post! Good insomnia thinking







lol


----------



## wildmonkeys (Oct 4, 2004)

That was a really great post donosmommy04!









I can imgaine that you would have great success in finding middle and mutually satisfactory solutions with your child as you seem to have heard from and understood the full range of what people express on 10 pages worth of posts









BJ
Barney & Ben


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

donosmommy04, thanks for pointing out our essential similarities.

When I think about parental control, I draw a rough mental distinction between situations which affect only the child, and situations which draw in other people. Other posters have argued that it's good for people to be empowered to make free choices, to take responsibility for their own lives, to resist oppression, and to do what they need to be happy. I agree. I think that these are important values to foster in my family.

However, I also know plenty of people (both children and adults) who have an attitude that it is others' responsibility to make them happy. They believe they are entitled to service and accommodation from others, and that their own pursuit of happiness is more important than others' discomfort. Those are values I don't want to foster in my family.

How that plays out with respect to parental control: as much as possible, I hope to allow my daughter full control of aspects of her life which primarily affect her. Whether she wears a party dress to the playground, keeps her room looking like a pigsty, decides not to brush her teeth for a week, eats nothing but meat, or refuses to attend Religious Education classes is entirely up to her. She has the right to pursue her own happiness. (I would probably try to influence her decisions on many of these factors with education, lateral thinking, play, brainstorming alternatives, etc., but I wouldn't want to exercise direct control.)

But a lot of the things children want to control about their lives actually involve control of other people. As my daughter gets older, at times she'll want me to buy her things, refrain from doing things I enjoy, spend time doing things I'd rather not do, and so on. She doesn't automatically get to assume I will. I probably will anyway, much of the time - I'm her mother and I love her. I don't like to thwart my child, and I am willing to devote quite a bit of time, effort, and lost opportunities to her happiness. But I'm going to choose when I do so and when I don't.

So she might decide to get up and play every morning at 5am when she's older, but she's not entitled to my active company. (Maybe she could play alone with her toys, maybe she could curl up quietly next to me and look at books or listen to music through headphones, maybe someone else in the family is an early bird who doesn't mind getting up with her.) She might decide to eat nothing but meat from the array of foods I provide, but she's not entitled to have me prepare a second meal if she decides she doesn't want what's being served. (I might let her choose what we'll have for dinner the next night, though, or take her along grocery shopping to make sure that we have lots of foods in the house that she likes.) She might wear her party dress to the playground, but she doesn't have the automatic right to a replacement dress if that one gets torn or stained. We can negotiate for all of these things, and brainstorm mutually agreeable solutions, but the ultimate choice about what *I* do goes to *me.*


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

gee, thanks ladies! That means a lot to me, I really value this board and am glad to make the occasional worthwhile contribution!


----------



## moma justice (Aug 16, 2003)

i think it is so funny someone brought up the shirt in the laundry issue and child wanting toys issue (mom not getting them b/c of money and VALUES)

someone even brought up values when it comes to choosing breakfast food...

because i thought about that alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll last night.
what about our family's values?

nutrtion and food consumtion is almost my basis for spiritual practice.....(and my dh)

so are other ways of showing respect to our planet (one reason why we don't own tons of plastic toys)

so what if our child wants something that falls outside of my family's values of right and wrong or healthy and unhealthy?

my mom used to say , "my first job is to keep you alive, and i wouldn't be a good mother if i didn't."

but soemtimes she would also not allow me to do things that did not match up with our family values....to this day, i can understand her perspective but with most of hte value stuff, i can still see that i would hav ebeen ok and mroe able to figure aout ME and be a better more clear me, if i would have been allowed to try those things....
but they were not real physical safety things...
my mom felt like me doing X would endanger my spiritual safety.
the example i am thinking of most is i wanted to be a cheerleader and my parents were hippies and that type girl did not fall into my parents; spiritual idea of who their daughter could be.

and what about boarderline safety issues????????? (scuba moma and cc)

like you feel like it is not really safe or healthy, but they won't drop dead right away and they are hell bent to do it????

yesterday, my real life laundry example came to pass:
my dd had some new clothes that i was taking off the tags and putting in the laundry...she wanted to wear them (now unless my dd wants to wear something that is just gross dirty, i let her wear dirty clothes)
but new clothes are covered in all kinds of chemicals (like murcery based anti wrinkle stuff etc)
and i told her they were not safe to wear, i had to wash them first....(i even explained yucky stuff that could hurt your brain while it is growing)
and she screamed and cried for 20 minutes...
then she was fine...i tried to comfort her
i thought about this thread and wondered....will she die from wearing that shirt, no/

but my values of health and safety are there to keep her healthy and safe.

and just like eating foods that are viod of nutrtion and dyed bright blue, will not kill her there on the spot.....but they are bad for you. not just opinionthere, they ARE bad for every human to consume...

and it is hard to parent today b/c we are SURROUNDED by things (like bright blue candies etc) that are marketed to children and yet are quite harmful to children....

do you see what i am saying????

SO wise mommas, where do you draw the line?


----------



## moma justice (Aug 16, 2003)

ooohhh ooooh
i have anotherone.....
the other day we were out waling in this tiny "forest" in our city (we live in one of the largest US cities)
and there was this little stream/swampy area...
well my dd wanted to splash in it...
now i grew up in the country and i am all about kids in the mud.

but this was gross i could see the oil and other yucky sludge

but i explained distracted and tried and i still had to pick up and carry away to another part of the forest my dd (i have said before that she is the most spirited and determined child ever)

so yes the sludge would not have killedher on the spot, but what kind of mother would i be if i did not protect her??????
how could i live with myself if i let her eat crap food and play in sludge and she eveloped cancer or illness????

ITA that children are divine and wise and should be respected.... but we live in a toxic world that does not lend to protecting our children...

nak.....but any thoughts????????????????


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rigama*
I have to wonder, nice as it all sounds in theory, how will your child take it when they are older, or even grown, and are in a situation where their needs aren't first and foremost on everyone's minds? Because let's face it. In the world, there are things that need to be done and our feelings on the matter don't matter one iota. Perhaps his boss tells him he must work over the holiday weekend or lose his job. Perhaps he proposes to a woman who simply isn't interested in marriage, or perhaps she wants to have a child with a man who doesn't want one. There are countless times when our kids will have to face doing/hearing something that isn't what they desire. Papers that need to be written, red lights that need to be obeyed, student loan bills that need repaying, taxes to be filed, etc.

I am have a 2 year old, and she already knows that her feelings aren't the only thing that matters in this world. She knows that EVERYONE's feelings matter, and that includes her. I take her seriously as a person, and she is learning to take me seriously as a person too.

Today we had our "preschool" class. Two hours once a week. When we came out for the handstamp all kids get at the end, the teacher was distracted and chatting with parents. Dd asked for a handstamp. The teacher noticed she was being talked to but didn't listen. Dd asked again, reaching up. The teacher moved away. Dd followed and asked again. Finally I stepped in and asked if she could have her handstamp. The teacher apologized and stamped dd's hand.

A mom who was watching complimented dd on her patience. What? MY dd? She's not patient.







Or at the very least not naturally patient. She had confidence that her request would be granted. She didn't feel like to she had to scream to be heard.

Sometimes her requests can't be granted, and I explain to dd why. She often fusses about it, but we rarely have tantrums when dd can't get what she wants. She knows that I accomodate her as much as I can, and on the rare instance I cannot or will not, she is able to accept it.

This is the same child who started fall-down-on-the-floor tantrums at 11 months. She is far from easy going.









I don't imagine she will get LESS reasonable as she gets older. In fact, she'll be able to understand more complicated logic and explanations.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*







gee, thanks ladies! That means a lot to me, I really value this board and am glad to make the occasional worthwhile contribution!

You gotta give yourself more credit! I always like your posts. Sleep deprivation must work well for you.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
ambdkf: I get what you're saying, and it does make sense. But, I have a dd who can't even find a common preference with herself! She's very...contrary. I don't like to call it that, but it suits the best. She's a delight - believe me that I'm not complaining at all. She's the miracle baby that I waited 10 years for, and she's wonderful to have in my life. She's just...contrary.

She generally won't accept my help, but doesn't want to do whatever it is by herself. If she says she wants help, she yells at me when I try to help and says "I'll do it myself". Round and round.

And, anything that involves dd going to bed is never going to be solved by a common preference. We want her to sleep when she's tired. She doesn't - ever. It's a problem every night and every nap. She's been fighting sleep since the day she was born. Actually - does anybody have any suggestions for that one?

Something we are discussing on another of my groups is "holding the space" for our children's conflicting desires. Not pushing or rushing one to make a choice. Allowing the space for decision making to occur while one weighs different but opposing priorities. For instance, letting her try to do it herself and just be present while she attempts it and just offering 'I am glad to help'.

I 'd consider her independent minded.









Pat


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moma justice*
i think it is so funny someone brought up the shirt in the laundry issue and child wanting toys issue (mom not getting them b/c of money and VALUES)

someone even brought up values when it comes to choosing breakfast food...

because i thought about that alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll last night.
what about our family's values?

nutrtion and food consumtion is almost my basis for spiritual practice.....(and my dh)

Have you seen the movie "About a Boy"? The part where he want to go to McDonald's?

ITA, btw, and I think it's hard to tell when you're going overboard, and when you seriously don't want to buy another plastic Shrek toothbrush because at some basic level, you feel it is wrong!

(Yes, I'm still beating the toothbrush horse!)


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jenmk*
Pat:

I appreciate your perspective and experience on this. However, it sounds as if your DH and mine are very different. I guess it just hurts me when he acts this way because I HAVE TO spend time with his family and it's no picnic for me. I make the best of it, smile and make pleasant conversation, even when all I want to do is run to the car, lock the doors, and speed away. But I do it because they are important to him, and I love him. And, frankly, it's the right thing to do--be nice to my in-laws, make it a pleasant visit when we're there. I expect the same of him. Of course we do have very different families, and I do understand that it's not easy for him either. But you just don't be unneccessarily rude to people who are important in you or your partner's lives.

And in the example I gave about my parents . . . they were staying the night with us because they lived to far away to come help and go home the same day. Can't really hand them a thank you card and send them for a free dinner without us in that situation.

Thanks for your input, though. Gives me some things to ponder.









My husband's family puts me over the edge to irrational.







When our son was 14 weeks old I was told that he was crying to manipulate me to keep me from going to the bathroom.





















Please!! I am physically only able to endure 24 hours under the same roof with most of them. And that is with outings to the wine store







and to the park. Finally, we figured out we would stay at a hotel. Much easier and more pleasant. We come and go; and it shortens the visit. Ds and I leave to go take a nap and dh can visit to his heart's content. Dh has gone for several visits without us; and there are ways to make your part of the visit tolerable. Really, you do not "HAVE TO" visit them, or be endlessly polite. There is a limit of how much negative energy or close proximity with disagreeable people one can bear. Family is not compulsory. They are a voluntary association. We can choose not to spend tons of unhappy time with them. That is a choice. And dh's choice is independent of mine. Just as ds's is. Neither does our son "have to" visit family. It is optional.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
This is interesting to me, because we're soooo close to this. We basically never force an issue, especially off of the list that you posted earlier. In fact, my dh has tried two things, dressing my dd and putting her in her carseat, w/o her consent, and it was impossible for him, she'd just squirm away.

I think where the difference is that I'm willing to tell her no. But I must respond to your other post...

Ummm...."No" doesn't quite register at 'talking at' even, imo. No discussion? No alternatives? No choice about things with one's own body?

Pat


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Ummm...."No" doesn't quite register at 'talking at' even, imo. No discussion? No alternatives? No choice about things with one's own body?

As pp put it, I'm not unwilling to make a unilateral decision. Not first, not just to make a point, not to teach a lesson, not without consideration of options and alternatives. But yes. I will say no.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
What if, instead, it teaches your child that it should be unacceptable to ever feel slightly uncomfortable, irritated, or dissatisfied? That a small amount of personal discomfort should be avoided at all costs? That if we don't particularly relish part of our lives and daily tasks, no matter how small or insignificant, we should immediately search for a solution, or a product, that can remediate that discomfort? That we are INCAPABLE of enduring the daily grind?

Now I know this can be construed as "I'm teaching my kid a lesson here, and that lesson is XYZ," but I honestly think there's a lot of value in allowing your child to experience something slightly negative. They'll learn that they don't fall apart, that they're tough, that it's not that bad. And then, when there's something they want to do that requires these skills, they'll have practice.

How could we prevent our children from experiencing negative things in their lives? There are many, many things outside of anyone's control. The sun goes down and it is dark, places close, people can not come to play, they do not have chocolate ice cream here, at the store, or at grandmas, it rains on our parade, etc.

The difference is imposing negative events in order to allow a lesson seems unnecessarily harsh, imo.

I understand your concern for potentially creating a need for escapism from life's certain sufferings (or an inability to cope with negative outcomes); but I believe that having someone to support you through the hardhships diminishes the need to escape life's hardships (and their pereceived effect). When the connectivity of solving problems together is nurtured the suffering becomes shared too. I believe people use escapism in order to escape loneliness, more than escaping the pain of actual events. When life's obstacles are routinely overcome through creative effort, I believe there is more of a sense of industry. And obstacles are not perceived as inescapable or insurmountable.

And I believe the effort of finding a satisfactory solution is its own reward because this shared effort nurtures connectivity.

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I'm all happy that a thread I started has gotten over 200 replies...
















Happy that the topic has opened a lot of discussion!


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut*
So I'm really working to find a balance between not lording over him and having limits. But I do feel like a lot of times, there's just no way around some nonthreatening "coercion" if it can even be called that. I'm still avoiding battles, I'm still giving him choices, I'm still employing playful parenting. But as we know there are so many little situations that get hairy. And then sometimes I just feel like "No" should kind of mean No, without distraction. Like when safety is an issue. Like when he's hurting people. I know this very generalized post is a bit out of place when you are all getting into your parenting theories in great detail. I'm sort of thinking out loud.

I believe a lot depends on age. Distraction isn't the same as redirection with information. After about age one, redirection with information is all that we have done and we haven't had safety issues. But, we didn't say "no" either. We intentionally provided practical and portable information that was relevant to the situation in a calm manner without scolding when the item was repeatedly explored. Sometimes we removed the item or replaced it with an old remote controller or old cell phone instead. Is there a specific safety issue that is troublesome for you all?

Hurting people occurs when a child hurts inside himself, imo. Finding the underlying need for space, attention, comfort, engagement, decreased sharing frustrations, food, rest etc. helps to decrease striking out from my experience. There are many recent threads about children striking out in anger. Identifying a pattern to the envvironment in which the behavior occurs has been the most useful way of helping our son to decrease the frustration overload. Helping to give words to his feelings 'I need space, I don't want company anymore, I need food, I need a cuddle', etc. is more useful to him than "no, don't hurt other people". He already *knows* that; but is unable to act on that knowledge at the moment. I work to facilitate him so that he can find more self-control. I know my ability to have patience is directly impacted by the number of competing demands, my degree of sleep deprivation and my hunger, too.

Quote:

Anyway, why I wanted to post before finishing this all- I was reading Jen's post, and it reminded me a lot of my experience with my dh. Yes, it's just anecdotal, but it's hard to ignore. Things were way laid back in his house, no bed time, nothing done by the clock, and so on. And what do you know, his family is late for everything to the point of sometimes just being disrespectful, and he's so laid back he has had trouble in his workplace. It's like he never learned that sometimes he has to do things on someone else's time frame. Now I don't want to drill this into a TWO year-old, but I do feel that his upbringing did him a disservice, on some levels. And yet, he aims to be way more controlling than I ever have. I don't know, I'm just thinking this out. Not a lot of time for the net right now, but I like this thread.
Perhaps, your husband's job isn't a good fit for him. My husband is an incredible manager and negotiator. But he can not make decisions in the heat of the moment. He needs time to ..T....H...I...N.....K.....A...B...O....U...T....I ...T! Some jobs are laid back some people aren't. Similarly, some people live in a high pressured time sensitive world. Some don't. I have been in both; and I very much prefer going with the flow, not the clock. (I am often late.







But I am consistent. And I recognize that I need to leave more time for my flow). Perhaps, dh just needs more time management skills. These can be learned when he is motivated to do so, irrelevant of his childhood. I worked as an ICU nurse where every second mattered. But, now I don't even wear a watch. Ever.

Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
How could we prevent our children from experiencing negative things in their lives? There are many, many things outside of anyone's control. The sun goes down and it is dark, places close, people can not come to play, they do not have chocolate ice cream here, at the store, or at grandmas, it rains on our parade, etc.

The difference is imposing negative events in order to allow a lesson seems unnecessarily harsh, imo.

Pat

But *nobody* is saying they would impose negative events in order to allow a lesson. But simply that they would not take extraordinary measures to prevent every last negative thing that is possible to prevent.
I would not force my child in his carseat because he needs the experience of being forced. But because we have to be at point b in 20 minutes or whatever. I could spend the next 30 minutes working out a mutually agreeable solution and miss the appointment. Or I can expect that my child is not learning a negative lesson by sometimes not getting what he wants and doing the expedient thing.

Joline


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
For instance, letting her try to do it herself and just be present while she attempts it and just offering 'I am glad to help'.

I 'd consider her independent minded.









Pat

That's generally what I try to do.
I'm not a non-coercive parent, but I'm not high-coercion, either. This has definitely given me some points to think about with dd. Mind you, we're mostly doing okay these days. It does get difficult to balance her needs with those of ds1 (12-year-old...lots of school requirements and we're trying to maintain a close family connection...game nights and such) and ds2 (nursing infant...lots of holding and nursing).


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moma justice*
i think it is so funny someone brought up the shirt in the laundry issue and child wanting toys issue (mom not getting them b/c of money and VALUES)

someone even brought up values when it comes to choosing breakfast food...

because i thought about that alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll last night.
what about our family's values?

nutrtion and food consumtion is almost my basis for spiritual practice.....(and my dh)

so are other ways of showing respect to our planet (one reason why we don't own tons of plastic toys)

so what if our child wants something that falls outside of my family's values of right and wrong or healthy and unhealthy?

my mom used to say , "my first job is to keep you alive, and i wouldn't be a good mother if i didn't."

but soemtimes she would also not allow me to do things that did not match up with our family values....to this day, i can understand her perspective but with most of hte value stuff, i can still see that i would hav ebeen ok and mroe able to figure aout ME and be a better more clear me, if i would have been allowed to try those things....
but they were not real physical safety things...
my mom felt like me doing X would endanger my spiritual safety.
the example i am thinking of most is i wanted to be a cheerleader and my parents were hippies and that type girl did not fall into my parents; spiritual idea of who their daughter could be.

and what about boarderline safety issues????????? (scuba moma and cc)

like you feel like it is not really safe or healthy, but they won't drop dead right away and they are hell bent to do it????

yesterday, my real life laundry example came to pass:
my dd had some new clothes that i was taking off the tags and putting in the laundry...she wanted to wear them (now unless my dd wants to wear something that is just gross dirty, i let her wear dirty clothes)
but new clothes are covered in all kinds of chemicals (like murcery based anti wrinkle stuff etc)
and i told her they were not safe to wear, i had to wash them first....(i even explained yucky stuff that could hurt your brain while it is growing)
and she screamed and cried for 20 minutes...
then she was fine...i tried to comfort her
i thought about this thread and wondered....will she die from wearing that shirt, no/

but my values of health and safety are there to keep her healthy and safe.

and just like eating foods that are viod of nutrtion and dyed bright blue, will not kill her there on the spot.....but they are bad for you. not just opinionthere, they ARE bad for every human to consume...

and it is hard to parent today b/c we are SURROUNDED by things (like bright blue candies etc) that are marketed to children and yet are quite harmful to children....

do you see what i am saying????

SO wise mommas, where do you draw the line?

I draw my line at interjecting in our son's actions with persuasion and convincing "If it will *probably* send him to the Emergency Room". With most things, I just give calm information 'The stove is hot. The stove is on. Don't get too close to it.' In the same tone as 'here is your bagel'. When he became more interested in the stove, I offered "Let me show you where it is hot" and I held him up so he could see and pointed at the burner and explained 'That is the burner, it gets hot. I hold this handle because the pan gets hot when I am cooking'. By being a faciliator not an obstacle to exploring for information, we just haven't had any safety concerns. (knockonwood, knock, knock)

Our son has many food intolerances and has since 8 weeks old. He is 4.5 y/o. We have just always discussed food ingredients. He knows that we avoid dairy, soy, wheat, corn syrup (not sugar), artificial colors and artificial flavors and artificial preservatives. He understands that food has carbohydrates, proteins and fats in it. He tells dh, 'dada, that has artificial colors in it' when dh is eating salad dressing with it in it.







[The bigger question is how do I get dh not to eat that stuff???] And our son knows which foods are higher in protein and help him to feel better, by his own self-awareness. He likes chocolate too. As do I.









Ok, I didn't know about the mercury based anti-wrinkle stuff and ds has worn a few new shirts. Humph. I don't know if it is worth 20 minutes of distress which causes increased cortisol levels in the blood and brain and impacts the immune system either.







I guess you just have to pick your battles. Personally, I would let him wear the shirt. But I believe he would listen and understand the issue and perhaps not choose to wear it. Dh and I drink wine. Maybe 1 glass an evening. It kills brain cells, is hard on the liver, especially when I have a cold. But it is still my choice. Getting in the car is probably much more dangerous than the shirt.

Maybe, having some 'bottom line' would help. The book "Living Joyfully with Children" helped me to parent with principles instead of rules. That helps to avoid the "have to follow the rule" model of decision making. The decision making process is more transparent and observable (ie. modelled) by discussing how our own actions relate to our own principles and how it affects others, imo. So, verbalizing principles might help you to determine your action point.

As far as values are concerned, this is a challenging area. One where I bristle due to the hypocrisy of my childhood experiences of 'do as I say, not as I do'. Personally, we don't teach values. We live and model them. We discuss our own value system as it comes up. But I don't push, suggest, expect or enforce my values on our son, or others to the best of my ability. I am authentic in my responses to things that disturb me and I provide information as objectively as possible.

Currently, we have a potential issue regarding eating meat. The long and short of it is that I do not eat mammals but our son does. And Dh does. But, I really don't feel able to sway him either way.

Not so wise but passionate. Hope that helps.

Pat


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
But *nobody* is saying they would impose negative events in order to allow a lesson. But simply that they would not take extraordinary measures to prevent every last negative thing that is possible to prevent.
I would not force my child in his carseat because he needs the experience of being forced. But because we have to be at point b in 20 minutes or whatever. I could spend the next 30 minutes working out a mutually agreeable solution and miss the appointment. Or I can expect that my child is not learning a negative lesson by sometimes not getting what he wants and doing the expedient thing.

I'm not sure anyone is saying they would take extraordinary measures to prevent every last negative thing that it's possible to prevent, either. Maybe we need a better definition of "mutually agreeable solution"? I've, until recently, ever considered myself someone who believes in finding mutually agreeable solutions for most situations. But that was when I understood "mutually agreeable" to mean "what the child wants at the expense of what the child or other person needs." Now I understand "mutually agreeable" to mean "a solution that meets both our needs, but might not be exactly what one or both of us originally wanted." It could be that I'm continuing to misunderstand "mutually agreeable."

So if my toddler doesn't like her carseat, I plan to leave early in case she has trouble gettting buckled in. If she refuses to go in, we find a way to make being in the seat more pleasant-maybe she chooses a book, or takes a drink of water, or we put in her favorite music, or I tell her where we're going if it's fun so she'll look forward to it. She still gets in the seat, but it's not exactly forced even though it's not negotiable either. She finds it acceptable to be in the seat if she has a book. I'm still getting to where I need to go. In my experience it's simply a matter of planning and creativity and communication.

Thoughts? Am I misunderstanding mutually agreeable?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moma justice*
ooohhh ooooh
i have anotherone.....
the other day we were out waling in this tiny "forest" in our city (we live in one of the largest US cities)
and there was this little stream/swampy area...
well my dd wanted to splash in it...
now i grew up in the country and i am all about kids in the mud.

but this was gross i could see the oil and other yucky sludge

but i explained distracted and tried and i still had to pick up and carry away to another part of the forest my dd (i have said before that she is the most spirited and determined child ever)

so yes the sludge would not have killedher on the spot, but what kind of mother would i be if i did not protect her??????
how could i live with myself if i let her eat crap food and play in sludge and she eveloped cancer or illness????

ITA that children are divine and wise and should be respected.... but we live in a toxic world that does not lend to protecting our children...

nak.....but any thoughts????????????????

I'd have probably swooped her up and delighted her away with a game of cuddles and chase to distract her from the sludge situation. Or washed her hands immediately if she toddled into it inadvertantly. But, I'd just give information if the desire remained and we'd distract until we found a mutually agreeable solution. Perhaps coming back another time with boots to stomp in the "water".

Pat


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

>>>Thoughts? Am I misunderstanding mutually agreeable?[/QUOTE]

It sounds like you and I, at least, are looking at it the same. For us it is about ALL people involved having a solution that works. That often looks very different from the positions we start out in but we really are all totally fine with new solution. Here's an example from recently:

Me: I need to go the grocery store now.

DC: We don't want to go.

Hmm, impasse so we go to the needs.

Me: I really need to go before dinner, 3 hours from now.

DC: We need to work more on this play we are writing, we will forget it if we leave now.

Solution - they worked to a natural stopping place and we went to the store about 45 minutes after I mentioned it. It wasn't my original plan but it still met my need to have food before dinner and their need to finish their thoughts. While it might look like "just" playing around to some, it is really important work and deserves equal footing with my 'work' which at the moment was getting ready for dinner. If we hadn't had that much time then we could have found another way for them to meet their need, like recording their thoughts on the way to the store, or me helping them get it down faster. They weren't trying to stop me from going to the store they were just doing something that was important to them. Turned out to be a really entertaining play that dh and I enjoyed after a yummy dinner









Simple example and not sure that makes it any clearer but it happened recently so came to mind









Anna


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
I'm not sure anyone is saying they would take extraordinary measures to prevent every last negative thing that it's possible to prevent, either. Maybe we need a better definition of "mutually agreeable solution"? I've, until recently, ever considered myself someone who believes in finding mutually agreeable solutions for most situations. But that was when I understood "mutually agreeable" to mean "what the child wants at the expense of what the child or other person needs." Now I understand *"mutually agreeable" to mean "a solution that meets both our needs, but might not be exactly what one or both of us originally wanted*."

*Exactly!*

Quote:

So if my toddler doesn't like her carseat, I plan to leave early in case she has trouble gettting buckled in. If she refuses to go in, we find a way to make being in the seat more pleasant-maybe she chooses a book, or takes a drink of water, or we put in her favorite music, or I tell her where we're going if it's fun so she'll look forward to it. She still gets in the seat, but it's not exactly forced even though it's not negotiable either. She finds it acceptable to be in the seat if she has a book. I'm still getting to where I need to go. In my experience it's simply a matter of planning and creativity and communication.

Thoughts? Am I misunderstanding mutually agreeable?
Well, getting in the car seat is not non-negotiable in our house. Finding a solution that meets my need may not include our son coming along. Finding a solution that meets our son's need may not include me staying home either. Our son staying home alone is not mutually agreeable. Our son getting in the car seat may not be able to be made mutually agreeable either.

The car seat is just the method of transport. If ds *doesn't want to go*, I'd do as you expressed, find a way to make it agreeable. *OR* find a way he doesn't "have to" go. This isn't a problem when 'getting in the carseat' isn't a "have to" to do. The car seat isn't the issue in my mind. The act of 'leaving a fun place against one's will' and 'going to an unknown and maybe not fun place' is what is being objected to more likely. The carseat ride itself can probably be made to be fun, comfortable and attractive when going somewhere the child desires to go. But it is pretty hard to convince someone on a regular basis that they want to go somewhere that they do not want to go. Discovering what would make _the destination_, not only the ride, more attractive is important, imo.

I wouldn't want to get on an airplane to who knows where and be expected to sit around touching nothing, doing nothing and saying nothing either. But sometimes this is about the case for places children are just expected to "have to" go (in the car seat).

What I have found is that since ds doesn't like to go too many errands with me, I do those when dh is available for childcare. Dh does some of the errands alone too. And ds likes to come along on some outings doing errands. For those places that I *need* to go, my quota of 'come do something not fun' car seat outings isn't used up. And ds comes along to do something not fun and we find a way to make it fun. This is all mutually agreeable but the car seat RIDE is negotiable each time. (Of course, I don't drive until he is safely in the car seat though.)

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I am glad you brought up the meat issue Pat. This is a big one with us, as my husband and I are strict vegetarians, about 90% vegan in our every day life. The reason for this is almost entirely moral and ethical, though the health concerns are there too.

That is one thing I draw the line on. It is probably coercive, or whatever, but to us it is a moral and ethical belief system, -- and with me being a staunch animal rights activist, it wouldn't be agreeable for me AT ALL to serve meat in my home.

It would be the same reaction I would have if my daughter was learning about head hunting tribes of New Guinea and decided she wanted to try a person for dinner. It is simply not acceptable for me. I don't want to debate with anyone that people are different and more important than animals, so it is okay to eat animals etc... That is not the issue I am really talking about. In our home, there is not much distinction.

Anyway, my point is, being non-coercive (to me) doesn't mean you have to abandon your deeply head spiritual, moral, or ethical beliefs. My daughter will be free to eat meat if she chooses, when she is old enough to make an educated decision regarding it. In other words, pointing to someone's plate when she's 2 and saying "I wan 'dat" is not acceptable to us. When she is old enough to know exactly what meat is, how it gets to her plate, what things are sometimes put in it (hormones, anti-biotics, etc)...and can say, "I completely understand, but if grandmom is making a meatloaf, I want to try it.".. I will have nothing more to say on the matter. She will then free to eat meat when she is not in our home if she chooses.

Again, I don't want to start a debate on whether eating meat is right or wrong or how people feel about vegetarianism or hunting or whatever. My point was responding to the poster who was asking what is done when something goes against your moral and ethical beliefs.

There are only literally a handful of things we feel this way about. You can't make everything a moral or ethical dilemma to make yourself feel better for denying a child something or coercing them into something. For instance, I would never say that I feel so strongly about my daughter having to brush her teeth that I am willing to force her. I don't want her to have rotten teeth, it is important to me that she develops good dental hygiene and all, but I would in no way say it is an ethical dilemma.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I find that children are often unpredictable. And it is practically Newtons law that a child who has never had problems with his carseat (or being carried, or riding in the stroller, whatever) will suddenly have a problem with it at the one time when mom is in a hurry or is late or what have you.
I mean, you arent going to give yourself an extra 20 minutes everywhere you go just in case your child develops an unexpected preference contrary to your plans.

joline


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I find that children are often unpredictable. And it is practically Newtons law that a child who has never had problems with his carseat (or being carried, or riding in the stroller, whatever) will suddenly have a problem with it at the one time when mom is in a hurry or is late or what have you.
I mean, you arent going to give yourself an extra 20 minutes everywhere you go just in case your child develops an unexpected preference contrary to your plans.

joline

I believe you can deal with it just like if you were caught in a huge traffic hold up which prevented you from arriving at the appointed time. You make your apologies and deal with the issue at hand as calmly as possible.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I am glad you brought up the meat issue Pat. This is a big one with us, as my husband and I are strict vegetarians, about 90% vegan in our every day life. The reason for this is almost entirely moral and ethical, though the health concerns are there too.

I believe this is a slippery slope. One which any one of us could name our own handful or dozen 'issues I will coerce and there is no way I am going to discuss it'. Not introducing and refusing are very different tactics to addressing ethical, moral, or health and safety issues. Once one "is ok" with coercion, the slippery slope becomes pretty slippery......

The standard of "fully educated about all aspects, iterations and potential consequences and of a fully informed choice" is the same standard upon which children are coerced to 'eat their vegetables, not allowed candy, forced to brush their teeth, forced to stay in a bed and get sleep, not allowed to watch "too much" tv, must wear a coat, "have to" learn to sleep by themselves, "have to" clean up their room, "have to" obey their parents, etc. Many parents consider these ethical, and moral development issues equally important to the murder and destruction of animals. I am not judging one or the other. The standard of not coercing another assumes the autonomy of an individual to make their own moral and ethical choices, imo. Health and safety, in my opinion are on an equal par of non-coercion in that one could presume a lot of leverage "for their own good".

I sincerely believe that modelling one's moral, ethical, health and safety values does not preclude Trusting a child to make their own best choice based upon their own priorities for themselves. And my ethical value of non-coercion is greater than imposing my own 'handful of values' on any other human being. For what if another person's moral and ethical values preclude your right to the autonomy of moral and ethical values for yourself? That is what causes religious wars. When one believes that their own values are important enough to impose on another against their will, we are doomed to repeat history if we do not learn from it.

Yes, I agree this is an ethical and moral dilemma.

Pat


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I have trouble with the meat thing too. We are vegans and I do not know how to handle it non-coersively. It has not come up yet but is sure to very soon. I know that one day dd will try meat and maybe decide to eat it. I will have to bite my tongue. But until I feel she is old enough to understand that hamburger=cow, I worry that she might be really upset that I allowed her to eat it once she figures out what it really is. The fact is, this is a "HAVE to" in my mind. I cannot watch my 2 yo eat meat. I just cannot. And I realize this is MY problem and not hers. But it is still a problem. Does anyone practice non-coercive parenting with food issues like this?


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

You posted when I did









Dd already knows eating cows is "silly". This was not coached, we really have not discussed it yet. She is in this phase where she picks things up and asks "I eat that?" She picks up her stuffed animals and asks too. She usually answers her own questions. If it is play food she pretends to eat it. If it is something not food, she says it is silly. She declared just today that eating a cow (at least a stuffed one) would be silly. So pointing out that a hamburger is a cow would probably be useful info to her and I am guessing she probably would not eat it. I guess I answered my own question.....


----------



## Kindermama (Nov 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan*
I am sorry that you had a childhood in which you felt that your body, mind, heart, and spirit were not your own. No boundaries can be as harmful to a child as too many boundaries. I hope that your daughter will help you come to a happy medium of protection and freedom.

















:

I had no boundaries growing up. I was always envious that my friends' parents told them "no, you can't do this or that" ......I wished my parents cared enough to protect instead of giving me the freedom to do as I please.
I can't stress enough what is said above....no boundaries can be as harmful as too many boundaries.


----------



## moma justice (Aug 16, 2003)

thanks sarah,
and i would really like input from subamoma and pat and captin crunchy,,,,on how my examples fit into this goal of letting them be them unpressured...

i have to admit...i have been TRYING so much harder to be the rock and my child the ocean waters flowing all around me (seomtimes crashing over me....and wearing at me slowly overtime.....) but strong and steady and just THERE as she flows.

(that was in a prayer that a momma gave me at her blessing way)

chime in anyone.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
I have trouble with the meat thing too. We are vegans and I do not know how to handle it non-coersively. It has not come up yet but is sure to very soon. I know that one day dd will try meat and maybe decide to eat it. I will have to bite my tongue. But until I feel she is old enough to understand that hamburger=cow, I worry that she might be really upset that I allowed her to eat it once she figures out what it really is. The fact is, this is a "HAVE to" in my mind. I cannot watch my 2 yo eat meat. I just cannot. And I realize this is MY problem and not hers. But it is still a problem. Does anyone practice non-coercive parenting with food issues like this?

I did clarify to our son tonight that chicken is dead chicken. And hamburger is dead cows. Pork is dead pigs. And lamb is dead baby sheep. He has always been exposed to eating "meat" and was non-plussed. He is four and a half. I have been through phases of being able to ignore these facts; and times when I am unable to do so. So, I expect he might have several reactions about the reality of eating dead animals over the years. We did not discuss *killing* animals which is mentally and morally an issue for me. But I do eat chicken and fish. I have several vegetarian friends whose children have the choice to eat animals and don't. A couple of the children do. I know no vegan friends who are non coercive about this issue, to my awareness. Except children who sneak meat when away from home. There may be some on-line that I don't know are vegan but are non-coercive. I can check around. Basically, it is a conundrum.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kindermama*







:

I had no boundaries growing up. I was always envious that my friends' parents told them "no, you can't do this or that" ......I wished my parents cared enough to protect instead of giving me the freedom to do as I please.
I can't stress enough what is said above....no boundaries can be as harmful as too many boundaries.

I wonder if non-engagement by your parents and not being a resource to you were as much the issue as lack of boundaries? I obviously don't know your situation; but a friend whose mother was/is an alcoholic was unavailable and uninvolved in her life and feels she was "neglected". But it is less an issue of lack of boundaries to her.

There is a huge difference between not being engaged and available than having no imposed non-negotiable boundaries. I am not sure how "no boundaries" would appear. As I am certainly opinionated, I don't know how I would have no personal boundaries or that those wouldn't be expressed. I do and they are.

Pat


----------



## moma justice (Aug 16, 2003)

ooops i did not realize since my last post that so many posts had passed!!!

and captin crunchy: that whole meat thing, THAT is exactly what i was talking about when i told you your dd is only 5 months old and you have NO IDEA the kind of things she will do and say and how they will make you feel...
(i was not being discouraging...and i understood your points about not being a defeatist and assuming "oooh i'll never be able to keep breastfeeding, cloth diapering etc ...it is just too hard")
but what i meant was we ALL have private issues that we hold very dear to our hearts and WE ALL have old baggage from our childhood and parents (some way more than others)
and there is something so heavy about motherhood, that your children are these amazing little teachers that are constantly holding a mirrer to your face and asking you to be REAL. and it can be at those times when YOUR buttons are being pushed most and your sacred values are being questioned......that you can feel very tested...

do you undestand?

anyway.

i just also want everyone to remember that some people's children, by there strong as iron natures, are VERY intense.

the example of my child wanting to wade in city sludge: i did pick her up and tickle her and sing apretty song and run into another part of the forest to collect acorns (one of her favorite activites)
but that did not stop her from SCREAMING LIKE A WOUNDED ANIMAL for about 5 minutes.

that is just my child...

she is a dramatic, deeply sensetive, expressive, not-going-to-take-no-for-an-answer, kinda of wild woman.
I LOVE THAT

but i guess i had this IDEA that GD and AP would give me this peaceful child who was not so apt to SCREAM.

when i started reading this post, i thought the OP (And some other mommas) meant that their children never lost it, never had fits, and never would b/c they did not make them do anything they did not want to do.
and that may be the case for some.
but when sledg said

QUOTE:
I'm not sure anyone is saying they would take extraordinary measures to prevent every last negative thing that it's possible to prevent, either. Maybe we need a better definition of "mutually agreeable solution"? I've, until recently, ever considered myself someone who believes in finding mutually agreeable solutions for most situations. But that was when I understood "mutually agreeable" to mean "what the child wants at the expense of what the child or other person needs." Now I understand "mutually agreeable" to mean "a solution that meets both our needs, but might not be exactly what one or both of us originally wanted."

i understood, that is what i do......almost 100% of the time.....

it is just that my spirited child is so high needs that this still produces some hysteria./

but wow, have i loved this thread....i have read every post too.

and i have to say, we are some VERY thoguthful mommas and our children are very lucky to have us.

and scubamoma, i really liked what you brought up about the slippery slope of forcing values and that is how religious wars start.
how very insightful.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Hmmm, well then I guess I will be somewhat "coercive" in my daughter not being exposed to meat in our home. It is such a deeply held belief system of mine and my husband's that I am not going to purposely introduce meat just in case she may someday express interest in it...then I will have a big old dead animal in the fridge waiting for her.

Yes, it will be her decision when she is old enough to understand what it is and how it got to her plate, but I will still not welcome it in my home.

I look at it the same way I would look at anything else that was so utterly cruel and distasteful to me down to my core. For instance, if my daughter became involved with a hate group that published an Aryan magazine for instance, I would NOT be cool with them having their Nazi meetings at my house. Coersion or not, ain't happening. Now on one level I can't control the path she chooses and though I would not be happy with it in the least, I am a firm believer of freedom of speech, even if it is hate, and if she weren't breaking the law, I suppose I would allow her to go over to their house to help on the magazine.

The same way I suppose I couldn't control whether my daughter shoplifts or not, but I knowingly wouldn't let her stash her stolen things in my closet.

Some may say the two aren't comparable, but to me they are. Being a staunch animal activist for the last 10 years, seeing the things I have seen, having been to the protests, having done research...to me, and my husband, it is that serious of an issue.

While I will attemt to maintain as neutral of an environment as possible regarding meat -- it is only inevitable that she will pick up on our values in that respect -- as we are still very active in several campaigns and such.

I think a big part of non -coercion is letting your children know that it is okay if they make a different choice than what you would want or choose, while not abandoning your own code of etchics in the process. Our daughter will definately know we will always love her, be here for her, listen to her, and all that comes with it whether she eats meat or not. That however, doesn't mean I have to abandon my ethics to cook it for her.

That is the difference I guess. I don't see the act of me NOT abandoning my own values as forcing them on my daughter.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

So I was up half the night worrying about the vegan thing.

I am really having a hard time with this and really do not know what to do. I can seriously let my dd do almost anything else and not get this upset. First off, I am NOT trying to start a vegan debate. These are just my feelings and I am trying to sort them out. To me, eating animals (and animal products) hurts or kills another being or beings in a way that I find to be highly inhumane and torturous. I know that non-coersive parenting is not a ticket to hurt others. Like if dd were hitting another child at the playground, that would be the time for me to step in and find a common preference for the behavior. While that is not always easy, at least the inpact on the other being is involved. Dd can see them, hear them, empathize (maybe), and at the very least see the resolution. And again if she were hitting our cat, I would have to help resolve the situation before the cat got hurt. Are these things not "values" or "moral issues"? I mean, some people think it is OK to hit cats or even other people. Most people here do not think so because our "moral ethic" tells us it is wrong. Where is the line? To me it is not a very big step between hitting a cat and allowing a cow to be tortured so we can drink milk. That is my (and dh's) moral ethic. I *think* even the most staunch supporter of non-coercive parenting would never think it is Ok to just share your ideas on why it is not OK to hit kids in the playground then go ahead and let dc decide on thier own if the decision was to keep hitting them, right?

Now I will not jump so far as to say toothbrushing is a moral ethic for anyone. That along with bedtimes, baths, and even eating habits can really be "undone" when a child changes their theory on the subject. But killing/hurting an animal (or person) is irreversible. There is no going back later and making it right if the theory changes. I CAN see the same sort of dilemma in things like buying slave made clothing (like when dc really wants the new Disney character shirt) so I do not think the issue is only a vegan thing. And maybe even resource wasting like continually using more non-renewable resouces than needed.

I am really struggling with this. I know in reality that dd will probably eat animal products in her life. In my mind, there is some arbitrary age when she can grasp the moral issues and decide. I do not think that age is now (2yo). In an ideal world this would not be an issue. Either we could have a farm and raise our own animals or we would have enough money (and access to) completely humanely treated organic animal products and then dd could choose freely. But those options are not available at this time. and in reality, it is likely that the issue would come up when this would not be an option anyway. Since we do not have animal products around the house, the first time she is probably going to want to eat them is somewhere else like a party or restaurant in which cruelty free products are definately not an option.

I do not want to impose my will on dd. I do not want her to be a vegan just because I am "making" her. I am really torn.

Any advice?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

The standard of "fully educated about all aspects, iterations and potential consequences and of a fully informed choice" is the same standard upon which children are coerced to *'eat their vegetables, not allowed candy, forced to brush their teeth, forced to stay in a bed and get sleep, not allowed to watch "too much" tv, must wear a coat, "have to" learn to sleep by themselves, "have to" clean up their room, "have to" obey their parents*, etc. Many parents consider these ethical, and moral development issues equally important to the murder and destruction of animals.
(I bolded)

Fortunately for my daughter, I don't believe any of the above examples are "ethical dilemmas".


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I do not want to impose my will on dd. I do not want her to be a vegan just because I am "making" her. I am really torn.

Any advice
My daughter isn't going to be a vegetarian because I "make her". She may grow up to be a meat eater, and will know that we will love her and accept her exactly the same.

To me, not introducing something that goes against everything you believe in is not the same as force. For instance, say you are a TV free family. You don't even own one. Are you going to purchase a 30 inch flat screen when your daughter is 3 because she may see TV somewhere and may want to watch it? I probably wouldn't, but then again, TV is not a huge issue to me, even though we are practically TV free.

I think to me, the greater coercion are not things that are introduced or not, or whatever. I think the worst type of coercion is the underlying messege that many parents give that if their children choose a different path, that the parents will accept them less or love them less. That is why I have 30 something friends that still won't come out to their parents, or friends whose parents really know nothing of their lives out of fear of rejection.

Our daughter will never have to "sneak" meat, and our love and acceptence will never, ever be contingent on whether she chooses to eat meat or not.

That having been said though, my husband and I will never be okay with abandoning our code of ethics to provide our daughter with a choice bred from cruelty, suffering, slavory, abuse, and something that destroys the environment more than any oil spill ever will.

...but if she wants meat at grandmom's, out at a party, or friend's house --- I can't and won't stop her, and she won't recieve sanctions from us about it.

...but I won't downplay, or ignore, or abandon what has turned into my life's work in order for her to have a purely virginal choice on the issue. We live together, she is bound to know how we feel, even if we never say a word to her about it. I am always organizing something or other around here related to animal rights


----------



## moma justice (Aug 16, 2003)

yeah
and MY dd just happens to have THIS spirit about her that makes her the kid who ADROES what you think is distasteful........

that was where i was coming from when i said "you never know...."

i feel about organic food and sweat shop clothes the way captin crunchy feels about dairy and meat.......

but i finaly let my dd and HER grandma go to the mall and shop and eat at the olive garden together....just last week
she came home with disney stuff (she does not even know mickey's name....we don't even own a tv)

we are pagan.....so for me, letting dd go do that sh*t was a very big act of letting go of my ideals for her.

she really wanted to go.
she had fun.
how do you explain sweat shop labor to 2 yr old any way?

besides, everyone is doing it...
(i was kidding)


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I personally see the meat/vegan issue as a non-issue. We eat meat, but I don't want my daughter eating candy all the time so I don't buy candy. I think this is the difference between me and TCS. I have no problem not having something available I think isn't good, but if it is available in the house then I don't feel right not letting dd have it.

Though if we go out and there's candy, I let dd have some. And on Halloween we didn't restrict how much candy she could have at a time, though she didn't eat three quarters of the candy at all. She really doesn't have much of a sweet tooth so that makes it easier.

Chances are, if you are vegan, your children will pick up on that until they're old enough to think it through and come to a different conclusion - but it seems like that would be around 12 or so, not 2. And even then, you could continue to have vegan food available at home and just not keep your children from buying meat and dairy if you go out to eat. It would not be mutually agreeable for a vegan to buy meat so I can't imagine that being a reasonable solution.

As far as the TV goes, if someone didn't have a TV but the kids wanted to watch it on occassion, the parents have options other than a 30-inch plasma tv. LOL. They could buy an inexpensive used small tv (or even ask for an old TV on Freecycle) and put it in a seldom-used room so the kids could watch a little TV when they felt like it but have it be somewhere where it's unlikely to take over the house.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

It would not be mutually agreeable for a vegan to buy meat
I could have cut out a lot of typing if I just wrote that...









Thanks!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
(I bolded)

Fortunately for my daughter, I don't believe any of the above examples are "ethical dilemmas".


Oh so children are fully rational and capable of making all of their own decisions practically from birth, and a parents job is to provide information enough for the child to be able to make that decision.
So much so that a 2 year olds decision to have a banana split for breakfast or to steadfastly refuse to agree to toothbrushing is to be respected because their own minds and persons are to be respected fully.
And yet they are not rational enough to make decisions that their parents deem to be ethical.
???
One pp suggested that even if their 2 year old saught to eat meat off a family members plate (meaning mom didnt have to purchase,or prepare meat) then she would not be allowed.
Now we do have to stand by our moral values for ourselves. And no mom should feel compelled to purchase or prepare meat if it is against her values. I do not think that is coercive. as the child should not have the power to coerce the mother into doing something she thinks is morally abhorrent.
But if the child wanted to try meat off of uncle Joes plate at a family wedding, and they have received all of the necessary information and they still choose to try it. Then coersion is ok.
Not when the child's health is at risk (forcing taking of medicine, or not allowng unhealthy foods for meals). But when mom's ethics are challenged?

Joline

ETA. Oh I see in a further post the mom states that if the child chose to eat meat at a party or whatever she would not prevent them.
In that case, feel free to ignore the above post in response to an earlier post LOL


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Moma Justice,
Just an OT question.
What does being pagan have to do with being opposed to Olive Garden and the mall?
I mean, I can see why some would be opposed to those things but I dont understand how it relates to paganism?
I also consider myself pagan and happen to be very fond of the Olive Garden and the Disney store.
Joline


----------



## jenmk (Apr 28, 2005)

Just thought I'd chime in some info for the vegetarians and vegans:

My best friend has never eaten meat. She grew up in a vegetarian household, and it was not until she and her siblings were old enough to make a conscious decision to eat meat that they had the opportunity to do so. I don't think it was forbidden, it just wasn't ever offered or made an option. She (who is 32) has never eaten meat. Her sister and brother both tried it, ate it for a while, but are now vegetarians again.

Your children are very likely to emulate your food choices and style of eating because that's what will be normal for them, what they will like and be used to. And they are sure to pick up on your love of animals and distaste for consuming any living creature.

Obviously not a guarantee, but more likely than not, IMO.

I'm vegetarian, DH is not. But I do not ever have meat in the house. DH is welcome to introduce meat to the kids (after the first 2 years) when we're someplace that meat is being served. If they like it, so what? I'm still not going to cook meat. Our diet is vegetarian. That's what they will get here. My kids have also never had candy (I have a 3yo and 17 mo). I know they will eat candy eventually, but why rush it? Why introduce it early? I just don't have it available to them. If someone offers some to them when we're out, I just say "no thanks, they've never had candy." My 3yo won't try anything new, so he's not even interested in trying candy at this point since he's never had it.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Thanks for editing your post joline....

With people who share our values regarding meat though, it is a HUGE jump from a vegan banana split to eating the flesh of something that died a cruel death after an even crueler life, not given the chace to make ANY decisions in that short, tortured life, even if the decision were as simple as being able to look up and see the sun.

I realize others don't share my view and that is okay. I am not trying to convert anyone to vegetarianism or veganism... but when comparing a vegan banana split or say, choosing one's own bedtime to a tiny child looking at a blob of something someone is eating, having no understanding of where it came from, what it is, or how it got there, that is not a decision I think a 2 year old could or should be made to make -- because educating a 2 year old on exaclty what was going on (not just, "that is a dead cow") would be pretty terrifying to them I would imagine...

My daughter would probably pick up cat poop off the ground and start eating it if I didn't redirect her to something else. She has no idea this young. Yeah, I am way into non-coercion and will try my damndest to practice it in nearly every situation, but cmon, limits people. Cat poop and dead flesh, my limits...because though other people don't agree and that's cool...to US, in our family, meat is as nasty as cat poop and certainly has a heck of a lot more ethical implications...

Like a pp said, if my daughter is to be upset with me in any way, or feel her choices were "violated" or whatever... I would much rather have her say to me "man, that sucked that you wouldn't cook me burgers when I was little...oh well, I eat them as much as I want at Grandmom's now" or whatever.... then say " Oh. My. God. Why the HELL were you okay with me eating that crap!!!" (if she does grow to share our beliefs)


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Another vegan here. I have no fully developed stance on mutual agreeability as a goal for 100% of situations. Obviously if Simon ends up with a knife in his hand, I need to get it out as soon as possible -- usually just saying "Oh! That's sharp!" and streching my hand out so that he gives it to me works just fine, but this hasn't been the case all of the time when he has gotten hold of something dangerous. Hopefully that doesn't make me sound irresponsible. In any event, forcing him to give it up if my other attempts don't work quickly enough may very well be coercive. I do accept non-coercion as ideal at least the vast majority of the time.

When it comes to veganism: he is being raised as a vegan. From my experience, the children I know who are raised as vegans (I don't know many of them, but the ones I do know, other than Simon who is almost 20 months, are between 4 and 8 or so years old). They are extremely proud of their veganism and choose it. I know of a man who was raised vegan and now, in his 20s, is still vegan. I was going to meet with him and his vegan mother, but it didn't work out (because Simon hated the carseat at that time). I can imagine kind ways of ensuring that one's child is vegan until one feels the child is ready to truly decide that will not be felt as coercive to the child. If it sometimes does feel coercive, well, it may sometimes feel coercive to not be allowed to bite mom, but biting mom is not an option.

I assume the best of my son. Were he to know the deplorable conditions and deaths that animals endure to become food and clothes and glue, he would not want this for himself. Who would? Is it not the case that people who consume these "products" do so because they either turn the other way and compartmentalize what they are contributing to, they are truly ignorant of the conditions (which in most cases, is not a valid excuse), or they have deeply engrained habits and wish they could break them, but are unable or unwilling to do so. Perhaps they find it too stressful to go against the grain in such a major way? In many circumstances, being vegan is so much more opposed to the grain than is gd.

I can't for the life of me understand why any compassionate person could understand what cows endure so that we can have the milk that was meant for their calves, and what these calves endure... or what chickens endure so that we can eat their eggs and their flesh and sell their wings for a quarter each... if people knew this and went along with it anyway... without any moral pause... without feeling badly about it... that is truly messed up. No. To eat animal flesh and cow's milk that come from the likes of "factory farms" (which is where the VAST majority of that which is available comes from), people must run from the facts of how that "food" came to be. They must ignore the truth of the situation. They must shut down that empathetic part of their being that says that this is SO SAD, SO WRONG, SO INHUMANE, SO NOT WORTH IT.

I'm not about to teach Simon that it's o.k. to shut down this best part of himself. No way no how. A parenting ideal that does not allow for this is, to that degree, bunk. There are objective morals. They don't need to be founded on a god or a goddess, but if that works for you, by all means add it. Objective morals can be founded on the type of beings that we are. They can be extended to protect nonhuman animals from such atrocities because of the kind of beings that they are. It's really quite simple, at least in the outrageous cases we are discussing. Who could say that it is not morally wrong to inflict a life of torture and deprivation on a feeling being who has interests and a will to be free?

I plan to teach Simon by modelling what it means to be an ethically minded, socially responsible, considerate person. This extends beyond my treatment of him. He's not going to watch me shut out the horrors of the world because I'm falliable and may be wrong that it's wrong to be cruel to innocent animals. Right. I KNOW that I am not wrong about this just as I KNOW that it is not A-o.k. for him to go around biting other children. Why would I not protect him from unknowingly condoning such atrocities?

It's not a well-taken example, but how would the children in WWII Germany feel about the non-resistance of their parents to that regime (which I do NOT take to be on a par, but which I DO take to have a great many parallels. While I DO NOT think that the lives of nonhuman animals are worth as much as human lives, it remains the case they they are being horribly abused and that BILLIONS of them are being slaughtered every year in the U.S. alone.) Would they feel thankful that they were not coerced to save the proverbial Jew in the closet? Or, since we're talking of horrors at a distance, would they appreciate the opportunity to choose to play with the loot that was stolen from these people (let alone the more stomach-turning examples I could raise)? Would the children be glad that they, at 1 or 2 or 8 or 12 were given the opportunity to choose to take the family heirlooms or whatever of holocaust victims?

I'm not a spiritual person. To me, veganism is the closest that I get to spirituality. The dead flesh that sits in most North American freezers is the decomposing remains of a being who had the potential to lead a good life. Instead, that being experienced a life of pain and deprivation. For what? She might have gone insane from insane confinement and blind from living in filth. She might have been thrown into some unbreathable vehicle in which she was transported to her death whatever distance away without food or drink and in whatever weather that happened to be the case. Whatever the individual agonies this being in the freezer or in grandma's meatloaf endured, I can't fathom the merit of watching as Simon puts them into his mouth and literally becomes one with them. I can barely stomach the thought.

When he's older he'll most likely do what Gandhi did: he'll experiment. I'm hoping that he ends up doing what Gandhi did once again: moving from being vegan (vegetarian in Gandhi's case) because this is what was done in his home, to embracing it wholeheartedly as his own personal decision, and if I'm lucky, he'll go yet further as Gandhi did and uphold it more fervently than I do and carry the rationale behind it to other parts of his life that had hitherto been compartmentalized.

If raising Simon as a vegan is coercive, it is a justified form of coercion. If he ends up disagreeing in veganism when he has the information to make a truly informed choice, then so be it. I will not support or condone it, but I will of course continue to love him. If he accepts veganism as I hope he will do, what benefit will it have done to him to have let him -- while he is not yet a moral agent in the full sense of the term, i.e., he is not fully reponsible for his actions -- participate in this ugly, unethical aspect of our culture? Would he respect me for that?

I'll end here as I need to sleep!!!


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I find that children are often unpredictable. And it is practically Newtons law that a child who has never had problems with his carseat (or being carried, or riding in the stroller, whatever) will suddenly have a problem with it at the one time when mom is in a hurry or is late or what have you.
I mean, you arent going to give yourself an extra 20 minutes everywhere you go just in case your child develops an unexpected preference contrary to your plans.

I'm going to beat the carseat horse one more time. I actually do plan to leave a good 5-10 minutes earlier than I need to when I need to be somewhere at a specific time and the kids are going with me because they can't stay home for whatever reason (I do try not to take them to unnecessary places, and many things, like grocery shopping, have some flexibility with regard to time). I do this precisely because children, like all people, are unpredictable and I have three children to help get ready, out the door, and into carseats/boosterseats. I really do. Sometimes I leave even earlier. If all goes smoothly, then we have a little extra time when we get where we're going and that's usually a good thing. Once in awhile I don't plan well, or I foget to keep track of the time, and we don't leave extra early and might even be running late. Usually even then it's possible to resolve the situation without force or threats or being late. Did this just last week when my son needed to be picked up in 5 minutes and I hadn't left yet (it's about a 3 minute drive), and my 23 month old wouldn't sit in her seat-reminded her we were going to pick up her brother and get his backpack (which she loves to do. It took a minute to resolve, which seems like a long time when you're in a hurry, but we got there in time). And if I'm a little late, I'm late. That's what happens when I don't plan well, I lose track of time, or traffic is unexpectedly bad. It's not the end of the world. Crap happens.

As far as taking medicine goes (as Joline brought up as an example), my dd is taking medicine right now that she doesn't like. We've talked about how it will hopefully help her get better faster, and we've come up with ways to help her tolerate the taste of it (which is what she objects to). It took no force, just communication and patience on my part. I think this is how most things can be resolved with children, we adults just need the patience and willingness to do it. I'm not perfect at it by any means. I'm just learning, but I'm learning it's actually a pretty peaceful way to live and help my children learn to make decisions.

captain crunchy, I think preventing a child from eating cat poop falls under the category "protective use of force"







I also think parents need to see that their own needs are met along with their child's. I don't think not having meat in the house in the first place is coercive. I think you're standing by your values, making sure your needs are met. Your daughter is eating healthy food, her nutrition needs are being met. Your need to not cook meat because it's against your values is being met.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Another vegan here. I have no fully developed stance on mutual agreeability as a goal for 100% of situations. Obviously if Simon ends up with a knife in his hand, I need to get it out as soon as possible -- usually just saying "Oh! That's sharp!" and streching my hand out so that he gives it to me works just fine, but this hasn't been the case all of the time when he has gotten hold of something dangerous. Hopefully that doesn't make me sound irresponsible. In any event, forcing him to give it up if my other attempts don't work quickly enough may very well be coercive. I do accept non-coercion as ideal at least the vast majority of the time.

When it comes to veganism: he is being raised as a vegan. From my experience, the children I know who are raised as vegans (I don't know many of them, but the ones I do know, other than Simon who is almost 20 months, are between 4 and 8 or so years old). They are extremely proud of their veganism and choose it. I know of a man who was raised vegan and now, in his 20s, is still vegan. I was going to meet with him and his vegan mother, but it didn't work out (because Simon hated the carseat at that time). I can imagine kind ways of ensuring that one's child is vegan until one feels the child is ready to truly decide that will not be felt as coercive to the child. If it sometimes does feel coercive, well, it may sometimes feel coercive to not be allowed to bite mom, but biting mom is not an option.

I assume the best of my son. Were he to know the deplorable conditions and deaths that animals endure to become food and clothes and glue, he would not want this for himself. Who would? Is it not the case that people who consume these "products" do so because they either turn the other way and compartmentalize what they are contributing to, they are truly ignorant of the conditions (which in most cases, is not a valid excuse), or they have deeply engrained habits and wish they could break them, but are unable or unwilling to do so. Perhaps they find it too stressful to go against the grain in such a major way? In many circumstances, being vegan is so much more opposed to the grain than is gd.

I can't for the life of me understand why any compassionate person could understand what cows endure so that we can have the milk that was meant for their calves, and what these calves endure... or what chickens endure so that we can eat their eggs and their flesh and sell their wings for a quarter each... if people knew this and went along with it anyway... without any moral pause... without feeling badly about it... that is truly messed up. No. To eat animal flesh and cow's milk that come from the likes of "factory farms" (which is where the VAST majority of that which is available comes from), people must run from the facts of how that "food" came to be. They must ignore the truth of the situation. They must shut down that empathetic part of their being that says that this is SO SAD, SO WRONG, SO INHUMANE, SO NOT WORTH IT.

I'm not about to teach Simon that it's o.k. to shut down this best part of himself. No way no how. A parenting ideal that does not allow for this is, to that degree, bunk. There are objective morals. They don't need to be founded on a god or a goddess, but if that works for you, by all means add it. Objective morals can be founded on the type of beings that we are. They can be extended to protect nonhuman animals from such atrocities because of the kind of beings that they are. It's really quite simple, at least in the outrageous cases we are discussing. Who could say that it is not morally wrong to inflict a life of torture and deprivation on a feeling being who has interests and a will to be free?

I plan to teach Simon by modelling what it means to be an ethically minded, socially responsible, considerate person. This extends beyond my treatment of him. He's not going to watch me shut out the horrors of the world because I'm falliable and may be wrong that it's wrong to torture innocent animals. Right. I KNOW that I am not wrong about this just as I KNOW that it is not A-o.k. for him to go around biting other children. Why would I not protect him from unknowingly condoning such atrocities?

It's not a well-taken example, but how would the children of people in WWII Germany feel about the non-resistance of their parents to that regime (which I do NOT take to be on a par, but which I DO take to have a great many parallels. While I DO NOT think that the lives of nonhuman animals are worth as much as human lives, it remains the case they they are being horribly abused and that BILLIONS of them are being slaughtered every year in the U.S. alone.) Would they feel thankful that they were not coerced to save the proverbial Jew in the closet? Or, since we're talking of horrors at a distance, would they appreciate the opportunity to choose to play with the loot that was stolen from these people (let alone the more stomach-turning examples I could raise)? Would the children be glad that they, at 1 or 2 or 8 or 12 were given the opportunity to choose to take the family heirlooms or whatever of holocaust victims?

I'm not a spiritual person. To me, veganism is the closest that I get to spirituality. The dead flesh that sits in most North American freezers is the decomposing remains of a being who had the potential to lead a good life. Instead, that being experienced a life of pain and deprivation. For what? She might have gone insane from insane confinement and blind from living in filth. She might have been thrown into some unbreathable vehicle in which she was transported to her death whatever distance away without food or drink and in whatever weather that happened to be the case. Whatever the individual agonies this being in the freezer or in grandma's meatloaf endured, I can't fathom the merit of watching as Simon puts them into his mouth and literally becomes one with them. I can barely stomach the thought.

When he's older he'll most likely do what Gandhi did: he'll experiment. I'm hoping that he ends up doing what Gandhi did once again: moving from being vegan (vegetarian in Gandhi's case) because this is what was done in his home, to embracing it wholeheartedly as his own personal decision, and if I'm lucky, he'll go yet further as Gandhi did and uphold it more fervently than I do and carry the rationale behind it to other parts of his life that had hitherto been compartmentalized.

If raising Simon as a vegan is coercive, it is a justified form of coercion. If he ends up disagreeing in veganism when he has the information to make a truly informed choice, then so be it. I will not support or condone it, but I will of course continue to love him. If he accepts veganism as I hope he will do, what benefit will it have done to him to have let him -- while he is not yet a moral agent in the full sense of the term, i.e., he is not fully reponsible for his actions -- participate in this ugly, unethical aspect of our culture? Would he respect me for that?

I'll end here as I need to sleep!!!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

But so many of hold values just as strongly. And consider them to be just as objective as you may consider yours.
Who is to say that it is NOT a valid ethical system to be passionately concerned about what food goes inside your or your child's body. Who is to say that treating your body like a temple and not allowing any trans fat or artifical colors for instance is any less valid as not eating meat products. It may seem less valid to you because it is not your cause. But all humans have a right to their own ethics. And if you have the moral obligation to raise your child with your ethics in mind to the point of depriving him of choice until some arbitrary age where you consider him capable of makign his own decision. How less to we also have the same obligation when it comes to the ethics we hold dear?
Someone has mentioned mandatory church attendance as being coercive. But if you believed truly that your childs immortal soul was in peril by not attending church and that nobody would , upon knowing the full ramifications of the behavior, choose hell over church attendance. Then you would be equally justified in coercing church attendance as you would be in not allowing dc to have grandma's meatloaf.
What is and is not ethics is not somethign you can choose for somebody else.
Joline


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Who's choosing it for anyone else? My opinion shouldn't really matter either way to anyone with regard to how they raise their child ya know? I mean, I would hope that maybe something I said that affected someone or made someone think would promote them to possibly reflect on aspects of their parenting -- just is the case with the things I have read on here and such that have given me pause...

That is the beauty of us all being able to have differing opinions ... someone thinking me being a vegan (or extremely strict vegetarian, I do *slip* rarely) might be just as insane and crazy and whatever as me thinking mandatory church is.

However, there is solid, 100% proof, non disputable, on record, videotaped proof of the suffering of animals and the impact on the environment... while there is no solid evidence that one is damned to hell if they don't go to church on Sunday, but I digress...


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Who's choosing it for anyone else? My opinion shouldn't really matter either way to anyone with regard to how they raise their child ya know? I mean, I would hope that maybe something I said that affected someone or made someone think would promote them to possibly reflect on aspects of their parenting -- just is the case with the things I have read on here and such that have given me pause...

That is the beauty of us all being able to have differing opinions ... someone thinking me being a vegan (or extremely strict vegetarian, I do *slip* rarely) might be just as insane and crazy and whatever as me thinking mandatory church is.

However, there is solid, 100% proof, non disputable, on record, videotaped proof of the suffering of animals and the impact on the environment... while there is no solid evidence that one is damned to hell if they don't go to church on Sunday, but I digress...

All I am saying is that when you (or anybody else says) that our values arent a good enough reason to coerce our children into anything, but yours (vegetarian/veganism) are. Or that a strong belief in animal rights is rational and objective but a belief in heaven and hell is not.
Perhaps there is documented proof that some animals are abused. I am not arguing but it is your personal choice that makes it important to you. What matters is not that animals are abused. What matters is that it is important to YOU and that is why you choose these values. And it matters not whether there is documentable proof in the existence of hell. What matters is that it is important to somebody and they choose those values for themseves.
An ethic is an ethic. And if preventing your child from violating your ethics until they reach some arbitrary age where you think they are capable of deciding is a reasonable reason to use coersion for you. It is equally reasonable for everybody else, regardless of the nature of the ethic.
joline


----------



## Wugmama (Feb 10, 2005)

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain crunchy
Yeah, I am way into non-coercion and will try my damndest to practice it in nearly every situation, but cmon, limits people. Cat poop and dead flesh, my limits...because though other people don't agree and that's cool...to US, in our family, meat is as nasty as cat poop and certainly has a heck of a lot more ethical implications...
For any given issue, we all stand somewhere on a huge continuum, with the two endpoints being the most extreme. Most of us fall somewhere inbetween. There is one for bf'ing for example. On one extreme would be "never tried, never will". On the other extreme maybe "bf until dc was 12". Most of us would be somewhere inbetween, "bf until age 3, self weaned, except for cut off night feedings at age 2". I get so sick of people standing in their place on the continuum line and telling everyone downwind of them they are wrong. Then there is the person a few spaces upwind on the continuum telling that person _they_ are wrong. Why is it the exact point we may be standing in is the only position that is correct? At some point the judgemental attitues just become silly.

I'm NOT saying you are doing this cc, but your quote above is a perfect example of you clearly stating where you fall in the continuum of this type of parenting that is being discussed in this thread (mutual consideration/non-coercion). That is great. I just hope/wish you and others in this thread can/do/will respect where others' "limits" may fall.

Seriously, the mothers participating in this discussion are probably some of the very best mothers in this country, all of your children are as lucky to have you as you are to have them.







Some of these posts in this thread are starting to sound like splitting hairs between great parenting and great parenting.

~Tracy


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Johub, what is to stop someone from thinking that it is o.k. to coerce their children into their deeply held beliefs? This is a natural thing for humans to do, of course, and it would be hard to accept that the beliefs were deeply felt if the parents didn't try to pass them on.

Boundary conditions must be set. Hands up for all who think that it's o.k. for Simon (or your child[ren]) to harm other children or adults? How about the family cat or dog? Not causing or contributing to the needless suffering of another being is an easily justified boundary condition. I see no sound reason to accept the boundary condition of not harming other humans without extending it to include nonhuman animals as well. So unless you're going to accept the position that it isn't o.k. to insist that children do not harm other children and other humans, I'm not seeing how it is not o.k. to expect that they also lead lives that respect nonhuman animals as well.

So yes, some people will insist that aliens are coming to earth on December 14th and they must sit in a circle to be taken away to paradise. They will feel compelled to coerce their children to sit in wait for the aliens with them. They may feel this with all of their hearts. That other people feel their beliefs strongly and some of them (even most of them) may be wrong, and their beliefs may even harm their children, is no reason to deny the acceptance of boundary conditions such as the belief that it is wrong to cause needless suffering to animals, be they human or nonhuman.


----------



## Wugmama (Feb 10, 2005)

Quote:

originally posted by Dal
Johub, what is to stop someone from thinking that it is o.k. to coerce their children into their deeply held beliefs? This is a natural thing for humans to do, of course, and it would be hard to accept that the beliefs were deeply felt if the parents didn't try to pass them on.

Boundary conditions must be set. Hands up for all who think that it's o.k. for Simon (or your child[ren]) to harm other children or adults? How about the family cat or dog? Not causing or contributing to the needless suffering of another being is an easily justified boundary condition. I see no sound reason to accept the boundary condition of not harming other humans without extending it to include nonhuman animals as well. So unless you're going to accept the position that it isn't o.k. to insist that children do not harm other children and other humans, I'm not seeing how it is not o.k. to expect that they also lead lives that respect nonhuman animals as well.
I don't *Think* Joline has a problem with someone not allowing their small child to eat meat as it is an ethical belief for that family. I *Think* Joline is saying that everyone has different beliefs, and that one shouldn't say it is ok to insist on X,Y and Z for their child, then tell others who want to insist on A, B and C that it is wrong to insist on those things for their child because A,B and C are not as important or ethical as X,Y, and Z. I *Think* Joline is trying to point out that we all have different things that are important values to us so may insist on different things with their child.

~Tracy


----------



## alamama (Mar 21, 2005)

A lot of it comes down to what you believe about agency, doesn't it?
At what age does a child become a moral agent? At birth? At 2 or 8 or 12? Or does it depend on the issue? If not at birth, then who decides? The govt has concluded that 18 year olds have enough moral agency to participate in war but not to buy cigarettes or alcohol







:

It seems problematic no matter what. If you say at birth, a hundred issues could be named where we wouldn't necessarily trust a child's judgment, from running into the street to playing in polluted sludge. If they develop agency over time, then what determines when they are "of age" (in general or on a particular issue)?

Boy this thread has me thinking so much!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
Johub, what is to stop someone from thinking that it is o.k. to coerce their children into their deeply held beliefs? This is a natural thing for humans to do, of course, and it would be hard to accept that the beliefs were deeply felt if the parents didn't try to pass them on.

Boundary conditions must be set. Hands up for all who think that it's o.k. for Simon (or your child[ren]) to harm other children or adults? How about the family cat or dog? Not causing or contributing to the needless suffering of another being is an easily justified boundary condition. I see no sound reason to accept the boundary condition of not harming other humans without extending it to include nonhuman animals as well. So unless you're going to accept the position that it isn't o.k. to insist that children do not harm other children and other humans, I'm not seeing how it is not o.k. to expect that they also lead lives that respect nonhuman animals as well.

So yes, some people will insist that aliens are coming to earth on December 14th and they must sit in a circle to be taken away to paradise. They will feel compelled to coerce their children to sit in wait for the aliens with them. They may feel this with all of their hearts. That other people feel their beliefs strongly and some of them (even most of them) may be wrong, and their beliefs may even harm their children, is no reason to deny the acceptance of boundary conditions such as the belief that it is wrong to cause needless suffering to animals, be they human or nonhuman.

But YOU are the one creating the boundary condition. Not everybody accepts that causing suffering to animals is the same as causing suffering to other humans. That is a value that YOU have and YOU uphold. And you have every right to do so.
But another parent has equal right to create a boundary condition based on whatever is of value to them. And they are likely to think that whatever their obvious boundary condition is is just as objective as you think yours is.

Joline


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alamama*
A lot of it comes down to what you believe about agency, doesn't it?
At what age does a child become a moral agent? At birth? At 2 or 8 or 12? Or does it depend on the issue? If not at birth, then who decides? The govt has concluded that 18 year olds have enough moral agency to participate in war but not to buy cigarettes or alcohol







:

It seems problematic no matter what. If you say at birth, a hundred issues could be named where we wouldn't necessarily trust a child's judgment, from running into the street to playing in polluted sludge. If they develop agency over time, then what determines when they are "of age" (in general or on a particular issue)?

Boy this thread has me thinking so much!

yes yes yes!!


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
Johub, what is to stop someone from thinking that it is o.k. to coerce their children into their deeply held beliefs? This is a natural thing for humans to do, of course, and it would be hard to accept that the beliefs were deeply felt if the parents didn't try to pass them on.

Boundary conditions must be set. Hands up for all who think that it's o.k. for Simon (or your child[ren]) to harm other children or adults? How about the family cat or dog? Not causing or contributing to the needless suffering of another being is an easily justified boundary condition. I see no sound reason to accept the boundary condition of not harming other humans without extending it to include nonhuman animals as well. So unless you're going to accept the position that it isn't o.k. to insist that children do not harm other children and other humans, I'm not seeing how it is not o.k. to expect that they also lead lives that respect nonhuman animals as well.

So yes, some people will insist that aliens are coming to earth on December 14th and they must sit in a circle to be taken away to paradise. They will feel compelled to coerce their children to sit in wait for the aliens with them. They may feel this with all of their hearts. That other people feel their beliefs strongly and some of them (even most of them) may be wrong, and their beliefs may even harm their children, is no reason to deny the acceptance of boundary conditions such as the belief that it is wrong to cause needless suffering to animals, be they human or nonhuman.

Every parent has values they want to pass on to their children. On one extreem you have the parents that have their children live by the parents values, no questions asked and by force if necessary. On the other end are the parents believe children learn values by watching parents, discussion, testing theories, questioning. Then comes the non-coercion distinction--what do you do if they don't agree with your theories? Some believe if an issue is important enough they need to put their foot down. Others believe they can provide information and guidance, but the decision is ultimately up to the child (whether it be toothbrushing, going to church on Sunday or veganism).


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I think veganism is a non-issue not because veganism is "holier" than other issues, but because kids eat what's in the house until they reach an age much older than 2. If meat isn't in the house they don't eat it. Kids generally just naturally follow their parents on this kind of thing until they hit an age where there's interest in rebellion, self-discovery, experimentation, etc., which is certainly older than 2. 12 was just a guess but I imagine it's in that ballpark.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I strongly disagree.
My children eat at all sorts of places and with all sorts of people.
They have meals with family members and at restaurants and snacks at playgroup. Some go to public school and even if they take their lunch their friend next to them might offer a chicken nugget or a ham sandwich.
Will all caregivers also be vegan? Will the child only be within the home for every meal until they are 12? Will the child never go to restaurants? Inside convenience stores? etc. . .?
My children eat a LOT of things that I do not personally offer them or choose for them.
It would take an awful lot of sheltering to create a situation where a child was not exposed to or offered meat before age 12.
Joline


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I didn't mean "exposed to no meat at all" - I meant the chance that a child would completely reject veganism. Like say, "I've thought about it and I disagree - I will not be a vegan" and maybe want to bring meat and dairy into the house. I'd have to guess that any kid would end up having at least a little meat and dairy by 12 no matter how careful parents were.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee*
I didn't mean "exposed to no meat at all" - I meant the chance that a child would completely reject veganism. Like say, "I've thought about it and I disagree - I will not be a vegan" and maybe want to bring meat and dairy into the house. I'd have to guess that any kid would end up having at least a little meat and dairy by 12 no matter how careful parents were.

But the point isnot really that the child will fully reject veganism, because even when children reject the beliefs of their parents they often go back to them in the long run. But the point is will the parent coerce the child into never eating or tasting meat or animal products when that child shows an interest? Regardless of whether or not they have fully accepted or rejected veganism as a value.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
But the point isnot really that the child will fully reject veganism, because even when children reject the beliefs of their parents they often go back to them in the long run. But the point is will the parent coerce the child into never eating or tasting meat or animal products when that child shows an interest? Regardless of whether or not they have fully accepted or rejected veganism as a value.

If vegans don't offer their kids meat then it isn't at home. If the grandparents know the parents aren't vegans, they aren't likely to give the kids meat. So they might get a bit here and there from friends if the kids trade lunch food at school or something, but just not having meat around to give the kids isn't terribly coercive. If the kid is old enough to reject the parents' choice and the parents try to compel the kids into remaining vegan, then that is coercive.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Even if the grandparents do not offer it to the child. Just the sight of seeing somebody else have something they have never had is often incentive enough.
If they ever see somebody else eating meat, regardless of whether or not it is offered to them directly, they are exposed to it and potentially might ask for it or a bite.
If they should go to a restaurant because family is going. Mom and dad know there are vegan items on the menu but there are other things as well. THe child could ask for something that is not vegan. And then it is coercive to say "no you may not have that". Or say the family goes to a wedding or a holiday party. Even if parents plan ahead and feed the child first and bring something appropriate to eat, children get curious about what others are eating.
For some children this is a non-issue becuase they do not like to try new things. For others anythign somebody else has is appealing.
And what some moms are saying that while in all other circumstances they would provide a 2 year old with adequate information and then respect their own choice. If the circumstance should arrive that this same 2 year old should ask to eat meat, they would give them adequate information and hope the child does not continue to want to try it. But if the child should choose to have meat anyhow, they do not have that choice.
If it is coercive to refuse to allow banana splits for breakfast. It is coercive to refuse to allow meat. If the child asks for it.
I do agree that it is not coercive to just not have it in the house or to refuse to buy or cook it yourself.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I see a difference between going to a wedding reception and wanting a meatball on one had, and offering it at home. I agree that it is equally coercive to not allow your child to have a meatball from the buffet line if the child says it looks good as it is to coerce in any other way. But I don't think a vegan should have to buy meat and dairy groceries.

I think we actually are agreeing 100% LOL so I don't know what point we're making to each other.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Look, I don't believe ANYONE can be completely free of coercion of some kind in their home. It would be highly unrealistic. Some hard-core TCS'ers and such will even call playful parenting coercion because even by making a game of it you are coercing your child to do something they didn't want to do in the first place (i.e. "I bet you can't put on your shoes faster than I can!!!!" when the child didn't want shoes in the first place, but you make it fun for them, so they wind up doing it.)

It is not my intent to create an environment completely free of coercion, with my children or anyone I deal with because I would be killing myself trying to live up to a standard that I don't feel is realistic for anyone.

The way I intend to live, namely regarding my daughter, is in an environment completely free of any kind of manipulative coercion, any force, and attempt to live as much as possible in an environment where she is not coerced at all. Some days I will achieve this, most days probably -- but I, nor anyone here, presented with extreme circumstances, can say they will never coerce their child to do or not do anything ever...that is not realistic.

Where we find arguement I think, is that just because I admit that there will probably be a situation of coercion rarely, despite great efforts to avoid it -- I still know that it is not optimum, I still don't have it in my "tool box" as a regular means of dealing with my child .... while some parents here do. That is okay for your home, no one is suggesting anyone here is a bad person or parent, or that I am better or whatever ...

I hope this clears up some confusion. I am against coercion, just as I am against yelling...but I can't sit here and say in the 18 (+?) years my daughter is in our home, that I will NEVER raise my voice with her --- yet it is something I will strive not to do and will probably succeed a much larger percent of the time than I fail.

Living consentually to me does not mean that my life and interests cease to exsist the day my daughter entered our life. Animal activism is something that I have worked on for 10 years, something that is a huge part of my husband and my life -- and while I would never force my daughter to a rally, or make her paint signs or pressure her into marching or signing a petition, or whatever ...these things will be in our home. Similarly, as one poster said, having meat in the home of a vegan (one who is for ethical reasons) is not a mutually agreeable solution. As I mentioned earlier, if my daughter got involved with some Nazi skinheads....it would not be mutually agreeable that she hang a swastika flag on our porch.

I attempt to be as non=coercive as possible, but when my daughter is stepping on the fine line between her choices and the harming of another person or being, I am erring on the side where the other person or being is NOT going to be hurt or killed. At least in my home. Yes, I realize there will be a time where she may want to try meat and all that and we covered that, but people seem to think it is so coercive that I won't have a steak in my freezer ready to cook the day she expresses an interest.

This isn't really about meat anyway, and I am sorry it veered to that topic. It is about the fact that we (hubby and I) believe that every person and animal has a right to exsist peacefully on this Earth, in as much as we can do to see that happen ---and just as I wouldn't allow my daughter to push someone down at the playground because they upset her, or she felt that was how she wanted to express her anger or whatever, I won't introduce animal products to her simply to satisfy an innocent curiosity about a "food" that comes from a once live creature and an industry she can't possible digest at such a young age (hell, I couldn't digest it when I was a teenager, which sparked my activism)

ETA: Okay, you can honestly say you can see NO difference whatsoever between a vegan banana split and a once living, breathing, creature that lived and died a life of torture? I mean, no matter whether you eat meat or not, you can't see any distinction?


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee*
I think we actually are agreeing 100% LOL so I don't know what point we're making to each other.

Well, your discussion helped clarify things for me! I wonder if ScubaMama or ambdkf has had any issues like this come up, where the thing the child wants to do is morally repulsive to them, and they can't present enough information to talk them out of it?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee*
I see a difference between going to a wedding reception and wanting a meatball on one had, and offering it at home. I agree that it is equally coercive to not allow your child to have a meatball from the buffet line if the child says it looks good as it is to coerce in any other way. But I don't think a vegan should have to buy meat and dairy groceries.

I think we actually are agreeing 100% LOL so I don't know what point we're making to each other.









Yeah I guess we are! We are arguing the same points to each other and we already agree and just didnt know it!


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
and just as I wouldn't allow my daughter to push someone down at the playground because they upset her, or she felt that was how she wanted to express her anger or whatever,

How will you stop her? Will you physically restrain her? Will you remove her from the situation against her will? Isn't that coercion? What if your dd turns out to be aggressive, one of those toddlers you always have to shadow? Then what?

Pat, have you ever had this happen? Do you physically stop your son from hurting others?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Did ya read my whole post or what?

Of course I couldn't stop her if I were too far away to prevent it, but I would prevent it if I could and I agree that it would be a form of *force* I suppose -- I never stated in any of my posts that I avoid coercion at all costs, even to the detrement of people and defenseless animals...it is just not something in my "tool box" as it were to defer to in the many situations described (bedtime, tooth brushing, car seats etc)...


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Okay, you can honestly say you can see NO difference whatsoever between a vegan banana split and a once living, breathing, creature that lived and died a life of torture? I mean, no matter whether you eat meat or not, you can't see any distinction?

This is subjective, I think you're on both sides of the fence here. Because for me, yes, I'd much rather my dd have steak and eggs for breakfast than a vegan banana split, which I'm assuming has a high sugar content. I'd even coerce her into it. But I'd never force my dd to go to church, and I'd let her go to the Disney store if she wanted. Just passing on my values, she can do with them what she will.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Well, the decision between sugar content and partaking in an act where an innocent, defenseless creature is enslaved, tortured, caged, beaten, crowded, prodded, electrocuted, then murdered, with no ability to ever in their short life live one day the way nature intended... well, bring on the sugar....


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
ETA: Okay, you can honestly say you can see NO difference whatsoever between a vegan banana split and a once living, breathing, creature that lived and died a life of torture? I mean, no matter whether you eat meat or not, you can't see any distinction?

Yes I can honestly say so. But only because I think that if one should believe that a child is fully rational and able to make choices for themselves what is right "for them" it is inconsistent to then say "except in this circumstance"
If it is coercive to limit choices based on what I think is an acceptable breakfast (an argument made earlier in the thread) it is coercive to limit choices based on what I think is acceptable food.
And if a child is truly fully rational and fully capable of understanding pros and cons in all of these circumstances that have been argued. Then I cannot see how this same child, who has been trusted from birth to make these decisions, is suddenly incapable of fully understanding in this one area.

And if one judges whether it is an appropriate thing to say to a child based on whether or not they would say it to an adult, and they would never say to their husband or their neighbor "No you may not have that meatball" then it is inconsistent to say so to their child.
And if a parent is really a mentor and is there to give advice and not to control their child. it is inconsistent to change that role at a moment's notice when meat is the issue.

So to me it is not about meat versus banana split. It is about whether a child is rational and their own agent, or not. Whether a child can be trusted to make all of their own decisions except when personal safety is an immediate concern, or not.
I have a hard time thinking a child is fully rational and capable of making their own decisions from the very beginning including ones which impact their health and happiness, but not when it comes to mom's ethics.

But back to the beginning of your last post. I heartily agree that even with the best of intentions there are times we do not live up. I am against yelling, but I have yelled, and I probably will again. etc. . .
we all can only do our best.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I can respect your opinions, though I don't agree. It is hard to come to an agreement on certain things when ethics are so vastly different in this case. I assume you eat meat and see no problem with it and that is a choice you have made, however, just as I can't put myself in the position of someone who sees nothing inherently wrong with it, as much as I may try, it is very difficult I think for someone to put themselves in a position of feeling the way I do and have felt for 10+ years. Fair enough.

I think though, that when we digress into issues of "well, bedtime might be an ethical issue" and such, it gets a bit silly. I would probably laugh out loud if someone said to me that making their child go to bed at 8pm on the dot, whether they were tired or not, wanted to or not, was an "ethical" issue to them, and that if force was the way they did it, child kicking and screaming, then that is the way it has to be.

With the meat issue, there are a bunch of mutually agreeable solutions, as there are a bunch of products out there that I could cook (and have cooked) for meat eaters where they wouldn't know the difference.... now I would never knowingly lie to my child and say something is a hot dog made from lips and butt when it really was a "not" dog made from soy... but if my child saw someone eating a hot dog and wanted that, I would buy not dogs and she would most likely eat them no problem .. and I would probably be utterly shocked if she said, "no, no, this looks exactly the same as what that guy had, but it is NOT lips and butt!!"

The same with meatballs, burgers, chicken nuggets and the like... there are all impressive vegan alternatives that would most likely be an agreeable solution to someone who simply wanted what someone else had...which would probably be the case with a very small child. It wouldn't be so much a situation of "I WANT A DEAD ANIMAL ON MY PLATE!!!"... as it would be wanting something they saw someone else having... and if I could provide the look, texture, and similar taste, without the cruelty...that is a mutually agreeable solution in my book...

ETA: We are talking a small child here, we already covered if my daughter could actively ask for "meat" and understood what it was...which I think would be younger than 12 (as a pp mentioned) but I don't know exactly what age)


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

That sounds like a mutually agreeable solution.

I guess I just don't see that it would come up often. I have vegan friends and if their kids are here I don't serve meat or dairy and my dd eats the same thing the vegan kids eat. I have a friend with a diabetic daughter and when she's here everyone eats what the diabetic child can eat. My guess is most vegan families surround themselves with friends who support their choices and don't offer meat and dairy when they're around? If that's the case, then meat probably doesn't just appear as an appetizing option very often.

I can see the wedding reception line as an issue though. I suppose you could say, "that's made with meat but I can make you some vegan 'meatballs' when we get home" and go for a mutually agreeable solution that way. At some point though it seems like a child would be old enough to say, "I don't want vegan 'meatballs', I want those ones and I want some meatballs now. I don't care if they have meat." How old are children when they do that? A younger child is more likely to just want meatballs RIGHT NOW and not be comforted by having any kind of meatballs later.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I can respect your opinions, though I don't agree. It is hard to come to an agreement on certain things when ethics are so vastly different in this case. I assume you eat meat and see no problem with it and that is a choice you have made, however, just as I can't put myself in the position of someone who sees nothing inherently wrong with it, as much as I may try, it is very difficult I think for someone to put themselves in a position of feeling the way I do and have felt for 10+ years. Fair enough.

I think though, that when we digress into issues of "well, bedtime might be an ethical issue" and such, it gets a bit silly. I would probably laugh out loud if someone said to me that making their child go to bed at 8pm on the dot, whether they were tired or not, wanted to or not, was an "ethical" issue to them, and that if force was the way they did it, child kicking and screaming, then that is the way it has to be.

With the meat issue, there are a bunch of mutually agreeable solutions, as there are a bunch of products out there that I could cook (and have cooked) for meat eaters where they wouldn't know the difference.... now I would never knowingly lie to my child and say something is a hot dog made from lips and butt when it really was a "not" dog made from soy... but if my child saw someone eating a hot dog and wanted that, I would buy not dogs and she would most likely eat them no problem .. and I would probably be utterly shocked if she said, "no, no, this looks exactly the same as what that guy had, but it is NOT lips and butt!!"

The same with meatballs, burgers, chicken nuggets and the like... there are all impressive vegan alternatives that would most likely be an agreeable solution to someone who simply wanted what someone else had...which would probably be the case with a very small child. It wouldn't be so much a situation of "I WANT A DEAD ANIMAL ON MY PLATE!!!"... as it would be wanting something they saw someone else having... and if I could provide the look, texture, and similar taste, without the cruelty...that is a mutually agreeable solution in my book...

ETA: We are talking a small child here, we already covered if my daughter could actively ask for "meat" and understood what it was...which I think would be younger than 12 (as a pp mentioned) but I don't know exactly what age)

I agree that it is a mutually agreeable solution in the long run. Assuming that there is a time lapse. Or the child is responding to a commerical or something where the food is not otherwise immediately availible.
But in the buffet line for example or at a party where there an appetizer plate. You dont have the time or resources to quickly run to the store and into the kitchen to come up with that mutually agreeable solution.
It is either yes or no. You have opportunity to tell the child what it is and why you do not eat it. And then if the child says "but I want to try it" you have to make an immediate decision whether or not coercion is necessary, or whether or not to respect your child's choice.
But I 100% agree that most of the time a mutually agreeable solution is availible, especially when the request is not immediate.

On the other hand I would be loathe to suggest somebody elses values are "silly".

Joline
eta, Oh and I really have no difficulty understanding why some personal values might be extremely important to a person, regardless of the value. The fact that I am not vegan does not make me unable to understand when somebody has made a moral commitment to something.


----------



## Venice Mamacita (Dec 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
My goal for her as she grows, to feel as if she _had_ had a choice, she would have chosen us.

The act of me bringing her into the world doesn't give me authority over her choices and her body, and her life. Yes, I will happily provide a roof, clothing, food, guidance, love, acceptance, understanding, a soft place to fall -- I love being her mom and I want her to know that we are responsible for her safety and well-being... but that her body, mind, heart and spirit are her own.

I haven't had a chance to read through the whole thread, but I just got goosebumps reading this and had to say so . . . I hope our son grows to feel and know the same about us.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

OK. I am not saying that veganism should be the exception to non-coersive parenting. What I am saying is that I need some pointers to either help come up with some common preferences (like cc's meat substitutes) or ways to let go of the idea that I must impose my values on dd. I NEED HELP! Where is Scubamama?

But kidding aside, I DO think there is a difference between the "ethics" of a banana split for breakfast and the "ethics" of veganism. If I tell dd my theories on veganism at the age of 2 where she is unlikely to understand much of it, she might eat a hamburger. By the act of eating that hamburger she will be irreversibly damaging (as in killing) the cow the burger was made from. If I tell my dd my theories on eating too much sugar for breakfast and she does so, she gets a sugar buzz early in the morning. This effects her and maybe me if it makes her more hyper for a few hours. No permanent damage done.

Is that a licence for coersion? I do not think so. Will it be hard for me to do it in practice? Heck yes! Which is exactly why i am trying to figure it out now before it comes up.

And to those of you who posted about the meatball in the buffet line....that will upset me just as much as bringing it into my house. I will be upset because an animal suffered and died for it. It has little to do with where it was consumed. However, again, that is MY problem and not dd's.

I am not very good at this non-coersive parenting stuff yet. i trip up on much simpler issues than veganism so maybe I should worry about the easier stuff first. but just because I am not perfect and do occaisonally coerse does not mean I think it is OK. For any issue. Violence, religion, veganism, illegal issues etc.....

If my end goal is to have a dc that grows up to be completely free in making her own sound theories and decisions, i have to allow her to make these choices no matter how painful they are for me. And frankly, I am quite sure that if I forbid that meatball, she is much likelier to ditch veganism forever than if I just share my theories and support her ability to make that decision.

I just do not think I can watch


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Thanks...

Wel, Joline, if we are ever in a buffet line at a wedding, you will be the one I will think of if my daughter throws a tantrum over a meatball














sorry, trying to lighten the mood.

Anway, again, no one is perfect and though we all strive to be the best parents we can be, we are going to slip every now and again...and we all have our lines in the sand.

I never claimed to be completely non-coercive, but as much as possible, my daughter's choices will be her own ... but my "line in the sand" so to speak, is when a choice of hers directly harms another person or being. Of course, I don't intend to be manipulative in this... I would NEVER say something to my daughter like "gee, it hurts mama when you don't eat your vegetables"... to me that reeks of manipulation and control. However, if she were to begin pummeling another child or something, of course I would stop it. No one else deserves to be physically hurt just because my child "chooses" to hurt them... I guess I feel the same with animals. I know over a certain age, there will be nothing I can do to stop her, and again, she wouldn't be treated any differently, or "punished" or anything if she did decide to eat meat...but as a small child, I cannot knowingly provide something to her that had to suffer so, and die to appease a curiosity. The same way (if I could prevent it) I would not allow her to stone a bird with a broken wing to death to "see what happens"....


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Yes I can honestly say so. But only because I think that if one should believe that a child is fully rational and able to make choices for themselves what is right "for them" it is inconsistent to then say "except in this circumstance"
If it is coercive to limit choices based on what I think is an acceptable breakfast (an argument made earlier in the thread) it is coercive to limit choices based on what I think is acceptable food.
And if a child is truly fully rational and fully capable of understanding pros and cons in all of these circumstances that have been argued. Then I cannot see how this same child, who has been trusted from birth to make these decisions, is suddenly incapable of fully understanding in this one area.

And if one judges whether it is an appropriate thing to say to a child based on whether or not they would say it to an adult, and they would never say to their husband or their neighbor "No you may not have that meatball" then it is inconsistent to say so to their child.
And if a parent is really a mentor and is there to give advice and not to control their child. it is inconsistent to change that role at a moment's notice when meat is the issue.

So to me it is not about meat versus banana split. It is about whether a child is rational and their own agent, or not. Whether a child can be trusted to make all of their own decisions except when personal safety is an immediate concern, or not.
I have a hard time thinking a child is fully rational and capable of making their own decisions from the very beginning including ones which impact their health and happiness, but not when it comes to mom's ethics.

But back to the beginning of your last post. I heartily agree that even with the best of intentions there are times we do not live up. I am against yelling, but I have yelled, and I probably will again. etc. . .
we all can only do our best.

Thanks, johub, for so eloquently saying what I was trying to. I think Pat said this as well, either you coerce, or you don't.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

See, I don't agree that things are so black and white.
So does that apply to everything? Either you yell or you don't? Either you practice all the principles of AP or you don't...you can't be in "the club?" Either you let your child make EVERY decision they want to make, even at the expense of physically hurting other people or animals, or you don't?

See I believe you can strive to an ideal and attempt to practice and impliment it in your daily life to the best of your abilities, taking still into consideration the physical and emotional well being of other beings on the planet around you.

If one was to TRULY be non-coercive in EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of their child's decision making, I think it would be a recipe for disaster in many instances. I take real - life circumstances into consideration. Such as if my child is in a really bad mood or someone upsets her, yes, I would *coerce* her, if all else failed, into NOT punching someone in the face.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

: (glad it it popcorn)







:

Pat














:


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
See, I don't agree that things are so black and white.
So does that apply to everything? Either you yell or you don't? Either you practice all the principles of AP or you don't...you can't be in "the club?" Either you let your child make EVERY decision they want to make, even at the expense of physically hurting other people or animals, or you don't?

Well, yeah, that's exactly what I was saying when this whole values conversation started! I expressed that I saw that for ScubaMama, the reigning value is non-coercion. That is the most important value in her home, I believe. There is nothing that can override that, except in times of imminent danger, is how I have come to understand it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Pat!)

But, for me, there are other values that are more important. I rarely coerce, in fact I've been keeping track since this conversation started, and I really don't even try to talk my dd into doing much that she doesn't want to. And, as I've said before, no one can force that squirmy strong little girl to do anything. One might say it's a tool I use rarely.

Sooo, am I right in assuming that you're saying I convinced you? That it IS okay if I choose not to distract my dd from the fact that she doesn't, in the immediate second that she refuses, want to brush her teeth, rather than working towards a mutually agreeable situation?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I mean, where is the line in the sand then? While I recognize my child's choices are her own, I also have to recognize when she is taking away the choices of others, and that creates a conundrum.

Now, I know cows can't talk, but given the choice, do you think they would choose freedom and green pastures, or would they chhose to be tortured and killed? Would the child at the playground choose to be pushed down? I mean, how does allowing your child to actively take choices away from other people and things factor in to this discussion?

I see the meat thing as really a non-issue. I could see an issue arising if one spouse ate meat and one spouse was adamantly against it, how that would factor in on what was introduced... but it is not going to be introduced...and when it is by someone else, the choice will be hers... but the people I keep company with anyway, respect our ethics enough not to offer...if she expresses an interest, and there is no agreeable solution...then we will cross that bridge when we come to it.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Sooo, am I right in assuming that you're saying I convinced you? That it IS okay if I choose not to distract my dd from the fact that she doesn't, in the immediate second that she refuses, want to brush her teeth, rather than working towards a mutually agreeable situation?
Huh?

Let me read that again....

I don't believe I ever said I wouldn't use playful parenting, or a different toothbrush, or a song, or a fun toothpaste, or a silly game or whatever to attempt to make brushing her teeth something fun, playful, enjoyable, not scary, etc... I just said if it became an issue, where we couldn't reach a mutually agreeable solution, I would never, ever force a toothbrush into my child's mouth... or say she couldn't leave the bathroom until she brushed, or couldn't watch a video until she brushed or whatever...


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Ok, I am off to have dinner and wine with ambdkf.









Will post when I return. You all are doing great. I LOVE this discussion. I believe the ethical dilemma "had to" be dissected in order to see the 'edges' of the issue.

I agree with Joline.







An aspect of the paradox is the role self-defense (of self and others).























Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I dont actually agree that you either do coerce or you do not.
I do not think That is black and white.
Because there are parents all along that spectrum.
I also avoid coercion to be nice, but what is different from the average jo who avoids coercion and somebody who believes in non coercion, I believe is the underlying belief that children are their own agents and are capable of making rational choices when presented with all of the information and those choices should be respected.
I also do 50 different things before resorting to coercion. And have to coerce rarely. But what makes us different is that I do not have the above belief.

I do think that either a child is rational or not. I dont think a child can be fully rational in all ways except when it comes to the moral values of the parents. I think the belief in the child's authority over themselves IS black or white.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Yes, but again, one has to consider whether your child's choices are physically or emotionally harming someone else -- thus taking away THEIR choices.

Of course all attempts would be made to meet the needs to both parties involved, but my child eating steak doesn't exactly meet the needs of the cow now does it?









Anyway, with regard to people...yes, I believe my child should have the right to sleep when she wants, eat when she wants, brush her teeth when she wants, etc and so on... however, perhaps she doesn't want to go to sleep... cool with me, but it begins to infringe on MY choice TO sleep if she wants to blast her music at the highest decibal... of course, there are alternatives... headphones, lower volume, I would even offer to wear ear plugs, no big deal... but if she INSISTED that she HAD to listen to music at a certain volume to the detrement of others.... should my choice to sleep come after her choice to blast loud music?

I mean, that is a cut and dry example that would probably never happen














but do you see my point?

Sure, my child's choices are her own and in 99% of cases I do think a mutually agreeable solution can be found, but not one parent here is perfect and I don't believe one person on this planet is completely 100% non -coercive in all situations....okay, buddhist monks maybe...


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Yes, but again, one has to consider whether your child's choices are physically or emotionally harming someone else -- thus taking away THEIR choices.

Of course all attempts would be made to meet the needs to both parties involved, but my child eating steak doesn't exactly meet the needs of the cow now does it?








<snip>
I mean, that is a cut and dry example that would probably never happen














but do you see my point?

Sure, my child's choices are her own and in 99% of cases I do think a mutually agreeable solution can be found, but not one parent here is perfect and I don't believe one person on this planet is completely 100% non -coercive in all situations....okay, buddhist monks maybe...
















Ok but, if a child turns out to NOT be rational enough to be trusted to make good decisions. Doesnt the whole theory just start unraveling from there?
I mean isnt the whole premise that when you tell your dc that hitting makes little Suzy feel bad and perhaps we could find another solution to the problem (perhaps of a toy taken away) that the child will be rational and not resort to hitting? And that they will not behave irrationally (by hitting more) for example because behaving irrationally is a symptom of having been coerced.
And so a rational child who is capable of making his own decisions without coercion will take the advice of the parent and find a different way to solve that problem and that is how the hitting is solved without even needing coercion.
But if they do not respond to advice and instruction by making a rational and kind decision that considers the needs of all involved (including Suzy's need not to be hit) and respond instead by hitting more so that the parent needs to coerce them into not hitting. Doesnt the whole argument about the effectiveness of non-coercive parenting just fall apart?
I mean if children really arent rational enough to be making this decisoin, are they really rational enough to be making all of their other decisions for themselves?


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Who says hitting is irrational? No one said a non-coersed child will make "good" decisions every time. Who does? Rational does not equal "good". "Good" is more ditated by cultural norms.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

*sigh*

Just because a parenting philosophy is effective doesn't mean that a child, or anyone for that matter is going to make the *right* decision every time, in every circumstance, in every situation...

I have yet to meet someone in my entire life though, who given a choice, or has had a choice not given or removed, has been really pleased about that...furthermore, just because a choice is not presented at one particular point and time, does not mean that the choice is off the table... my daughter wanting a neat tatoo like her Uncle Spanky would be off the table at say, 4 years old... but if she wanted to revisit that at say, 14, it would definately be on the table.

That is what I mean...you cannot completely be non-coercive all the time, unless your version of being non-coercive is brow-beating your kid to death for hours and days on end under the guise of a "discussion" so that they will make the decision you want them to make. I prefer to flat out admit, yes, if my 4 year old wants a permanant tattoo, I would try to find a mutually agreeable solution... temp tattoo, henna, draw on her with safe markers or whatever... but if she was hell bent, I want a permenant tattoo like Uncle Spanky's...that NEVER EVER WASHES OFF EVER FOREVER... yeah, that would be a instance where I would unfortunately refuse her....

I can't believe that people who claim to be completely non coercive, would allow that....but see, I think in a lot of cases, this "discussion" that comes in is days or weeks of basically convincing your child not to do what you don't want them to do...

I freely admit that it is my goal to be as non - coercive as possible, in as many situations as possible... but things like tattoos at 4 years old, or a 5 year old boy wanting to have a penis that looks like daddy's (would you have him cir'ced?)... or my daughter wanting to see if she can fly with an umbrella off the Grand Canyon.... yeah, I'd probably "coerce"... if a mutually agreeable solution can't be found...

... but I don't think I claimed to be completely non- coercive in every situation that ever crosses my path... I basically said I wouldn't coerce in all the situations mentioned before the vegan thing -- toothbrushing, banana split for breakfast, car seat, clothing choice, bedtime, whatever...


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
*sigh*

Just because a parenting philosophy is effective doesn't mean that a child, or anyone for that matter is going to make the *right* decision every time, in every circumstance, in every situation...

I have yet to meet someone in my entire life though, who given a choice, or has had a choice not given or removed, has been really pleased about that...furthermore, just because a choice is not presented at one particular point and time, does not mean that the choice is off the table... my daughter wanting a neat tatoo like her Uncle Spanky would be off the table at say, 4 years old... but if she wanted to revisit that at say, 14, it would definately be on the table.

That is what I mean...you cannot completely be non-coercive all the time, unless your version of being non-coercive is brow-beating your kid to death for hours and days on end under the guise of a "discussion" so that they will make the decision you want them to make. I prefer to flat out admit, yes, if my 4 year old wants a permanant tattoo, I would try to find a mutually agreeable solution... temp tattoo, henna, draw on her with safe markers or whatever... but if she was hell bent, I want a permenant tattoo like Uncle Spanky's...that NEVER EVER WASHES OFF EVER FOREVER... yeah, that would be a instance where I would unfortunately refuse her....

I can't believe that people who claim to be completely non coercive, would allow that....but see, I think in a lot of cases, this "discussion" that comes in is days or weeks of basically convincing your child not to do what you don't want them to do...

I freely admit that it is my goal to be as non - coercive as possible, in as many situations as possible... but things like tattoos at 4 years old, or a 5 year old boy wanting to have a penis that looks like daddy's (would you have him cir'ced?)... or my daughter wanting to see if she can fly with an umbrella off the Grand Canyon.... yeah, I'd probably "coerce"... if a mutually agreeable solution can't be found...

... but I don't think I claimed to be completely non- coercive in every situation that ever crosses my path... I basically said I wouldn't coerce in all the situations mentioned before the vegan thing -- toothbrushing, banana split for breakfast, car seat, clothing choice, bedtime, whatever...

I hope you didn't think i was implying that the "right" parenting technique would mean a child will make the "right" decisions. I was just pointing out that "Rational" does not mean "right" which is probably a much bigger discussion.

I am on your side









Correct me if I am wrong, but rational means having the ability to reason. Non-coersive parenting assumes that all children have this ability just as adults do. But that does not mean that they will always make "right" decisions and that is where common preference finding comes into play.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

No probs Yooper, I was just responding to the notion that it is an all or nothing situation... either you never coerce anyone at any time in any situation ... or you are a coercin' fool....

I mean, cmon people. Seriously, which instances do you think are more likely to come up in the course of my daughter's childhood? Eating what she wants from every food option in the house, going to bed whenever she likes, brushing or not brushing her teeth, watching what she likes, listening to what she likes, wearing what she chooses, --- or permanent tattoos at 2 years old and wanting to jump off the Grand Canyon with an umbrella?

Nothing is black and white. I think stealing is wrong and under normal circumstances would never think of it... but present me with a situation where my family would starve or I steal a loaf of bread and well, that bread is mine.

I think capital punishment is wrong, I am staunchly against it as a government mandate. I think killing is wrong in general... but present me with a situation where my daughter's life was in danger and I would probably be able to kill in a heartbeat.

I am a staunch animal rights activist who hasn't eaten any form of meat in 10 years... put me on a desert Island where I couldn't find any edible plant sources and I would think about fishing.

I married my husband for better or for worse, forsaking all others and 'til death do us part and I intend to uphold that... but I discover that he was having sex with a 15 year old girl or worse, touching our daughter, I would divorce him I am certain...

I mean, I can go on. I don't parent for the extreme circumstances that *may* or *may not* come up once or twice in the course of a whole childhood (except for maybe the vegan thing), I parent for what I am likely to encounter every day out of the week -- which is my daughter choosing her clothing, food, bedtime, where she goes, what she does, etc and so on... and in those cases, I would say I am pretty darn non - coercive....


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

I have skimmed everything that has come up recently, but I'm in a rush here.

I haven't been upholding non-coercion as an ideal because Simon's rationality needs to be respected. I do NOT feel that his decision to brush or to not brush his teeth at this stage in his life are based on reason. I don't think he'll be able to really make a full decision about that type of thing for some time to come.

Why then would I support non-coercion as ideal in cases in which no one is being harmed? Because his interests and his feelings are important. Because I've been forced to do things against my will and that is horribly disempowering and I do not want to do that to him (the instances I have in mind deal with physical compulsion, like being playfully forced down in the snow and having someone bigger and stronger than me rub snow into my hair -- great fun, that was). The biggest cases in which non-coercion are important to me are cases in which a child is being needlessly physically compelled to do something -- e.g., forced into a carseat, head held in a vice between one's legs and forced to stay open and in place so that the teeth may be brushed (I've heard of dentists recommending this!).

I'd like to say more but gotta go.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
Who says hitting is irrational? No one said a non-coersed child will make "good" decisions every time. Who does? Rational does not equal "good". "Good" is more ditated by cultural norms.

I did use poor wording. While it has not been said in this thread it has been in others that children are rational if not coerced, and that children who are used to problem solving have fewer problems coming to compromises. And that it makes them super empathetic and concerned that everybodys needs are met . . . And that children are born wanting to meet social expectations and if they are just not coerced they will more often than not etc . . .
While I do not see here in this thread that a non-coerced child will make good decisions every time. But I have heard it said that they have 'no reason' to not be fully willing to take the advide of their parent/mentor because of the trust and lack of coercion or power struggles.
In fact I have seen this reasoning several times.
So while it is not a guarantee of good decisions, one of the claims IS that children are rational. That children want to do what is expected of them. That children who are not coerced will happily follow the gentle guidance of their parent.
And while "rational" does not equal good. I would think that if a parent was proposing an option which meets social expectations and meets everybodys needs, it would be "rational" for the child to take that wise advice rather than say, continue to hit the other child. And so by rationally following the advice of his wise mentor the child does the "good" thing.
I also should not have used the line about 'effectiveness' because effectiveness is really not the pont at all.

eta. after further reading it also appears taht my "working definition" of Rational is not the same as some posters. I generally think of a "rational" decision as one that makes sense, and serves the purposes intended. And not simply as rational meaning the ability to negotiate and understand.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

You know, it just occurred to me that while we are arguing about non coercive parenting. I remember now that a distinction has been made between NCP and TCS. One even describing tcs as a "religion" and it could possibly be that my arguments probably apply more to TCS than NCP. DOes that make any sense? I have yet to really separate the two in my mind so an argument that has been used for one gets easily confusd as an argument for the other.
Now Dal, you summed it up in a nutshell. I ALSO support non coersion whenever possible because my children's feelings and interests are important to me.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

I have to rush again here. I'm loving this discussion and wanting to participate in it but I have some less exciting things that need to get done. So... please excuse me if I'm missing something here.

I agree that children whose interests and feelings are respected will be more apt to respect the interests and feelings of others. This is a generalization. I was initially going to say that I don't think there is any reasoning involved, using modens ponens as an example, but when I wrote out the "if p then q, p, therefore q" as an example of something that is beyond Simon, I wasn't convinced. I do think that Simon already intuits the logic in that, e.g., if mom bumps her head and says ouch while holding her head, then mom is hurt and I'll kiss her head cuz she does that to me and it helps me to feel better. Mom is saying ouch and holding her head, here Mom, let me kiss your head." With a still very limited vocabulary, Simon thinks in this way quite often.

I do think that there are pre-linguistic or more accurately pre-fully-linguistic modes of reasoning, but of course they do have their limitations. Moreover, the reasoning ability in a toddler or young child can be easily overpowered by a more intense emotional response (though I think that their reasoning response is largely emotional as well).

Not sure where I'm getting with that other than offering up my sketchy and preliminary first thoughts on the rational capacities of a toddler/young child.

Though I try to assume more rationality rather than less to be charitable to Simon, and I take his feelings and interests as legitimiate, there are cases in which my rationality and knowledge based on experience does exceed his and in which it would be a disservice to him to not intervene. When it comes to Simon wanting to suck on the spray hose that we use to rinse his poopy diapers, well, I'm not convinced that he fully understands me when I let him know that he may get sick from doing this. Even if it looks clean and tastes fine, it probably has some poop splatter on it. If Simon were adamantly insistent about sucking on it and was going to descend into total meltdown over it rather than give it to me or at the very least let me scrub it for him so that he can suck on it, I'd probably let him take that risk (justifying it to myself by thinking of all the filthy things that toddlers are known to stick in their mouths). The thing is, though, that it doesn't come down to this. He trusts that I'm not going to demand that he give it to me, and that if I tell him it's dirty, and that I'd like to clean it before he sucks on it, he just hands it over to me. This happened earlier tonight. By the time it was scrubbed, I saw that he lost interest in it and I put it out of the way because I really would rather he not suck on it. Tonight I'll put it away so that he isn't tempted to suck on it again any time soon.

When it comes to safety issues (my ever-surfacing knife example), he understands that he must give the dangerous item up right away. He has no issue with this at all. We have very, very few power struggles. I think that because of this, it is easier for Simon to accept that the extremely few issues that we do not budge on are serious issues.

Back to rationality (if I ever left that topic): it is not only to Simon's future more rational self that I feel more than justified in raising him as a vegan, it is also to his ethical and compassionate/empathetic self as well (or course there are many overlaps between these). And beyond this, it is because his interest in this situation is TRITE in comparison to the harm to animals that thwarting it creates, encourages, and condones. His minute of upset (if this can't be avoided and it usually can) is nothing compared to a life of torture that is snuffed out and rendered into a chicken nugget.

I don't expect there to be a great many of these minutes of upset. This hasn't been the case in other vegan families I know. We're at the network building phase of our lives. We're looking to move somewhere this summer and a key factor in this is the availability of like-minded families. We aren't going to have him routinely exposed to festivals of delicious-looking nonvegan foods. While this may sometimes happen, we'll do what we can to make it comfortable for him by preparing for it ahead of time. Vegan parents often call and ask what will be served and bring vegan equivalents (or superiors as the case may be!). We will go to vegan potlucks. We'll have friends who are vegan, or who understand and respect our veganism.

There are other things to be considered here besides just how rational Simon is and whether it is o.k. to force my will on him. Simon is not the only being on the earth. Being that I assume the best of him, I assume that he would full-heartedly agree to me helping him to avoid harming others -- be they myself, dh, other children, or other animals. Even if he were a monster (let's say that some people are born sadistic sociopaths), well, it still isn't o.k. for him to harm others and I am not about to help him do that. As one of his guides in life, I'm not going to watch him make choices that are so obviously harmful to others -- to eat part of someone's body as if that being's entire life is worth no more than lunchmeat.

What if the wedding festivities involved not balled up bits of corpse, but a cultural tradition of beating a lamb (to sacrifice or whatever)? If Simon thinks that looks like a mighty fun thing to do it would be wrong for me to intervene? I have no justified moral authority in this situation to prevent his involvement in this? It is not morally corrupt to beat a lamb? I'm entitled to this belief for myself, but imposing it on Simon is going to thwart his healthy development? Really? I can help to take a knife from him, I can prevent him from beating the crap out of other kids or from biting chunks off of me, but no, it's too much for me to prevent him from beating a lamb? How does this teach him to question what is going on around him? That sometimes the majority of people he is exposed to might be doing nasty, loathsome things? Watching as he beats a lamb or eats a corpseball is akin to treating those actions as acceptable. He does not yet fully understand the arguments against these things, nor has he developed a full and more or less consistent sense of compassion and empathy. To watch him eat a corpseball, perhaps while saying, "That is a dead animal, Simon, are you sure you want to be eating that?" (like he has any idea of what dead means, or like he's really going to grasp the connection between what looks like food and a live animal (how could he have a concept of innards, he has no experience with death?) -- how is that supposed to be the right response? To me this is pretty much akin to standing back while a child writes a horribly nasty and hurtful letter to another child and helping her mail it. Let's say the child adds a smear of peanut butter to it, knowing that the child on the receiving end is allergic. Just because someone is not in the room does not make it o.k. to contribute to their suffering.

How about the relationship between laws and the discussion here? If animals were properly protected under the law (rather than protected property), then would it be o.k. to intervene on their behalf? If you agree that animals should be properly protected by the law (at the very, very least, that there should be an end to "factory farms"), then how can it be o.k. to sit back and do nothing as your child participates in the likes of "factory farms"? How does that jive with social consciousness, with going against the grain when it ought to be abundantly clear that what the grain is doing is morally corrupt? Very young children don't see all of this. If they see other people happily enjoying a corpseball, they assume the best. "Nothing bad is going on. People are good. They aren't hurting anyone unless they are hurting someone now and in my face." But is this what a socially responsible adult going to feel in the same situation?

What about slavery? If a family visits someone who uses other humans as slaves, is it o.k. for Simon to start treating them in the same way? (This is a huge stretch, so take it at that, but my grandmother treats my aunt as a servant. She is extremely rude to her and issues commands at her.) It may look harmless and like the slaves (or my aunt) are/is happily compliant. Simon may want the slaves (or in the lesser case, my poor aunt) to do things for him. I should let him decide this on his own? For what? Why would he agree to that if he had a full moral understanding of the situation? Shouldn't I assume the best of him, that he'd be outraged by slavery (and maltreatment of aunts and others) and want no part in it, save to do something to help those who are being abused?

I loathe relativism. We need not accept only the most obvious, in-your-face injustices and ignore the rest (which is opposed to relativism, though I've yet to meet a relativist who is radical enough to agree that there are no objective ethical standards, whatever it is that they end up calling them).

What is the point in freeing Simon from arbitrary power and control? From empowering him to be in control of his own body and space and so on, with the sole exclusion of actions that unduly infringe on the rights of others? Why raise him this way? Because I want him to be happy, eudaimon, to live well and fare well. To be a good person who enjoys being a good person (or finds it the least painful of competing alternatives -- sometimes we rightfully choose to do things that aren't entirely pleasant and that even cause us some pain). Ethics is a HUUUUUUUUUGE part of why we're raising Simon as we are, probably the biggest part. I don't at all see how allowing a child who is not yet a full moral agent to make and act on decisions that when done by a moral agent are immoral and harmful to others is a good thing to do. I think it's a downright crappy thing to do. He does NOT have to be empowered to disempower others in order to become eudaimon. Rather, doing this normalizes it. It is alreay so normalized in our society that this is a huge risk to take. Disempowering others is diseudaimon, antithetical to well-being. It makes us feel bad, or at least it ought to. It takes away from our sense of pride and integrity. Compartmentalization sucks.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I have caught up. I trust that our son will choose "good" for himself and others. Not based upon any definition of "good" that I deem moral. I guess I am a moral relativist. (I know at the beginning of the thread, I thought I still held onto some of my Objectivist beliefs. You all talked me right out of them.) I do not believe that there is an objective moral "good". Or else I believe we would be able to agree what "moral" was or wasn't. And we can't even agree that eating a banana split for breakfast is "bad". (Unless all who disagree with one's own "morals" are by definition "irrational".) The judgement of "good" morals depends upon how aware one is and how one views a choice. *What you know determines what you see.*

I tend toward pacifism. Remove the victim not obstruct the 'hitter'. The arguement that offensive (or defensive) aggression is rational or irrational is a complex one. [Bush be damned?] The issue of complict condonation of an act of aggression/violence is multi-faceted. Against what degree of not knowing is one held complict, or no apparent choice exists? (Ignorance is no excuse?) Judgement is subjective. One may choose not to judge the military actions in a defensive war aggression. One may. Coercion is a choice. Autonomy ending at another's nose justifies self-defensive aggression? Offensive first strike when threatened/coerced? Assuming that one (adult or child) is morally undeveloped because they don't choose the same "moral" action as you is an absolutist pov, imo.

I believe that it is not necessary to use coercion in order for children to choose "morally" by any definition. The act of imposing one's morals by force impairs a person from choosing the imposed moral for himself. Who here embraces holding imposed moral values? (Besides Bush.) This seems to be an oxymoron. Perhaps the definition of irrational and amoral is imposing morals in an absolutist manner. But I am not absolute about that. I am fallible.









I'd help the kid seek out having a permanent tattoo. I'd trust he would change his mind before all was said and done. Or not.









Pat (I "have to" go to bed.








)


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I guess when you break it down even further there are even divisions within the divisions of philosophy which make us GD.
Thank you Scubamama for your eloquent post and Dal.
You can be GD and be non-coercive or have no problem with coercion.
You can be non-coercive but make exceptions based on moral beliefs, or make no exceptions believing the child can and should come to these things on their own.
You can have no problem with coercion but have a big problem with any punishment and you can have no problem with coercion and use the rare time out and logical consequence.

We are a small group in comparison to how discipline is done in the rest of the country. But we've still got lots of variety!
Thank you all for participating in this lovely and lively discussion. It has been my favorite diversion for days now!


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Sorry for the length. It's often quicker for me to write looong posts and sometimes I can't help but revisit them and keep blabbing. Some of this is just me blabbing with my fingers trying to sort this stuf out in my head. I think that some of my questions/concerns will be common and if not, they're still my questions/concerns and I'm curious to keep thinking about this and to get some feedback.

One last warning: I'm pretty tired. Hopefully I don't veer too far off topic!!!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *scubamama*

The act of imposing one's morals by force impairs a person from choosing the imposed moral for himself. Who here embraces holding imposed moral values?


A child may be required to act in accordance with certain morals (e.g., not hurt their sibling). The child can indeed later choose this for her or himself. Why should I accept that requiring Simon to abstain from nonvegan foods or from beating on other kids makes it any less likely that he'll choose these values for himself? Doesn't the contrary seem just as likely if not more so? It's far easier for him to always be vegan than to choose to become vegan at, say 6 or 8 or 28 when some of his favourite foods, indeed, several of his staples, may be non-vegan. It's easier for him to refrain from acting out physically when he was sometimes restrained and redirected to help prevent this from becoming a habit. As the poet Evenus says, "Habit is but long practice, friend, and this becomes one's nature in the end" (Stolen from Aristotle's _Nicomachean Ethics_). I don't fully agree with this quote, but don't fully disagree with it either. It needs qualifications, to be sure. But I love the quote and do think there's something to it, so there you go.









Have you heard statistics on adults who were homeschooled by Christian parents and who have adopted their parent's values? It's insanely high -- 80% or more, if I remember correctly. These values were very much imposed on them. The numbers are significantly less for children who were less expected to hold the same beliefs and who were exposed to other beliefs in public schools or even in private Christian schools. I'm not praising this or saying that this is how I hope to guide Simon to accept the basic value that it is wrong to needlessly harm others. My point is just that this is a strong counter-example to your claim that the imposition of values makes it less likely for the child to accept it for her- or himself. That, and the fact that the only children that I know who are vegan were raised to be vegan, just as the children who believe that spanking is wrong have parents who believe this, and so on. How about the belief that wishy-washiness about one's beliefs, especially when they run counter to mainstream culture, makes a child far less apt to adopt them? I know a woman who was raised by laissez-faire vegetarian parents. They didn't really discuss the ethical aspects of it with her, to the best of her recollection. She isn't vegetarian. Why would she be? She was raised with vegetarian foods, but she wasn't raised as a vegetarian. She was more likely to follow the mainstream because it's mainstream and easier to do.

Simon is not yet able to make a full-fledged moral choice in cases in which he lacks the knowledge/experience that so doing requires. I don't think that anyone here embraces holding imposed moral values, but some of us refuse to agree that, e.g., bashing you in the face because I dislike relativism is as good a response as continuing to politely argue with you about it. How can you possibly hold that some things are not morally deplorable? Do you not know that child abuse is wrong? That it is wrong to violate the space and interests of others?

Simon is sleeping now. I'm not violating him in a major way if I go and smother him? That is not morally foul and repugnant? Human societies ought not to accept that doing that type of thing is wrong? Genital mutilation is a social construct just like any other and I'd be wrong to try to stop it from happening?

Wait... how can I think that I'm wrong from trying to stop something if everything is relative? Your stance of non-coerciveness seems to be an objective ethical one. You think that people should not impose their wills on their children because we're all fallible, and because so doing impedes the child's autonomy and so on and so forth (sorry, I need to get back to marking). Or even more than this... that there is no right and wrong. What then is wrong with CIO? That's an answerless question because you are removing the categories of right and wrong from the table, or at least the idea that we can arrive at a mutually agreeable consensus about boundary cases that do involve right and wrong, e.g., Peter Singer's famous example of saving a drowning child if I'm the only one around and this is easy for me to do, and the only negative consequence of doing so is that my clothes will get wet/dirty (this is actually part of an awesome argument that it is immoral to do nothing when people are starving across the globe and we can help to save their lives with very little effort). And of course... there is always that prime case of evil... the holocaust. A subjective wrong, that?

If I/we can't lay down boundary conditions of basic decency and respect for other beings -- because they can feel pain and because needless, unchosen suffering is a bad thing (which I think are intuitively known moral principles, which is not to say that they can never be thwarted) -- what is left? What is the foundation of non-coerciveness? What's the point? What does it matter what anyone chooses? It seems we're left with selfishness and isolation. Are we engaging in non-coercive parenting to raise up some Nietzschean ubermensches? Or is it coercion under the guise of a usually gentler, more strictly emotional and linguistic narrative?

This is fun!!! Will those papers ever get marked!!? Would it be objectively wrong for me to throw them down the hall and assign grades according to where they land? Can't we have a mutally agreeable contract (whether spoken or not) against so doing? Indeed, we do. In virtue of being social beings there are things that we come to accept and expect from each other. Actual rights and wrongs can also exist within a cultural framework, and this framework itself is not beyond scrutiny. Humans have shared characteristics -- rational and emotional -- that are not stamped out through enculturation. We can and do learn to work within other narratives -- however foreign -- and once there, we can bring helpful insights as well as oppressive mentalities. Sometimes it really is fairly easy to see the difference. Consider, e.g., the Talibani oppression of girls and women. That may have been widely accepted as justifiable in that culture, but it was not. It thwarted the real interests that girls and women have in self-actualization, self-determination, security, and on and on. This is a boundary flop. It's unacceptable however justified, even if most of the women have internalized their own oppression.

A willfill toddler will sometimes strike out at others. This should be prevented because it is wrong to walk up to someone and bash them on the head with a toy. There will be situations in which the toddler is not going to make this choice on her or his own.

Non-coerciveness paired with relativism seems to fall apart. How can I justify preventimg Simon from drinking turpentine should he get hold of some? That's imposing my value for health (which is an intrinsic good, imo), which perhaps he does not share. Maybe I'm mistaken in valuing health. Is this persuasive?

If you're going to try to save your child from the ER, you're imposing your preference on his continued well-being over its absense. This is a good thing to do! His continued well-being is OBJECTIVELY (well, little "o" objectively) preferable to his demise or to his needing stitches or whatever. Why is this the case? Because life is good. We value it. It is inherently pleasant. So long as our lives do not turn around so that they are far more painful than pleasant, none of us wants to die. We cherish our well-being and that of our loved ones and we care when we hear that others have been harmed in this way or that. I think that we can look into all of these nearly universal feelings and extract an objective ethics from them. I further think that most people already accept this ethics. We believe in right and wrong. Some things are harder to determine than others and some things are best categorized as neutral, but when it comes to harming other beings, and doing so needlessly, that imo is patently wrong. A mentality that upholds it as acceptable is a warped one. Such mentalities are antithetical to peace and to pacifism.

Do you want your son to be loving towards you and others? Would it bother you if he wants to throw stones at other children? At other animals? Do you not feel an inner drive to protect the other being in this situation? Do you really take this drive to be "your hang-up" as the TCS website puts it? I don't see it as a hang-up. I see it as a dial tone: a starting point that brings all of us together.

Wouldn't you think that someone who lacks the so-called hang-up of caring about harming others is morally deficient and even morally repugnant (or perhaps even suffering from a kind of mental illness or disorder)? How would you respond if you were at a park and a parent sat back and watched while her child beat a toddler or a dog? Parents have ZERO moral responsibility over harms that are caused by their children and that could have been prevented? It is not in the best interest of the child to be prevented from harming others? What do they get out of beating a dog? Many people who experiment with this type of cruelty come to enjoy it. Who is involved in the mutual part of mutual agreeability? Only you and your child? How about the dog being beaten? How about others who can be harmed by his choices? Have they no say? How is it justifiable to silence them? Simply because they are at a distance?

So what if a toddler or child cannot be compelled to stop hitting another child of her or his own volition? Hmmmmm. My words are denying the non-coerciveness of this. It may be less coercive than physically restraining the child -- then again, really? Mental coercion through words seems, perhaps, even deeper to me. We think with words. If you lay a "hitting is painful to others" narrative into your child's head through repetition and whatever other means you deem non-coercive, how is it that this is a belief that he has come up with on his own? He is absorbing your entire way of thinking. This is what children do. It is only when they are older that they start to question it. You (and your dh and his other central caregivers) are the epistemic and moral authorities in your child's life. Our narratives are not separate from our ethical beliefs. They are intertwined. We are social creatures. We are meant to learn modes of conduct from our parents and others. If left to their own devices, it seems that might makes right is a widely accept toddlerism.

In short, there seems to be a legit comparison between common beliefs about mental abuse often being as bad as if not worse than physical abuse and the belief that mentally imposing one's thoughts into a child's head by giving them information that is meant to lead them to a chosen conclusion is similar to, if not more coercive (because it will perhaps run deeper and have more profound, lasting effects) than physical compulsion. Despite the parallel, I'm not asserting that these forms of coercion are necessarily abusive. Of course this is complex. My key point is a general one: that the very act of indoctrinating a child into our culture (and our specific family's ways of acting and thinking) impacts on that child's autonomy, and that even more so than that, presenting the child with arguments/discussions that are so obviously geared towards complaince needs to be looked at further to determine that it is really and always less coercive than actual physical manouevres (e.g.) gently preventing a child from throwing rocks at another child, or than cases in between the two, e.g., cases in which someone might ask or even tell their child to do something (e.g., "Could you please get in your carseat?" when the intent is more like "I would like for you to get in your carseat"). The mini-arguments given in favour of toothbrushing are just that. Here are the reasons that you should accept in order to brush your teeth and take good care of them. I'm telling you a, b, c, d, e, . . . there are not really a variety of conclusions that follow from this this type of argument. A series of counter-arguments are not offered to give alternative perspectives (e.g., opting for dentures!). Rather, what seems to be happening is that this message is being conveyed: I want you to brush your teeth for the reasons that I'm giving you. If you don't, you aren't listeng to reason and your teeth will probably decay, which is a bad thing. I will however give you several options and we'll keep trying until we find something that is agreeable to you. If you don't like any of the options, your teeth will probably decay. That is a bad thing, as I've said. It may hurt. Choosing decayed teeth is clearly choosing the wrong response, whether or not shame and blame are laid down (which they shouldn't be). The entire argument is set up that way. Is the child complying of their own true volition, or because they want to please or displease their parent by, respectively, choosing the proper or improper actions that flow from the lesson being taught? Of course it may be a mix. But is it noncoercive?

Is it wrong to convey to a child that their choice to let their teeth decay (should this be their preferred response despite being given information that shows them that this is not a wise thing to do) is equally valid to taking care of their teeth? Would it be wrong to say, "Oh honey! I can see a lot of plaque on your teeth. I'm really worried about that. I want your teeth to stay healthy and strong. It's really important to take good care of them." I'm not seeing anything wrong with this. Should I be, according to my dissidents?

Some children learn through language to a better degree whereas others are more physical learners. Some may learn from more direct information than the more subtle type of manouevering that would lead to compliance ("Here are all the facts you need to know [no problem with this!?!], I'll tell you everything but the conclusion. You can follow the facts for yourself and see where they lead. What will you choose?"). Provided that the child is not upset about what is going on and is mutually agreeing to it, what's really the difference here? Or does it not count as mutual agreeability in some of these cases?

What would it mean for non-coercive parenting to be truly that? What should we take to count as mutually agreeable choices? Seeking for compliance about many issues -- e.g., teeth brushing, eventually getting into a carseat, not harming others -- doesn't seem problematic if the goal is mutual agreeability. But I'm having trouble figuring out the non-coercive bit. Why is it being considered a good to not impose a value system on to a child? Are all value systems harmful? And how is it possible to not teach one's value system to one's child? Is it not best to try to take care to impose a very good value system than to try to do without one, leaving everything supposedly up in the air for the child to decide? But again is this really the case? "Simon, when you throw a rock at Susie it hurts her. Oh look, she's crying." There is only one conclusion to draw from that. "Hurting Susie is my choice and it's o.k." is the wrong answer. That's not hard to decipher. If it were, gd wouldn't work very well. The right answer is that "Oh. I should stop throwing rocks because it is not nice to hurt Susie." So how is information given in a way that does not pass along a value system? How do you decide which information is relevant? And, why is preferable if it does not pass along a carefully thought out value system? Simply because some value systems are oppressive? If this is the case, we need more non-oppressive ones, right? I don't see how anyone can be raised into a truly neutral value system, and certainly don't see why this would be a good thing.

Not all cases of physical impositions are going to be unpleasant and not all cases of emotional impositons are going to be pleasant for the child. Sometimes a bit of unpleasantness is unavoidable and preferable than the alternative when, e.g., the alternative involves unjustly causing harm to another being. If, that is, it is ever unjust to harm anyone.









I hope I'm not discouraging conversation by my ongoing blabbery. I'm finally heading to bed so that should shut me up for awhile, plus dh won't be home today so I'm not likely to have much of a break to keep at this until later. Maybe that's a good thing, though I feel that I'm getting a lot out of this conversation. Still have a loooong way to go and still not even fully understanding what I'm arguing for or against.







The end.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

We are so far from talking about actual children and actual situations that I'm going to bow out







This is more Pat's type discussion than mine. I go by what I see in my home, how we feel and how it works.

I just wanted to answer a pp question about have my kids done something I've found morally reprehensible. They short answer is that they haven't. They have done things that I don't care for and that go against some core values on occasion but I'd never describe it as morally reprehensible. The thing I'm thinking of is my oldest. She is highly sensitive and very protective of her space. If it is violated or if she is violated (her word) there is no turning back, that person is not ok with her. That person could be a toddler that took a toy out of her hand (her being 8) or pushed her. There is no allowance for age with her, no redo, that's it. I find that REALLY tough. At the time she did this to my best friend's child, I found it REALLY, REALLY tough. It wasn't that I couldn't see her POV, it was valid but to never forgive to not give any allowances seemed awfully harsh. In the end, I realized that is just who she is. She values social rules and doesn't understand when others don't abide by them. I realized she doesn't need to like everyone and she shouldn't have to be around people that she feels don't respect her. Me letting go of my need for them to work it out, freed her to move forward. I was contributing to her "harsh" reaction but not valuing her decision to separate herself. They still aren't friends and maybe never will be but she isn't so dug into her position about him. So yes, that was hard but it still wouldn't (didn't) work for me to impose my "be nice to everyone" mime on to her. I did try for awhile but finally got it. She can make those decisions for herself. She is the best/only person that can make those decisions. I was undermining the signals she was getting and asking her to basically ignore them. I made a mistake in doing that. Those messages are SO important and I don't want to ever be a part of teaching her to ignore them.

Back to your high level philosophical discussion









Anna


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

a little







here, but not really because I would like everyone's imput on this. I've been thinking about it lately, and I thought it would be a good example for NCPers to discuss?

My dd sucks her thumb. We have all heard that it can possibly damage teeth or cause them to grow improperly, etc. They look a little - different - if you really think about it, but I really don't think you would notice unless it was pointed out. Anyhow, I would like to encourage her to give it up but she is _nowhere_ near doing so. And she's 4.5.









If you were worried about your child's dental health concerning thumb-sucking, how would you go about helping them give it up in a non-coercive way? Or, is this something you would let go because it is their choice whether they thumb-suck and damage their teeth or not?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Dal, I am reading with apt attention. But I just had to laugh at the preface "In short," of this looonnnngggg paragraph. I love philosophy. I agree that what we believe is what we live and what we model. Back to reading.

Can we have a show of hands who is still reading?









Quote:

In short, there seems to be a legit comparison between common beliefs about mental abuse often being as bad as if not worse than physical abuse and the belief that mentally imposing one's thoughts into a child's head by giving them information that is meant to lead them to a chosen conclusion is similar to, if not more coercive (because it will perhaps run deeper and have more profound, lasting effects) than physical compulsion. Despite the parallel, I'm not asserting that these forms of coercion are necessarily abusive. Of course this is complex. My key point is a general one: that the very act of indoctrinating a child into our culture (and our specific family's ways of acting and thinking) impacts on that child's autonomy, and that even more so than that, presenting the child with arguments/discussions that are so obviously geared towards complaince needs to be looked at further to determine that it is really and always less coercive than actual physical manouevres (e.g.) gently preventing a child from throwing rocks at another child, or than cases in between the two, e.g., cases in which someone might ask or even tell their child to do something (e.g., "Could you please get in your carseat?" when the intent is more like "I would like for you to get in your carseat"). The mini-arguments given in favour of toothbrushing are just that. Here are the reasons that you should accept in order to brush your teeth and take good care of them. I'm telling you a, b, c, d, e, . . . there are not really a variety of conclusions that follow from this this type of argument. A series of counter-arguments are not offered to give alternative perspectives (e.g., opting for dentures!). Rather, what seems to be happening is that this message is being conveyed: I want you to brush your teeth for the reasons that I'm giving you. If you don't, you aren't listeng to reason and your teeth will probably decay, which is a bad thing. I will however give you several options and we'll keep trying until we find something that is agreeable to you. If you don't like any of the options, your teeth will probably decay. That is a bad thing, as I've said. It may hurt. Choosing decayed teeth is clearly choosing the wrong response, whether or not shame and blame are laid down (which they shouldn't be). The entire argument is set up that way. Is the child complying of their own true volition, or because they want to please or displease their parent by, respectively, choosing the proper or improper actions that flow from the lesson being taught? Of course it may be a mix. But is it noncoercive?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I'm still here! My aim is to get more responses than the "children on leashes" thread























It is great though, that although there are differing views, we have, for the most part remained really respectful of eachother and it hasn't degenerated into madness...madnessss I say....


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

I'm still here reading too. Though I don't have much to add at this point, I am thoroughly enjoying the deepness of the discussion, and believe some very good points have been made by people who live at differing points on the coersion spectrum.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SunRayeMomi*
a little







here, but not really because I would like everyone's imput on this. I've been thinking about it lately, and I thought it would be a good example for NCPers to discuss?

If you were worried about your child's dental health concerning thumb-sucking, how would you go about helping them give it up in a non-coercive way? Or, is this something you would let go because it is their choice whether they thumb-suck and damage their teeth or not?

It does seem OT but I'll chime in anyway







My oldest sucked her thumb and I had heard the concerns. When I did some digging they seem to be myths. My dh sucked his thumb, never needed braces, I didn't and REALLY needed braces, I have 2 friends that did and 2 that didn't same played out with them. So I just let it go and she gave it up on her own time, which for her was around 6.5. She is 8 and her teeth are great. So just realize it is not a given that "teeth are damaged" so it is worth a power struggle for a might happen? Not for me and my dd has fond memories of it and no ill feelings about herself or that fact that she did it.

Anna


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I'm still reading!









I think children naturally have empathy, so I can't imagine a child thinking, "I can throw rocks at Suzi and hurt her but that's OK and I'm going to keep doing it." Unless it's a young sociopath or something.

The vegan thing is a sticky issue because to me, meat and dairy are not relevant to an issue of hurting/harm. Though I do only buy free range beef and cage free eggs/chicken. I don't personally see that domesticized animals have a "natural life" per se as they wouldn't exist in the form they're in if not for being used for food. But I have enough vegan friends to know the other side of that arguement - to vegans any possible suffering of animals is not part of their lives through choosing to be vegan, and that's a very big deal to them.

Still, I don't think it's fair to say that if vegans compel their kids to be vegans that's a moral necessity, but if Christians compel their kids to go to church or participate in other religious activities, that isn't a moral necessity. To deeply religious families, the need for their children to embrace their faith is as important as veganism is to you (Dal? Cpt. Crunchy? LOL to all vegans I guess). I'm agnostic so I'm saying this as an outsider to religion.

I've said and I'll say again that I'm not nor could I ever claim to be entirely non-coercive. I try not to coerce unless it seems absolutely necessary. Maybe that's where we all are, but we define "absolutely necessary" differently.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I'm still here to!
And Id not worry about the thumb sucking. After all it is my personal opinion that any changes do not "ruin" teeth but make a purely cosmetic and fully correctible change. And that is only if there is any affect at all.

I am NOT non-coercive by nature as a parent but I do have a teenager. And I think that it becomes very important to let go of any control you have had or expect to have when children reach the age where they demand it. So while I have 4 kids, I would say I do practice NCP with my oldest (for the most part), but only because she is at an age where her autonomy is more important to her than pleasing her parents.
And I face daily the possiblity that she does things that I find if not repugnant, then morally appalling.
And I hold my breath and pray that she survives adolescence unscathed!
Letting go is so hard to do. Maybe it would be easier for parents who never were under the delusion that they had any control in the first place?

Hmmm
Anyway, I'm coercing my children to go to the zoo with me today! So I will be away from my desk!








Have fun
Joline


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't think it is a *need* of mine that my daughter embrace veganism. Would it be great? Sure it would. My only need for her as a very young child, is to know inside myself that I prevented her participation in what I believe to be are unspeakable acts against creatures that I seek to dwell in peace with until she is old enough to grasp the enormity of the facts. To me it is not enough to say to a small child "that burger is a dead cow"... yes, they may process it and even believe you when you say that, but as Dal pointed out so well, their ability to connect the two things in such a way to realize the process of getting that cow to your plate is simply not there yet. Maybe it is selfish on my part, but I don't want to sit my 4 year old in front of "Meet your Meat" so she can truly "get" it (and be scarred for life in the process like I was -- when I saw it at 16)...

In other words, if a choice has to be taken away, and in terms of veganism, ONE choice does have to be taken away. Either take away their choice to live a life completely free of consumption of another creature's flesh and milk by introducing something early on that they may find utterly appauling and ethically inexcusable when they grow to understand the process-- or taking away a choice that can't be made in full consciousness as a very young child to allow them to make a pure informed choice later on if they decide to eat meat. To me, restricting the unconcious choice to eat meat, which would be a choice made (imo) strictly based on the trust of adults around them (the same way a small child would trust that an adult wouldn't give them poison), is more desirable to me than allowing them to make a choice they can never take back.

Of course I do base this on my own personal life experience and the experience of several friends of mine who became vegan in their teen years. I still feel ill when I let myself think of being a kid and eating all the meat we ate...not having any real clue what it was. Sure, I knew chicken was a dead chicken, but I didn't GET what it was, the connection wasn't there, the knowledge wasn't there, the ability to process the idea that humans could be so dispicable to other animals. I dunno what I thought, other than I was indoctrinated at an early age to just consume without thought.

Indocrination is always happening, whether you believe it is intentional or not, whether you attempt to or not. Our children are like little sponges soaking in everything we say do,feel, express, and live. So for instance, if you brush your teeth twice a day every day and little Johnny sees you doing that, one doesn't even have to express to little Johnny that brushing your teeth is a desirable thing to do and that he should do it. Little Johnny, loving his parents and looking up to them as children do, will get the messege, even if words aren't spoken, that brushing one's teeth is desirable (whether he chooses to do it daily or not)...

So on the issue of meat, is the choice really a concious choice to a young child? Perhaps it is seen as something acceptable and desirable for a child to do because the adults around him or her are doing it and they seem to be thinking it a desirable choice. Dal brought up Nazi Germany. I think this is a great example. Did the children spitting and throwing stones on the street at the Jews REALLY hate Jewish people? Deep inside them, did they REALLY make the choice that Jews were dispicable and thus needed to be put in ghettos or exterminated? Or was it that they observed the adults around them that they loved, admired, and trusted, talking about Jewish people, or throwing stones at them, and made a *choice* that if their parents, whom they love, admire, and look up to were doing it, it must be desirable?

If my daughter chooses to eat meat later on, she will have years and years of meals to catch up for lost time...but if I can restrict an immediate choice with the honest intention of offering her a pure, educated choice, that is the route I am going to take.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Still here! Have fun at the zoo, Joline!

Dal, you're teaching a class? I wish I could take it!

I just wanted to clarify my statement about you either coerce or you don't. Like CaptainCruncy said, of course you won't always be able to do it, but I meant that it is either your overarching philosophy, or it isn't.

Also, back to what Pat said about coercion being a slippery slope, a long time ago, I just have to say that I disagree with this. I "coerce" less and less as my dd gets older, and according to Joline, I'll be an NCP by the time she's a teen, anyway!


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Dal brought up Nazi Germany. I think this is a great example. Did the children spitting and throwing stones on the street at the Jews REALLY hate Jewish people? Deep inside them, did they REALLY make the choice that Jews were dispicable and thus needed to be put in ghettos or exterminated? Or was it that they observed the adults around them that they loved, admired, and trusted, talking about Jewish people, or throwing stones at them, and made a *choice* that if their parents, whom they love, admire, and look up to were doing it, it must be desirable?

Yeah! Have you ever seen the clip of the teenage girl who was being escorted into the high school in ********** (I think?) by the National Guard when they were desegregating, and the white girl pushes her? I saw a video at the Smithsonian of those two girls meeting, as middle-aged women, and the white woman apologized to her and explained how she didn't know any better. It's bringing tears to my eyes right now! Kind of OT, but as far as indoctrination and personal choice go...


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Dal,

I understand where you are coming from. I really do. I just do not believe there is an absolute right and wrong. Even about harming others. Or animals. Harming others in self defense is commonly considered an exception to the "absolute". Even the act of assisted suicide is considered by some an exception to the "absolute". Most view the act of abortion debatable. With animals, I believe by my very act of living, I do harm other animals indirectly. By living in a house that clear cut some small portion of land and thus the animals lost their home. By driving on roads which destroyed animal habitat, etc. Direct and indirect harm is a whole 'nuther continuum. Knowingly and unknowingly harming is another continuum. One can fall/choose anywhere on the continuum based upon one's degree of awareness of direct or indirect impact. But, I do not believe that 'not harming' while living are mutually realistic. And I do not believe in martyrdom, even as an almost pacifist. A fine distinction, I am sure.

The relevant variable being an autonomy not to act, *or* an autonomy to act. Neither being compulsory based upon some moral absolute.

I actively do not "raise our son to be" "moral" by any definition. I do consciously and conscientiously model my own personal moral code of not harming or coercing others to the best of my ability and awareness at any point in time. "I intentionally do the best that I can at all times." And I do give information of social conventions because our son seeks to be a social being innately. However, he has a choice to adopt or reject these morals or coventions for himself. I trust that he will choose his own definition of "moral" despite his inescapable "nurture"/environment. Because to the best of my ability I hold that nurture/environment to a standard of volitional, rather than "inescapable". Your arguement about mental/psychological (verbal) coercion is a HUGE dilemma for me. And as you mentioned convincing, persuasion, selective information provision are as potentially imposing as any physical coercion. As such I do not imbue actions with judgement. Our son is not informed that any action of his is right/wrong/ok/unacceptable except as it relates to expressing my own judgement of the impact of his actions on *me*. Or as I mention the non-verbal or verbal objection of others (people or animals) about the impact of his actions on themself. Or proactively to provide him with non-compulsory information about generally 'accepted' socio-cultural norms. Or provide as information as objectively as possible about actions which may harm him.

We have a large social network within which he receives many iterations of imposed/coerced precepts of 'right' and 'wrong'. However, I consciously and conscientiously do not convey these judgements in an effort to either lead him to my moral code, or dissuade him from an alternate moral code. As such, I see that he has integrated and chosen many of my beliefs of volitional interconnectivity and a desire to support and nurture others unconditionally. He does not do this perfectly or consistently. I realize with each day of increased awareness of other's suffering, including animals, nor do I.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I'm still here! My aim is to get more responses than the "children on leashes" thread























It is great though, that although there are differing views, we have, for the most part remained really respectful of eachother and it hasn't degenerated into madness...madnessss I say....

Wow! We'd have to hit 542 posts *and* not get locked down. Which is coercive, btw!












































Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

However, I consciously and conscientiously do not convey these judgements in an effort to either lead him to my moral code, or dissuade him from an alternate moral code.
I agree with that, but I also maintain that one wouldn't even have to assign judgement or someone or some thing or some act to their child in order for their child to pick up on the *moral* code in the home or elsewhere. For instance, I would never even have to say one word to my daughter either way about how I feel concerning animal rights. Merely by the act of being involved in the causes of animals and having the information available in my home, as well as several ongoing campaigns -- I will not even have to broach the subject of the way I feel for her to understand how I feel when she reaches the age where she can read, or even the age where she can understand conversations around her.

The same goes for anything else. While to me the act of brushing one's teeth isn't a moral dilemma, the mere act of witnessing my husband and I brush our teeth regularly will send the clear messege that brushing one's teeth is desirable in our home. Even if she chooses not to brush, even if we don't punish her for not brushing or tell her that her teeth are going to fall out or anything -- the mere act of my husband and I brushing our teeth on a daily basis in her presence and when she gets slightly older, the realization on her part that most people do the same -- the messege is already sent brushing teeth=good not brushing=bad, or not normal -- even if a word or judgement isn't mentioned at all.

So while I do think it is very noble to aspire to live as purely as possible with respect to our children making decisions without influence or judgement -- even if the only judgement you are giving to whether something is desirable or not is simply the act of you choosing to do it or not -- the influence is there.

I believe we are constantly teaching our children are morals and values just by the act of how we conduct ourselves in our home and with others even if no attempt to *teach"* or *judge* is made. I feel that most (very young) children have a strong desire to mimic their parents, to please their parents, to do things that are desirable to their parents... I think where this goes awry is when the parents take advantage of that and exploit it.... such as telling a child santa won't bring presents if they aren't good or that it "hurts mommy's feelings" when they refuse to brush their teeth and things of that nature.

In everyone I ever met, certain morals and values were taught in the home, by whatever means the parents have chosen -- by the strictest enforcement, or by simply living their life and their child picking up on *how* they live their life and forming their beliefs on that. I have observed though, the people who usually rebel the most against the moral codes that have been taught are the people who felt exploited by them, used by them, punished by them, imprisoned by them.... but then again, to me it is really very simple actually, semantics and what if's aside. I feel that if someone is consistently treated with kindess, love, respect, trust, and decency, they return that to you and to almost everyone they encounter 9 times out of 10...


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Wow! We'd have to hit 542 posts and not get locked down. *Which is coercive*, btw!
Now, now Pat, reign it in...there is absolutely NO judgement of the practices at MDC allowed here


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

How many times has the word coercive been used in this thread? Any takers? I say 487 times...


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

*ambdkf* - thanks for the reply







You have reassured me that she is still young and I will not pressure her


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
Why then would I support non-coercion as ideal in cases in which no one is being harmed? Because his interests and his feelings are important.

yes. I feel exactly the same way!

I'm only up to post 287, but I've decided that I agree with just about everything you say


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
How many times has the word coercive been used in this thread? Any takers? I say 487 times...

There are 308 posts. Some dont use the word at all, some use it 50x. So my guess is HMMM
924 times.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
So while I do think it is very noble to aspire to live as purely as possible with respect to our children making decisions without influence or judgement

I disagree with this completely, and I guess I now realize that's why I can't really be a non-coercive parent. Not only do I agree with Captain Crunchy that it's impossible to NOT influence our children's morality, I consciously and conscientiously teach my child about my own personal moral code, and will continue to do so throughout her life.

No, I don't believe in forcing it down their throat, but I will make it clear where I stand and what I believe to be right and wrong. I believe it is my duty as a parent. I do think it's good to be as non-coercive as possible, but I will not hope and assume that my children will develop a strong moral compass without any help. Maybe I should give them more credit, maybe they can learn it all by example, but I just want to be sure.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I disagree with this completely, and I guess I now realize that's why I can't really be a non-coercive parent. Not only do I agree with Captain Crunchy that it's impossible to NOT influence our children's morality, I consciously and conscientiously teach my child about my own personal moral code, and will continue to do so throughout her life.

No, I don't believe in forcing it down their throat, but I will make it clear where I stand and what I believe to be right and wrong. I believe it is my duty as a parent. I do think it's good to be as non-coercive as possible, but I will not hope and assume that my children will develop a strong moral compass without any help. Maybe I should give them more credit, maybe they can learn it all by example, but I just want to be sure.









:
I dont see it as somethign to be avoided or even something that could be avoided. In fact I see it as an integral part of my job.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

This is the most fascinating discussion I've had the pleasure to read.

I'm going to admit: it's also the most confusing.







: I read this and I think everyone's talking about two different things and calling them by the same name. I read this and I think of coercion as compelling someone to do something by force or by threat or maybe even rewards, or preventing them from doing something by force or threat (you will not do that in my home or else!) or maybe rewards. I think of guidance as the discussion of values, sharing of information, and role-modeling-and I just don't see guidance as coercive.

I'm seeing things here being discussed as if they are coercion (at least that's my interpretation), when to me they seem more like guidance. In my mind to tell my child that it's not kind to hit people, and that I want them to be gentle with each other but I'm not punishing them or threatening them, is guidance rather than coercion...but that may be seen here by some as coercion? I see the decision not to serve meat in one's own home when one believes the eating of meat to be immoral as role-modeling and the sharing of information about one's own values. I see it as guidance.

It seems to me that young children need an awful lot of things explained to them, they are rational, feeling people who are also inexperienced and to varying degrees they are limited in their understanding in various ways. They need guidance in making decisions. Not coercion, but guidance. Heck, I still need guidance at times as an adult-I still find myself limited in my understanding and I still find myself inexperienced. The line between coercion and guidance may be a fine one at times, I suppose. And it also seems to me that being human, even the parent most committed to non-coercion is likely to be coercive at some point. That's not horrible. I would think that the goal would only be to be as non-coercive as possible, not perfectly non-coercive.

Anyway, I feel lost and inexperienced right now. Feel free to disregard this post.







Just blabbering and trying to sort it out. Back to your regularly scheduled brilliant discussion...


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I disagree with this completely, and I guess I now realize that's why I can't really be a non-coercive parent.

I think the waters are being muddy a bit by my dear friend Pat (Scubamama)







I do share my beliefs and values with my children, as they are integral to how we live. We thank plants for nourishing us (animals too), we ask trees before we place a swing in them. These are things they are learning from me, my value of nature and my beliefs about it. That is a completely separate issue from using coercion. Coercion just isn't a tool we use in our home, we haven't found it necessary.

I do disagree with the sentiment of it's my "duty" or that somehow I can guarantee that they will adopt my beliefs. That isn't my goal at all. I see they are capable of learning to be members of society and meet a 'moral code' because they want to, they are interested in it and see that it helps them. So I do give them that credit. I just share my beliefs because I'm passionate about them. They have taught me many things too, deepening my understanding of many things. That's the beauty, the give and take.

So please don't toss the baby out with the bath water







You can still share your beliefs and be a NCP. They are not mutually exclusive. IMHO









Anna


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
I'm going to admit: it's also the most confusing.







: I read this and I think everyone's talking about two different things and calling them by the same name. I read this and I think of coercion as compelling someone to do something by force or by threat or maybe even rewards, or preventing them from doing something by force or threat (you will not do that in my home or else!) or maybe rewards. I think of guidance as the discussion of values, sharing of information, and role-modeling-and I just don't see guidance as coercive.

I believe the issue as it relates to this thread is if a parent is compelling (child "has to") adhere to a moral code because it is a right/wrong edict that compulsion (coercion) is a very different degree of "guidance" than giving information with or without overtly sharing one's moral code.

As it relates to my own practice of "parenting", I could say that I unschool morals through modeling, without teaching, instruction, indoctrination, proscription (there is a continuum of degrees of "guidance"). But more philosophically, I Trust our son to adopt a moral code of his own based upon his own best judgement without overt external direction from me. And that as a principle, I do not feel that imposing my moral code on him, in any intentional degree, is in line with a belief that he knows "best" for himself. Conveying unconditional Trust in his ability to choose a moral code is more important to me than conveying a "right/wrong" code of morality. I don't Fear that he will choose a moral code that is "wrong", implying I need to "teach" him what is "right".

However, non-coercive parents can certainly share their moral beliefs. Which I obviously do by modelling. My focus is on verbally "sharing" information in a mutually agreeable manner, irrelevant of type of information. Just as I share information and opinions with our son when he is interested, I solicit his opinions and moral perspective to understand him. The process of sharing information about my moral beliefs is in a discussion format (mutual learning), not a teaching format. I don't have an agenda or expected outcome of him adopting my moral beliefs.

Pat


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Sorry that I'm not doing much to respond to individals here. Despite appearances, I'm rushed.









SunRayeMomi, my teeth were harmed by thumb-sucking. I sucked my thumb until I was 12 or so. The only thing that helped was when I started going to the orthodontist's for braces and he put an arch in my mouth. I assume this was for an actual purpose, but it made the thumb-sucking uncomfortable enough that I stopped quickly after that. I was happy about this as it was an embarassing thing to do, and of course because it was ruining (had ruined) the aesthetics of my teeth. My parents told me every lie under the sun to try to coerce me to stop. They never told me that it might cause my teeth to move, nor did they show me any pictures of the possible end result. I seriously think that may have helped because I was intelligent enough to know that no, my thumb wasn't going to fall off from sucking on it. I've since had braces and my teeth are now fine. I think it's worth further thought, especially if she spends quite a bit of time sucking her thumb. Maybe some orthodontists put in such a bridge specifically as a preventative measure? It wasn't at all a big deal to have it inserted.

Scubamama, what I'm advocating is not an absolute ethics. I may have forgotten a few qualifiers, but I did mention repeatedly that what is wrong is not any and every instance of harm to another being, but causing or contributing to the "unnecessary" and "needless" suffering of others. Of course I acknowledge that in virtue of being alive and meeting my needs, I cannot help but to cause some harm to others. I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find a vegan who claims to cause no suffering to others. Even Jains acknowledge that their way of life does cause some suffering.

I really have trouble accepting that you can possibly believe that there are no moral rights and wrongs? Allow for a contextual take, as any well-thought out ethics would do. So, given the current context, with Simon once again sleeping, can you honestly tell me that it would not be 100% morally reprehensible for me to start beating him? Let's pretend that I have some anger management issues and am brimming with anger and take it out on him. There is no gun to my head. I could have chosen to act otherwise. I knew what I was going to do before doing it and knew what I was doing during the beating. Beating him is not going to end world hunger. I'm not having a psychotic break. What there is is just what is in this room: a mom at her laptop blabbing away as she does and a precious little boy sound asleep on the bed next to her. Kicking him wouldn't be wrong? You seem to think that coercing him to get into the carseat is wrong. How can it be that you don't think that any well-functioning human ought to believe that such an act is morally deplorable?

Philosophical arguments in favour of skepticism are notoriously persuasive. Yet no one takes them seriously, at least, that is, no one lives their life as if they genuinely hold a radical skeptical position. I think this is even more true with moral relativism. (Though some people do accept it and act in accordance with it, I don't see you as doing this.) To be honest, this is my psychobabble take on your position: You accept relativism on a philosophical level, you have arguments in support of it, but many of your other narratives (e.g. the claim that coercion is wrong), as well as your other actions and re-actions indicate otherwise. You do not think it is equally good for your son to grow up to beat his children as it is for him to grow up to rally against child abuse. If he felt that it was o.k. to beat children, or to beat a dog, you would think that this is wrong of him. Wouldn't you? Of course you would. I think that your claims to relativism are especially unbelievable because you stand out as such a strong moral voice on these boards. If you truly think it's all subjective, why are you so amazing and helpful to others? I've wondered if many of your posts are done (at least in part) as a kind of community service/activism. Why do you care whether they force their child into a carseat? Why are you careful with how you word things so as not to cause offense (or maybe this comes naturally to you)? The claims to relativism do not jive with much of anything that I've heard and learned from you (other than your claims to relativism). So either you're mistaken about being a relativist, we're using the terms in inconsistent ways, or I'm seriously missing something here.

What if we talked of Big "O" Objective ethics and little "o" objective ethics. Is that the least bit helpful? An advocate of the Big "O" would hold that there are absolute moral commands (a sophisticated account of this usually allows for exceptions so that, e.g., taking a human life is not always unjustified so that wanton killing is wrong but euthanasia is sometimes acceptable). The foundation for these O commands is taken to exist above and beyond the animal realm: the Forms of the Good for Plato, God, or some other supernatural or super-metaphysical basis is assumed (or argued for). This is where absolute ethics loses me. Little "o" ethics can be entirely naturalistic. It can be based on the types of beings that we are and the interests that we have.

Whatever the narratives that our lives take on, the common nature that we share remains. We seek comfort and pleasure and shun pains (except those that we think are beneficial to us or to things/beings we hold dear). We take food, shelter, health, personal safety, and freedom from oppression to be goods, we want to be loved and treated with respect, and so on. Since these are common goods, we can assume that every being who has them wants them to be protected. We know that we do not want these things taken from us or threatened. We have strong reasons for thinking that it's wrong to take these goods from others when it is easily avoidable (or when the gain to us in minimal and the pain to them is extreme, to give an easy example). Call it empathetic inference. We *feel* the wrongness of a blatantly wrong action when we see it or hear about it. This response can be thwarted, but I do think it's the natural and most widely held response to the suffering of others.

The fancy tactics that are undertaken to keep compartmentalization afloat testify to the truth of this. We distance ourselves from the victims in order to continue their victimization. They become the Others, inferiors, less important, not worth considering. We mock them. Don't think about them. We are so much better than them that we're justified in using force against them, torturing them, and so on, because our interests are so much more important (a completely flawed argument). Even if one upholds such a mentality of domination, it is threatened and shattered by the realization of inconsistencies in our narratives (e.g., women are stupid and thus don't deserve the right to vote, Frankenstein was written by a woman, Frankenstein in a brilliant novel, maybe women aren't stupid?). I think that, assuming an older child or adult is not so far gone as to simply refuse to question the possibility that it might be wrong to believe that (e.g.) women should be submissive to men, ongoing debate (especially in the form of a Socratic-type discussion) that appeals to our in-built rationality and our common interests and awareness of those of others can lead to the widespread acceptance of objective boundary conditions (it would be idealistic to the extreme to think that everyone would come to accept the conditions, but this doesn't make them any less acceptable).

Aside from defending a philosophical thesis, how could you think that the holocaust was not patently wrong? Is your hesisitation of doing so because you hold the view that any objective ethics must also be absolute (i.e., if it's wrong to beat children there can never be any counter-examples to this, even if there is a gun involved and the child will be shot if I don't punch him). What about our shared traits as a basis for an objective ethics? That is not persuasive?

How about the point that both Captain Crunchy and I have raised: who counts in relation to the quest for mutual agreeability? And if you are ruling some animals (humans or otherwise) out of the equation, by what basis can you justify this exclusion?

natensarah, I'm a teaching assistant for an intro philosophy class. It isn't very glamourous. I do hope to teach courses on ethics and I dream of creating a course on philosophical writing. I really think such a course should exist. It probably does, but if so, it isn't widespread. Students from far beyond the philosophy department could really benefit from such a course. I love to scheme about pedagogy. They'd have a deadline date to submit their first essay, say Oct. 1st, and would be instructed to bring it to class. Come Oct. 1st, I'd have overheads that go over the common shortcomings of first year papers. I'd ask the students to think about which (often embarassing) mistakes they made and let them know that the average grade would most likely be 65% (major shocker to these students who are used to getting nothing but A's). They'd then have another week or two to polish their essay or re-write it if need be. In many cases I suspect that this would be the first time that they actually kept working on a paper once they had a complete draft. I'd also encourage students to re-submit work (provided the changes are substantial rather than petty as this would be time consuming to do). I do love to blab.









So much for spending Simon's nap finishing off that batch of papers! Oh well. I have managed to grade most of them.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

sledgI read this and I think everyone's talking about two different things and calling them by the same name. I read this and I think of coercion as compelling someone to do something by force or by threat or maybe even rewards said:


> I think what we are talking about is not simply guidance such as. "Hitting hurts others. Lets not hit people. Please dont hit your friend. We can find another way to solve this problem" is a way of sharing information and discussing values.
> But to step in and remove your child or stop his hand to prevent the other child from being hit (or hit again) is coercive. But most of us would do this in the interest in the protection of the other child.
> Not having meat in the house and discussing the values of a vegan lifestyle is a discussion of values and sharing of information.
> Telling your child they may not have that meatball in the buffet line is coercive.
> ...


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Ok, Dal. You know much more than I do about philosophy theory. I keep having to look up your "isms"









No, I believe I grok skepticism and moral relativism.







And I hold a personal moral code which I apply as objectively (little o) as possible. But, I do not believe it is the right moral code and others are wrong.

Have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintence? It affected me deeply. From Objectivism (big O). Zen Buddhism and child bearing changed my perspective of objective reality.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Btw, I never judged that (nor said) coercion was "wrong". I don't believe it is necessary. But, I am not absolutely sure of that either.







I do not perceive actions in the right/wrong matrix. I believe there is a rationale/perspective underlying what influences ("causes") actions, interconnected to the past (nature/nurture), beyond pure free will.

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Okay this would be a great beginning to a joke --

A Philosopher, an Anthropologist, and a Sociologist (me) walk into a bar....


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
And as an anthropologist you have to be a relativist in order to understand cultures objectively.

I don't think this can be done. You can't learn facts about another culture and think of them in a way that is entirely outside of your belief systems. I don't think that we can't escape our belief systems like this. Perhaps something like this works within anthropology, but I think that this would be a very, very harmful thing for people to be taught to do. Sometimes we're justified to step in and end a holocaust and pretending that it's o.k. is just that. Sometimes it's wrong to not step in.

Doesn't it feel like killing and torturing a baby is wrong not because it is good for that baby to grow up to be an adult (though this is part of it), but because of the suffering that the baby will endure? I think that the inherent goodness of sensations of well-being and the inherent badness of those of pain and the like can get us really far on their own. Even if humans lost their ability to procreate, we should still accept and follow the basic boundary condition of refraining from unnecessarily causing harm to others. Empathy would still persist. I think it's part of the amazing oomph that gets us from a collection of bumbling molecules to a sentient being. I think this oomph, i.e., our existential experiences, are the basis for morality. What is the justification for the claim that it is good to procreate at all if it is not the fact that life is (for the most part) inherently desireable? It isn't good just because and when it persists. Why is persistence preferable to reconstitution? It's the unexplainable oomph that makes it good. I think our accounts may be compatible.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

cc: very funny! Trying to finish that one.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Pat, I might have a copy of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintence (I think an ex left it in my possession, or maybe loaned it to me -- a hint?).







I'll look for it. I've studied Zen Buddhism and Taoism to some extent, but it was awhile ago and the text was a boring one (at the time, maybe it would appeal to me now. I should look at it to see what it is.). From what I can gather from my limited experience with Buddhism, they do uphold an objective ethics and a pretty rigorous one at that, and they believe that others who do not follow suit are not enlightened. They have very laid back ways of dealing with others, but everything I've read deals only with adults and very mundane everyday existence, not with a toddler who is trying to bash in the head of another toddler. I could meditate when Simon bites me and not react. I think that could work very well. Gandhi's mother would show him extra love and care when he did something wrong. They weren't Zen Buddhists though. This is a messy freeflow of thoughts.

I still don't get (or accept) that you can truly believe that it is not wrong to beat a child (or insert other atrocity here). I guess I need to read up on Zen Buddhism. Your post about the right/wrong matrix reminds me of Taoism (I paid more attention to that). Actually, all that you say makes sense from my understanding of Taoism. I think. But is it practically efficacious? I guess that doesn't matter. Care to come to Ontario and explain this to me!? I bet that it is fascinating.







Have you read the Zhuangzi? Also transliterated as Chuang Tsu and Chuang-Tzu and some other variants too. If not I think you'd LOVE it. Here's an online translation: http://www.truetao.org/chuang/. I'm familiar with Burton Watson's translation. I think it's best read in book format. How about Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching? If you haven't read that, I recommend it too.







http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthurs...m/ttc-list.htm.

By your mention of "interconnected to the past" do you mean past lives, or just the past events of the current life?

Simon is up. Must go.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Whew... Can you mamas slow down? I am barely catching up processing your thought flow! Forget getting one of my own









I think I learned so-o-o much in this thread, probably more than in many others combined


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
Pat, I might have a copy of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintence (I think an ex left it in my possession, or maybe loaned it to me -- a hint?).







I'll look for it. I've studied Zen Buddhism and Taoism to some extent, but it was awhile ago and the text was a boring one (at the time, maybe it would appeal to me now. I should look at it to see what it is.). From what I can gather from my limited experience with Buddhism, they do uphold an objective ethics and a pretty rigorous one at that, and they believe that others who do not follow suit are not enlightened. They have very laid back ways of dealing with others, but everything I've read deals only with adults and very mundane everyday existence, not with a toddler who is trying to bash in the head of another toddler. I could meditate when Simon bites me and not react. I think that could work very well. Gandhi's mother would show him extra love and care when he did something wrong. They weren't Zen Buddhists though. This is a messy freeflow of thoughts.

I still don't get (or accept) that you can truly believe that it is not wrong to beat a child (or insert other atrocity here). I guess I need to read up on Zen Buddhism. Your post about the right/wrong matrix reminds me of Taoism (I paid more attention to that). Actually, all that you say makes sense from my understanding of Taoism. I think. But is it practically efficacious? I guess that doesn't matter. Care to come to Ontario and explain this to me!? I bet that it is fascinating.







Have you read the Zhuangzi? Also transliterated as Chuang Tsu and Chuang-Tzu and some other variants too. If not I think you'd LOVE it. Here's an online translation: http://www.truetao.org/chuang/. I'm familiar with Burton Watson's translation. I think it's best read in book format. How about Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching? If you haven't read that, I recommend it too.







http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthurs...m/ttc-list.htm.

By your mention of "interconnected to the past" do you mean past lives, or just the past events of the current life?

Simon is up. Must go.

No, you come here and live.







You were looking for somewhere interesting to move.







I need to go study philosophy more. I have fashioned myself a passionate "philosopher, anthropologist and socio-economic, socio-cultural, political enthusiast". But, I am a critical care nurse, with a degree in business administration and a "Mutual Respect Advocate"







who has travelled a great deal and read a great deal. Did I mention Atheist/Pantheist with Taoism leanings?

Thich Nhat Hanh's Zen Buddhist writings have influenced me. Especially "Peace is Every Step" and "The Miracle of Mindfulness". I have read the "Tao According to Pooh" and "The Te of Piglet"; but not the originals.







But I lean more Taoist than Zen Buddhist, I believe. Thank you for the links. I will read them (in my spare time





















).









Mostly, Ayn Rand first affected my personal moral code. And that absolutist belief sounds more like Joline's personal moral code above, despite her higher belief in moral relativity. I am amused that your belief Joline is so similar to my personal one, but applied so differently. And Captain Crunchy and Dal you all sound too ethnocentric (culturally myopic), imo despite advancing rights to animals.







Your perspective seems Westernized. No offense intended.

Yes, read Zen and the Art... Is there a Ethical/Moral/Spiritual forum at MDC? I hadn't looked as I believe child rearing is inherently the most organic practice of spirituality.

I meant interconnected to past events, current life. Other's past events affecting the present. I am not sure about past lives in any concrete way. Perhaps more in an omnipresent Life Force; but not sure about any continuation of awareness into the present manifestation. Maybe some ambiguous "progress". But the construct of progress seems too ordained, imo.

I love talking with you all. At some points, I think 'am I conveying this abstraction in some means of articulating something comprehensible?' and then you all are responding with such insightful and applicable responses that I am awed at the depth of your understanding and challenging provocation to my perspective. Thank you.

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

And Captain Crunchy and Dal you all sound too ethnocentric (culturally myopic), imo despite advancing rights to animals. Your perspective seems Westernized. No offense intended.
I would like an elaboration on that judgement.


----------



## Liamsdad (Nov 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I see a lot of people saying things like their children have to learn about the "real world" and that sometimes we all HAVE to do things, that we HAVE to obey certain rules, that we HAVE to learn and teach our children how the world works and various other references that to me, are basically justifications for there being times where we HAVE to be punitive.

I disagree. I feel that life is a choice. I feel that there is nothing in this world that I am doing because I have to do, but rather, the things I do or don't do are all consentual choices on my part directly related to the battles I choose, the way I choose to live, the comforts I am not willing to give up, the path I have chosen to take, the part I want to play in society.

This has been a fascinating trail of thoughts, concerns, opinions and ideas around personal freedoms and choice. It has been all the more fascinating because I actually agree with the majority of what the captain believes in. I think compassion is born out of a gentle mix of idealism and pragmatism. The captain sounds like a very compassionate mum.

However the piece in all of this that still worries me and I don't believe anyone has actually addressed (maybe I missed it amongst all the replies) is the opening statement. If the opinion that began this thread is premised on the claim that control is necessarily and inevitably punitive then I think the Captain is either a closet anarchist







or is still carrying with her a lot of hurt and resentment from her childhood.

The paradox here is that control is actually a function of choice.

In our daily living and parenting we do our best to make choices that ensure our child stays whole. We have no choice in this if we want to particpate in life. The art lies in finding the balance that everyone is so passionately discussing. But to premise your approach to this quest by drawing a direct relationship between control and punishment is to misunderstand the journey.

I hope this doesn't sound too cryptic. I say this because it has taken me many years to work out that I am not always going to be punished for being self willed.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
I don't think this can be done. You can't learn facts about another culture and think of them in a way that is entirely outside of your belief systems. I don't think that we can't escape our belief systems like this. Perhaps something like this works within anthropology, but I think that this would be a very, very harmful thing for people to be taught to do. Sometimes we're justified to step in and end a holocaust and pretending that it's o.k. is just that. Sometimes it's wrong to not step in.

I dont think it can be done 100% because even when you are trained to be as objective as possible it is still impossible to be fully objective because you are still looking through human eyes. BUT this is an issue that is actively dealt with and persued in the earliest stages of studying of Anthropology. But the focus of objectivity is really just an awareness of your own cultural/moral bias.
It really isnt anthropologists whose job it is to step in and stop holocausts. I mean they usually arent even armed! And those khaki shorts and safari hats are a dead giveaway. But it is true to a certain extent. Anthropologists do very much what wildlife biologists do when studying a culture. THey observe and document but to not intervene or apply their cultural values on the group. Just as we have all sat appalled on channel 8 when witnessing a predator chase and catch a baby zebra and wonder "how can the photographers let that happen!" or photograph an animal struggling in a swamp or whatever and document but not intervene, that is what anthropologists do.
They might witness sutti or infanticide. And try as well as they could to objectively document. But this "objective" information is often used by those groups who are aimed at intervening. And that is one way in which they contribute.
I mean can you really understand what is behind sutti or infanticide when you view it through your western religious and cultural bias? I dont think that means we do not judge for ourselves if these things are morally wrong. However it is important not to overlay our cultural/moral understanding over it otherwise a true understanding of all the cultural/sociopolitical/religious and economic forces which underlay these practices will not be found.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
Doesn't it feel like killing and torturing a baby is wrong not because it is good for that baby to grow up to be an adult (though this is part of it), but because of the suffering that the baby will endure? I think that the inherent goodness of sensations of well-being and the inherent badness of those of pain and the like can get us really far on their own. Even if humans lost their ability to procreate, we should still accept and follow the basic boundary condition of refraining from unnecessarily causing harm to others. Empathy would still persist. I think it's part of the amazing oomph that gets us from a collection of bumbling molecules to a sentient being. I think this oomph, i.e., our existential experiences, are the basis for morality. What is the justification for the claim that it is good to procreate at all if it is not the fact that life is (for the most part) inherently desireable? It isn't good just because and when it persists. Why is persistence preferable to reconstitution? It's the unexplainable oomph that makes it good. I think our accounts may be compatible.









Of COURSE I think it is wrong. And even if you were trained to try to see and understand and interpret these things without your cultural bias, you will still feel the horror. But even in societies where infanticide is practiced, it is not because they do not value life, or that they are morally inept people. but because an entire system is set up by which this is the cultural answer to a problem. YOu wanna figure out how to stop it. You dont rail against the mother who resorts to it in desparation, you find out what influences are there on the life of a mother, family, tribal unit that would make them adopt this practice.
Because such things cannot be understood simply from the perspective as "dont they know how evil that is. There is no reason not to value life more than that"
But we are not living on the edge of subsistence. I remember one film about the yanomamo where a pregnant woman was planning on exposing her infant after it was born because her pregnancy came too soon after her last one, and to rear the infant would risk the life of the toddler she has who still needs her milk and who has already survived past his first year and has a higher likelihood of surviving than the newborn infant. To raise the new infant would put both children at serious nutritional risk and likely result in both of their deaths.
But if we are seeing things from our western mind we might wonder how can she possibly not have enough milk for two babies. WHy cant somebody else share with nursing? Why cant she put the baby up for adoption?
From a purely moral standpoint even this is not black and white.

Joline


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

then I think the Captain is either a closet anarchist or is still carrying with her a lot of hurt and resentment from her childhood.
...in fact, both assumptions hold some truth I am sure. However, any form of anarchism I do embrace is only in the form of a personal ideal and not an illusion that most of our society would be comfortable functioning in a situation where no one was telling them how to live.

With that said, I will respectfully bow out of this discussion due to the personal tone that has seemed to find its way into a few assumptions based on very limited information of me and my life experiences.

Despite disagreeing with some sentiments expressed, I am happy that a thread I began as a way of expressing some thoughts has turned into such a deep discussion. Much love.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Captain Crunchy,

From one closet anarchist to another,







and with my known hurt and resentment from childhood, I don't think the posts were meant to be 'too personal'. I am sorry you are feeling defensive about the posts referencing your statements, views or opinions as a point of reference to give expression to a relevant idea and alternate pov. I perceived LiamsDad's post to reference that he speculates that the correllation between "have to" and punishment originates from some belief system (anarchy) _or_ some emotional connotation of punishment associated with "have to". This logic seems sound, imo. However, I do agree with your premise that "have to" is a prevalent justification/construct of imposing punishment upon children. And the *construct* of "have to" is what makes this topic relevant to a *Discipline* forum.

Furthermore, I perceive LiamsDad's post to imply agreement that the construct of "have to" is (erroneously) applied based on the (perception/fear/assumption) premise of "or else" will occur. And that we *do have a choice* as there is no longer certain punishment for being self-willed (which many of us experienced in childhood). The correllation to "have to" having been imbued in childhood and unconsciously being carried into adulthood is based upon a false premise/projection. We don't "have to" _unless_ the basis of "have to" is that we want to maintain life then there are some "have tos" imposed by life. Which is a totally different realm than the "have tos" imposed by parents, which are often, but not necessarily
attached to an "or else". I thought his note demonstrated the option of choice that increased awareness of the origin of our memes provides.

My post wasn't meant to judge or offend either. The point I was making, (obviously without the finesse that Dal attributed to me







) was that 'not harming animals' is a Western more that doesn't apply in the Bush of Australia, the plains of Africa, the islands of the South Pacific, etc. where killing and eating animals is a life substaining substance. Although, I agree with the intent of advancing humane treatment of animals in our consumer crazed Western world. Human life has been sustained by eating animals for thousands of years and isn't inherently good or bad, except by applying some external moral code.

An aspect of good and bad not _needing_ to be defined, quantified and agreed upon is that only 'that which nurtures adaptation/survival persists'. But that *action* which nurtures sustaining life may be perceived good at some points in time; and at others perceived as bad for the beings involved if one does judge an action independent of its purpose. The construct of an absolute moral code ignores the purpose of the action. What is good or bad depends.

As this applies to discipline, I look to find the *purpose* underlying an action or behavior, not judge the action against some (my own) construct of a moral code. My moral code is in relation to choosing my own actions. Just as I believe other's moral codes must be independent of my judgement, as a moral code is only applicable to controlling one's own behavior/survival. I can not control other's behavior except by either their mutual agreement or coercion. The act of imposing coercion depletes their ability to depend on their own moral code/judgement. Which, in my estimation is contrary to sustaining adaptation based upon one's own best interests, priorites, personal perception and instinct. I don't believe another person can best judge what is best for another. Only the individual is the expert for himself. Not other or parent, even.

Perhaps, I could extrapolate that since humans are interconnected beings, there is no self/other and that all actions are interdependent upon what is best for the whole group. I do consciously live this way through finding mutual agreement in our home and with those with whom I choose to relate. But as a staunch anti-socialist, I will need to chew on this offensive idea for a while in that arena.







: Don't get me started on politics.
















Pat


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

Quote:

_SunRayeMomi, my teeth were harmed by thumb-sucking. I sucked my thumb until I was 12 or so. The only thing that helped was when I started going to the orthodontist's for braces and he put an arch in my mouth. I assume this was for an actual purpose, but it made the thumb-sucking uncomfortable enough that I stopped quickly after that. I was happy about this as it was an embarassing thing to do, and of course because it was ruining (had ruined) the aesthetics of my teeth. My parents told me every lie under the sun to try to coerce me to stop. They never told me that it might cause my teeth to move, nor did they show me any pictures of the possible end result. I seriously think that may have helped because I was intelligent enough to know that no, my thumb wasn't going to fall off from sucking on it. I've since had braces and my teeth are now fine. I think it's worth further thought, especially if she spends quite a bit of time sucking her thumb. Maybe some orthodontists put in such a bridge specifically as a preventative measure? It wasn't at all a big deal to have it inserted_.
I know that this was totally







to the flow of the thread, so I just wanted to thank you for providing your background on the subject.

Also, I was actually wondering (in relation to the thread) if there were suggestions for non-coercive ways to get her to give it up. Or if anyone believes that trying to convince her to stop would be in fact coercive...? Sorry to throw the discussion.







I'm having such a great time reading but I don't feel I have anything to add since I am in limbo. This thread is great


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SunRayeMomi*
Also, I was actually wondering (in relation to the thread) if there were suggestions for non-coercive ways to get her to give it up. Or if anyone believes that trying to convince her to stop would be in fact coercive...? Sorry to throw the discussion.







I'm having such a great time reading but I don't feel I have anything to add since I am in limbo.

My dd was told along the way by someone about the problem it could cause and so we just talked about it. I told her what I knew about her dad and I and our friends and said we could ask the dentist and do some research. She did want to ask the dentist and he said her teeth looked great but that he had known cases where it had caused problems. She decided she didn't want to research it more yet (at that time). She was just doing it at night when she went to sleep, so maybe that makes a difference.

So to answer your question, I would provide information (without judgment) and ask for her input and let her decide how she wants to proceed. If she becomes concerned about potential problems but isn't ready to give it up then you could talk about doing it less, things like that. It's just finding what works for you both - to address your concerns and her needs.

Anna


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

Anna, thanks. What I have done in the past is:

Request that she limit it to bed time. I understand that it is for comfort, so we imply that she can pacify herself at night, but not during the day.

She would do it in front of the TV, so we then made the rule that if she sucks while watching TV, the TV gets turned off. We follow through, so it was working, but it's habitual for her to suck her thumb when her hands aren't being occupied by something else (such as in front of the TV).

Coercive/Non-coercive?


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

EEEKKKK!!!

That is really punitive and discounting. Sorry if that seems harsh but I was floored when read that. Why are you in such fear of this? Worse case scenario she needs braces, that can't be worth having an adversarial relationship. She is needing her thumb and to be punished for that has to be so scary and confusing. It isn't stopping the need.

If she has oral sensory seeking needs like my other daughter then perhaps you could provide her with alternatives. There are chewing things made for older kids that helped my younger dd. Address the need behind the behavior - is she needing engagement, tired, upset, etc. Look into that, but honestly if she just needs her thumb that's all it is - you can choose to respect that.

I better stop here









Anna


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

I am telling you what I have done in the past... I am here because I realize that there are better ways and I am asking for examples and advice









It has nothing to do with "fear", it is the fact that I have been bombarded with the information that it will cause tooth damage. I am asking your thoughts on it. Thank you for them. I didn't mean to "floor" you, but I agree that those tactics aren't the best way to approach it. At least they weren't SCARE tactics, which IMO would have been a much worse approach.

It appears you think that if I have to get her braces that that is okay. I understand that this is a source of comfort for her, as I said. But I don't see why she would need comfort while watching her favorite cartoons. By turning them off, I was trying to make her _aware_ of her habit, so that she could learn to catch herself. We try to provide her with any means of comfort we can. But it does make me uneasy to her using her thumb. As another poster said, it DID damage her teeth. So, it didn't do that much damage to your daughter's and that is very convenient for you. But apparently it can damage teeth, and I am trying to head it off.

If it in fact does cause tooth damage as "they" say, then labling it as a "bad" habit would make sense and wanting her to stop is a good thing. I wonder if her habit was smoking, would you then say that it is her choice and we will "deal with the cancer" when it comes? Not to make a mountain out of a molehill or anything, but bad habits are so named because they cause some sort of damage and therefore would be best addressed early as possible









I am by no means trying to be argumentative here, I just really want to see where you are coming from. I try not to make a big deal out of it with dd, because I know that approach usually backfires. But I don't view turning the TV off as "punishment". I veiwed it as a rule that was broken. She has the CHOICE to break that rule or not. She was ALLOWED to suck at night in bed, or while cuddling before bed, etc. But not in front of the TV. Okay, thoughts? I welcome them, really I do!


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SunRayeMomi*
I am telling you what I have done in the past... I am here because I realize that there are better ways and I am asking for examples and advice









I appreciate the clarification. I really missed that the first time I read it and I apologize! I'm not trying to offend you, I can see how much you care about your child and your parenting. That's what I love about this group. So sorry if I overstepped!

Anna


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

BTW -

Quote:

if she just *needs* her thumb.....
I would say that she definitly does not NEED her thumb









It is definitly in the want category. No one needs to such their thumb, maybe psychologically they associate it with comfort and use it to pacify themselves (just like a blankie or teddy...) but to NEED it? Nah. Esp. in front of the TV. Back to smoking... forgive me... but no one NEEDS to smoke. It's a dependance which is more psychological than physical. It's habit, one that can be broken with the will of the habitual. IMO. (I smoked for ten years, but quit because I decided I was too old for that crap and it doesn't look cool anymore







)


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

Anaa, no not at all! Don't apologize I welcome the discussion


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

Forgive _me_ for all my misspellings! I am in a hurry!


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SunRayeMomi*
BTW -

It is definitely in the want category. No one needs to such their thumb, maybe psychologically they associate it with comfort and use it to pacify themselves (just like a blankie or teddy...) but to NEED it? Nah. Esp. in front of the TV. Back to smoking... forgive me... but no one NEEDS to smoke. It's a dependence which is more psychological than physical. It's habit, one that can be broken with the will of the habitual. IMO. (I smoked for ten years, but quit because I decided I was too old for that crap and it doesn't look cool anymore







)

I think my issue would be that *you* are deciding what she needs or wants. In your smoking example, you decided for yourself you were done, my guess is people over the TEN YEARS asked you to or told you it wasn't "good" for you but YOU had to decide when you'd had enough. If someone had punished you and taken away your car it wouldn't have addressed whatever was behind it - an addiction, your desire to be cool







, or whatever it was.

I just don't understand why the need to stop her from something that she enjoys, would you take away a book or a blanket or stuffed animal? My older dd still has a silky she sleeps with at night. She would tell you she needs it. Would she die if it were gone - no but she would suffer. So it isn't for me to say - time to give up the silky you are 8 now. Just doesn't make any sense.

I think the other relevant thing is that you did punish in the past and so any information you give her now will probably be tainted by that. I'd say ignore it completely for 6 months and see where you are then.

Anna


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I dont think it can be done 100% because even when you are trained to be as objective as possible it is still impossible to be fully objective because you are still looking through human eyes. BUT this is an issue that is actively dealt with and persued in the earliest stages of studying of Anthropology. But the focus of objectivity is really just an awareness of your own cultural/moral bias.

OK, right. Here's an idea I remember from Philosophy (vaguely) that I liked about this perception. There's the world, as it exists. And there's the world we perceive, with our biases. There's an area where these two circles link, and there's parts where they don't. I can't remember who this is, but I do remember Roy Bhaskar talking a lot about it. I'm revealing my bias here, Sociology too! Maybe Dal can help me out with this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
But even in societies where infanticide is practiced, it is not because they do not value life, or that they are morally inept people. but because an entire system is set up by which this is the cultural answer to a problem. YOu wanna figure out how to stop it. You dont rail against the mother who resorts to it in desparation, you find out what influences are there on the life of a mother, family, tribal unit that would make them adopt this practice.
Because such things cannot be understood simply from the perspective as "dont they know how evil that is. There is no reason not to value life more than that"

And THIS sounds like Durkheim to me. Do you agree CaptainCrunchy? If you're still there?

His stance was moral codes were created for a function, created to solve a problem in the society, just like the infanticide example. Or, a little closer to my heart, the Mormon pioneers decided that it was morally right to have more than one wife because they needed more children to farm the dry Wasatch front. So I see what you're saying, Johub, about adaptive morality. But I have to agree with Dal that there is an overarching right and wrong, and whether we have this innate morality due to evolution or a higher power is beyond me.

Plus, I've always thought that the assumption that morality is functional and adaptive leaves out too much, like the influence of charismatic leaders, e.g. Ghandi, Christ, Hitler. And, as a closet Marxist, I have to believe that "functional morality" only really functions for the upper echelons of society.

Anyway, I want to respond to Pat's comment about personal morality, because part of it rings very true. I agree 100% that you cannot force anyone to adopt your moral code. And I agree that if we were the Yanomomo, for example, living in a homogenous society where all adults prescribed to the same moral code, we could simply lead by example, and our children would easily learn.

However, I think our society is far too complex for that. We encounter too many different types of people and situations to rely on example alone. I feel that I must clarify and discuss things with my children, so that they know that it really isn't okay to treat people the way that so-and-so treats others, or to start a war of aggression, or any number of situations that would be difficult to see clearly.

Annnndddd, Pat, I agree with Dal that you contradict yourself as a relativist. In fact, I believe you did that very recently in a response to a post I started when you expressed your disgust in my FIL's behavior. Or maybe I don't understand your whole position?


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SunRayeMomi*
BTW -

I would say that she definitly does not NEED her thumb










Whoa! Just read this little blurb and had no idea where the discussion had gone. Wait, so we don't need our thumbs? But weren't we just talking about evolution? Isn't it our use of opposable thumbs that got us here today?

I'm glad I got caught up!


----------



## Wugmama (Feb 10, 2005)

Anna, that was so cool to read:

Quote:

I told her what I knew about her dad and I and our friends and said we could ask the dentist and do some research.
That is like straight out of the "How to talk so your kids will listen.." book isn't it? I just finished reading that last Friday and it is the first one I've read of the ones that get recommended here.

Sorry way, way, way off topic, just excited to recognize people actually using the ideas from one of the books..









I'm sure I could never live up to Pat's ideas mutuality, and I don't think I could live up to CC's either. I think I am more in line with Joline's ideas. I have been learing and thinking a lot though reading this thread. I have added a LOT more things to my, "Not worth a power struggle" list lately, and have been much more receptive to my dd's desires. Really letting go of a lot. I feel this has been an improvement. Some things are very important to me though I cannot let go and to exercise authority over sometimes.

I am trying to always keep learing and being a better mom, but also trying to be at peace with my parenting.

~Tracy


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

SunRayeMomi,

By judging what is or isn't needed by another individual, you are discounting her own opinion. I am not discounting that you think that your daugher needs to stop sucking her thumb. My basis of responding is that it is your daughter's decision, not yours. Certainly, you can advice her, provide alternatives, mention, nag, scold, remove items that are associated with thumb sucking, monitor, paint it with hot sauce, etc. Obviously, most of these are not attractive to you. But none of these honor your daughters desire/want/need to suck on some conviently accessable object that provides self-soothing, irrelevant of its potential for harm.

Even smoking.

I am not condoning smoking, and I would provide information to our son if he wanted to smoke. Since it is illegal for him to purchase and/or smoke, I believe, I would not facilitate him smoking. But it is his body. And no, I don't believe that I could stop him from smoking if he desired/wanted/needed to smoke. Unless I was able to provide adequate replacement or information that swayed him to agree to stop smoking. But, I would not attempt to punish him to stop him smoking.

Sure, smoking is harmful. But certainly not in the degree that needing braces can be perceived as "harmful", imo. Choices have consequences. You do not "have to" provide her with braces. It was suggested as a teen that I might need braces. The long and short of it was that I have never had braces and perhaps I "need" them now. But it is a choice that I do not choose. Just as "needing" braces may not mean that your daughter chooses them. But right now, she is choosing to suck her thumb and the worst case scenario is that she might need braces. She apparently doesn't have a concern about that at this point. You do. All that I believe that you can do non-coercively is to find a mutually agreeable solution about those things that you can control and those things that she can control. And sucking (or not sucking) her thumb is her department to control. Your options are to provide alternatives which supplant the need which are mutually agreeable to her oral needs.

Turning the tv off is not mutually agreeable. There are tons of internet links that suggest coercive ways to limit thumb sucking. I have seen some hand brace type things that your daughter may be agreeable to trying. Perhaps, placing a bandaid on the thumb, or tying a string around her thumb to remind her, or placing a note in front of the tv to remind her, or getting her some hand widgets that are for fidget needs (see the "Sensory Comforts" catalogue, I believe it is on-line.), or giving her other things to give her oral satisfaction (gum, jelly beans, finger food, carrots and dip, celery sticks, fruit chews, salty nuts, lollipops, etc.), finger crocheting, knitting, hand puzzles, twistie ties to manipulate, etc. The issue is she *needs* oral sensory stimuli to provide self-soothing. And something to occupy her hands.

There is not much that is more satisfying and self-soothing than sucking to humans. It is shown to decrease pain in childbirth even. There is some chemical/neuro effect that is a natural pain reliever, apparently. Removing this without supplement requires an act of intentional will overriding the pleasant experience gained. With smoking, you know how hard that was and you also understood the real dangers of cancer. Unless she has a will to stop, you are creating a contest of wills. Is this worth that?

Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
So I see what you're saying, Johub, about adaptive morality. But I have to agree with Dal that there is an overarching right and wrong, and whether we have this innate morality due to evolution or a higher power is beyond me.
<clip>
Plus, I've always thought that the assumption that morality is functional and adaptive leaves out too much, like the influence of charismatic leaders, e.g. Ghandi, Christ, Hitler. And, as a closet Marxist, I have to believe that "functional morality" only really functions for the upper echelons of society.

Actually I do also think there is an overarching right and wrong because there are a few values which are pretty much universal. Because although the extent to which each value is applied may vary from culture to culture, there are certain values that are cross cultural because human survival depends on them.

As per my previous example I strongly disagree that "functional morality" only really functions in the upper echelons of society. I think that the closer people live to basic subsistence the more morality is functional.
The harder and rougher existence is the more exceptoins have to be made.
For example stealing may be wrong, but one might overlook that if their family was starving.

Joline


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
As per my previous example I strongly disagree that "functional morality" only really functions in the upper echelons of society. I think that the closer people live to basic subsistence the more morality is functional.
The harder and rougher existence is the more exceptoins have to be made.
For example stealing may be wrong, but one might overlook that if their family was starving.

So do you believe that societies that are further from the level of subsistence have higher moral codes? As per Maslow's pyramid? Is that what you mean here?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
For example stealing may be wrong, but one might overlook that if their family was starving.

Joline

But wealthy people steal all the time. And a starving person can always ask for food, before thinking they need to steal it.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
So do you believe that societies that are further from the level of subsistence have higher moral codes? As per Maslow's pyramid? Is that what you mean here?

Absolutely NOT! First of all I would question whether or not it was useful to even rank moral codes as being "higher" or "lower"
A person might be more or less moral in their adherence to their own moral code. But I do not judge the morality of a society at large as being higher or lower than another.
I do think that some richer societies have the luxury of inventing superfluous morals, but even having MORE rules doesnt make a society MORE moral imo.
Because the degree to which a society is "moral" is the degree to which the values it has contribute to or detract from its survival.
I would go so far as to say that the US is a perfect example of a society which is as far from subsistence as it pretty much gets, yet whose moral code is antiquated and being simultaneously nailed down by some groups while being rejected full scale by others, without there being anythign cohesive to replace it. So I would say that our current moral mores don't adequately reflect our society as it currently is and is actually serving as a detriment to our society.
Joline


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
But wealthy people steal all the time. And a starving person can always ask for food, before thinking they need to steal it.

But the question is not whether or not people actually steal. But whether or not it is considered immoral in one instance and moral in another.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
But the question is not whether or not people actually steal. But whether or not it is considered immoral in one instance and moral in another.

IMO, stealing is immoral.
Now, when people in NOLA were grabbing food, that was not stealing, but surviving. It's not like they could hunt and gather living food, so, they made do.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
IMO, stealing is immoral.
Now, when people in NOLA were grabbing food, that was not stealing, but surviving. It's not like they could hunt and gather living food, so, they made do.

Yes but when is stealing stealing, and when is stealing surviving. It is like Jean Valjean from Les Miserables, a life of prison and being a fugitive over a single loaf of bread.
Personally I would go so far as to say it is still wrong. But significantly less wrong. And certainly less wrong than letting your children starve.
It's all relative.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Absolutely NOT! First of all I would question whether or not it was useful to even rank moral codes as being "higher" or "lower"
A person might be more or less moral in their adherence to their own moral code. But I do not judge the morality of a society at large as being higher or lower than another.

OK, I see what you're saying, and agree with you here. I think all societies do have some level of dysfunction also. That is, parts of their moral code are unhealthy and, as you say, antiquated. That's part of the system.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I would go so far as to say that the US is a perfect example of a society which is as far from subsistence as it pretty much gets, yet whose moral code is antiquated and being simultaneously nailed down by some groups while being rejected full scale by others, without there being anythign cohesive to replace it. So I would say that our current moral mores don't adequately reflect our society as it currently is and is actually serving as a detriment to our society.

I don't know about this. It's very interesting.

I guess I agree that there IS a higher morality, that there are certain ethics that all societies should strive for, that there is an overarching good that all people deserve and should work towards.

But I think our society is actually progressing towards this. I don't think that there isn't lots of backsliding or that we'll ever reach a state of perfect justice and good for all, but I do think we're improving. Slowly. When I think about my parents' generation, and especially my grandparents' generation, I have to say that overall, we have improved the civil liberties and equality for people in this country.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
It's all relative.

Wait, I thought you were just arguing against this!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I don't know about this. It's very interesting.

I guess I agree that there IS a higher morality, that there are certain ethics that all societies should strive for, that there is an overarching good that all people deserve and should work towards.

But I think our society is actually progressing towards this. I don't think that there isn't lots of backsliding or that we'll ever reach a state of perfect justice and good for all, but I do think we're improving. Slowly. When I think about my parents' generation, and especially my grandparents' generation, I have to say that overall, we have improved the civil liberties and equality for people in this country.

I also agree that we are working on improving. The problem arises when there is an old standard of morality which a certain portion of the society clings to which may not be good for society as a whole (the same system which justified slavery/racism, sexism, etc. . . ) and there are many who are striving to reach for a new standard but these groups are segmented and there is no consensus. Many have dropped the "old morality" without adopting anythign new. And as it stands there are many people who either cling to an old antiquated morality which isnt really that good after all, there are many others who reject it but dont have anything to replace it with.
And then you have a group who feels pretty sure that they knwo what morality looks like and are really working on moving our society towards it.
But all three groups are strugglign against each other. We have failed to pass the ERA for years even though we think we value equal rights. Roe Vs Wade is at risk of being repealed and we have all sorts of new homeland security laws which threaten our basic freedoms.
So I would go so far as to say that as a society we are in a state of flux regarding our cultural concepts of morality, which is not beneficial to us. But yes, I am hoping that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I also agree that we are working on improving. The problem arises when there is an old standard of morality which a certain portion of the society clings to which may not be good for society as a whole (the same system which justified slavery/racism, sexism, etc. . . ) and there are many who are striving to reach for a new standard but these groups are segmented and there is no consensus. Many have dropped the "old morality" without adopting anythign new. And as it stands there are many people who either cling to an old antiquated morality which isnt really that good after all, there are many others who reject it but dont have anything to replace it with.
And then you have a group who feels pretty sure that they knwo what morality looks like and are really working on moving our society towards it.
But all three groups are strugglign against each other. We have failed to pass the ERA for years even though we think we value equal rights. Roe Vs Wade is at risk of being repealed and we have all sorts of new homeland security laws which threaten our basic freedoms.
So I would go so far as to say that as a society we are in a state of flux regarding our cultural concepts of morality, which is not beneficial to us. But yes, I am hoping that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Yes, definitely in a state of flux! But I think we are slowly lumbering forward. I don't think there is a light at the end of the tunnel, however, just the process and the system. And I believe that the stage we are in is a "step backward" stage for the most part. But there are small victories being won all over, and I believe they do have a large effect on the greater good. (That's just the chaos theoretician in me rearing its ugly head, though!)


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
OK, right. Here's an idea I remember from Philosophy (vaguely) that I liked about this perception. There's the world, as it exists. And there's the world we perceive, with our biases. There's an area where these two circles link, and there's parts where they don't. I can't remember who this is, but I do remember Roy Bhaskar talking a lot about it. I'm revealing my bias here, Sociology too! Maybe Dal can help me out with this.

This presumes that a non-observer biased perception is the One Truth about the world. As an atheist, I don't conceive of that (non)perception existing as relevant. There is always observer bias. Even Science can not eliminate the observer bias, as what one human chooses to research or the human limited sampling events impacts the bias. For instance, if I seek to identify how many ants live in the world, but I only look inside my house. Hopefully, the conclusion is that no ants exist. Choosing to research for ants (insead of cats, fleas, spiders, humans, chairs, plants, etc. alters the conclusion. Just as choosing the sample environment or sampling events biases the conclusion. Non-observer reality does not exist for all intents and purposes, from my pov. (The book Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintence does a more eloquent demonstrative, and critical dissection of this philosophical construct of non-observer bias and "What is reality?")

Quote:

And THIS sounds like Durkheim to me. Do you agree CaptainCrunchy? If you're still there?
You educated gals are impressing me with your 'isms'. I can't even find this Durkheim in my dictionary. I will need to google. Is there a short version? Cliff notes? Please.









Quote:

His stance was moral codes were created for a function, created to solve a problem in the society, just like the infanticide example. Or, a little closer to my heart, the Mormon pioneers decided that it was morally right to have more than one wife because they needed more children to farm the dry Wasatch front. So I see what you're saying, Johub, about adaptive morality. But I have to agree with Dal that there is an overarching right and wrong, and whether we have this innate morality due to evolution or a higher power is beyond me.
This *presumes a bias* that life exists as a positive, rather than a neutral event. And that which supports life is an overarching right/wrong moral code. I personally _*choose*_ this as my own moral code based upon a reverence for life, Pantheism. But this is a subjective moral construct that I choose. Not all people agree with this construct of a moral code. See religious zealot suicide bombers as exibit one. But, I do not dismiss their perception of reality based upon their own moral code, as I really do not *know* or perceive an afterlife to which they believe or perceive. But, I am fallible. The maxim 'One country's hero is another country's terrorist' applies here. Egocentrically, we could say that either, or neither is morally "good" or "bad" based upon our own *chosen* moral code bias. And granted "chosen" is being used loosely as most "morality" is externally imposed/coerced. (exactly what I am arguing against.







)

Quote:

Plus, I've always thought that the assumption that morality is functional and adaptive leaves out too much, like the influence of charismatic leaders, e.g. Ghandi, Christ, Hitler. And, as a closet Marxist, I have to believe that "functional morality" only really functions for the upper echelons of society.
This is precisely why I believe that if one does not own their own moral code of conduct and is instead subjected to external imposition of another's moral code that they are *conditioned*(trained/taught) to ignore or supplant their own instinctual code of 'right'/'wrong' reverence for life/survival/adaptation of self and others. Yes, I agree that if the 'upper echelons' (parents) are successful at deeming "the moral code" to which one must proscribe, children are then at the mercy of being a follower of other's moral edicts also. It is the act of imposing morality on our children that disempowers them to reject other's moral authority over their own. This whole construct of one moral code is subject to he who dictates what is moral. Just as the U.S. is subject to what the president dictates what is moral. At least we can disengage from his directives. Children have no such option under the threat of coercion or force however. At least not until they are indoctrinated for 18 years. And do not get me started on how government run, government mandated, government sanctioned, compulsory schools squelch individuality and promote compliance and conformity to the authority of others above self-will.























Quote:

Anyway, I want to respond to Pat's comment about personal morality, because part of it rings very true. I agree 100% that you cannot force anyone to adopt your moral code. And I agree that if we were the Yanomomo, for example, living in a homogenous society where all adults prescribed to the same moral code, we could simply lead by example, and our children would easily learn.
Another reason we homeschool. And we choose to relate with people who honor the autonomy of children and treat others consistently with respect and dignity. We do not choose to closely associate with people who treat others with disregard. There is plenty of that in the world for us all to have exposure to the moral continuum of the likes of politicians, actors, medical professionals, journalists, manufactures, etc.







:

Quote:

However, I think our society is far too complex for that. We encounter too many different types of people and situations to rely on example alone. I feel that I must clarify and discuss things with my children, so that they know that it really isn't okay to treat people the way that so-and-so treats others, or to start a war of aggression, or any number of situations that would be difficult to see clearly.
I am sure that our son will be exposed to my pacifist opinions about wars. No doubt. But he will be free to enlist or go across the border. When our son sees a baby or child crying he says 'that baby needs his mama'. I am fully confident in his moral understanding of helping others to the degree that a four year old can incorporate without me discussing how others don't. There will be many opportunities for him to learn of the continuum of cultural aggression. However, his model of how he is is treated will remain his yardstick, imo. Another reason we do not choose to model the use of might to make "right".

Quote:

Annnndddd, Pat, I agree with Dal that you contradict yourself as a relativist. In fact, I believe you did that very recently in a response to a post I started when you expressed your disgust in my FIL's behavior. Or maybe I don't understand your whole position?
Not so much of a contradiction is it? My own personal moral code would not allow others to treat me with disrespect. I would disengage. However, others may continue to treat people with disrespect without me in their environment or life. I am empowered to choose my associations or not. I do so based upon my own personal moral code about how I choose to be treated, how people treat others, how they treat themselves, how they treat animals and the how they treat the earth. It was an amazing discovery that I did not "have to" associate with some people. But, I am not judging the moral code they choose for themselves. I just don't choose to participate against my instincts to choose healthy and happy relations. Optimally, I would try to seek a mutually agreeable alternative. But changing others isn't something I am willing to spend a lot of energy on. And some people do not/can not change. I spend my energy trying to empower the individual; and that is easiest if their power isn't usurped in childhood, imo.

Pat-isms


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
Yes, definitely in a state of flux! But I think we are slowly lumbering forward. I don't think there is a light at the end of the tunnel, however, just the process and the system. And I believe that the stage we are in is a "step backward" stage for the most part. But there are small victories being won all over, and I believe they do have a large effect on the greater good. (That's just the chaos theoretician in me rearing its ugly head, though!)

I actually quite agree, just try hard to be optimistic!


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
This presumes that a non-observer biased perception is the One Truth about the world. As an atheist, I don't conceive of that (non)perception existing as relevant. There is always observer bias. Even Science can not eliminate the observer bias, as what one human chooses to research or the human limited sampling events impacts the bias. For instance, if I seek to identify how many ants live in the world, but I only look inside my house. Hopefully, the conclusion is that no ants exist. Choosing to research for ants (insead of cats, fleas, spiders, humans, chairs, plants, etc. alters the conclusion. Just as choosing the sample environment or sampling events biases the conclusion. Non-observer reality does not exist for all intents and purposes, from my pov.

Yes, this is it exactly. You just described it way better than me. The idea is that the truth exists, but we can never completely get at it, due to our bias.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
You educated gals are impressing me with your 'isms'. I can't even find this Durkheim in my dictionary. I will need to google. Is there a short version? Cliff notes? Please.









Try this: http://durkheim.itgo.com/main.html

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
This *presumes a bias* that life exists as a positive, rather than a neutral event. And that which supports life is an overarching right/wrong moral code. I personally _*choose*_ this as my own moral code based upon a reverence for life, Pantheism. But this is a subjective moral construct that I choose. Not all people agree with this construct of a moral code. See religious zealot suicide bombers as exibit one. But, I do not dismiss their perception of reality based upon their own moral code, as I really do not *know* or perceive an afterlife to which they believe or perceive. But, I am fallible. The maxim 'One country's hero is another country's terrorist' applies here. Egocentrically, we could say that either, or neither is morally "good" or "bad" based upon our own *chosen* moral code bias. And granted "chosen" is being used loosely as most "morality" is externally imposed/coerced. (exactly what I am arguing against.

But even suicide bombers view life as a positive event, because they feel that by destroying the lives of infidels and sacrificing themselves they are doing the greatest possible good for their cause. (I assume). I don't feel this is subjective, I feel that value for life is universal.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
This is precisely why I believe that if one does not own their own moral code of conduct and is instead subjected to external imposition of another's moral code that they are *conditioned*(trained/taught) to ignore or supplant their own instinctual code of 'right'/'wrong' reverence for life/survival/adaptation of self and others.

This is a good point, but I believe that our society is too complex to rely simply on what is instinctual morality. There are WAY too many other unavoidable messages, and I don't really want my dc to have to avoid them, anyway, just be able to filter them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
And we choose to relate with people who honor the autonomy of children and treat others consistently with respect and dignity. We do not choose to closely associate with people who treat others with disregard.

Again, I would rather my children live in the world. I believe that associations with all sorts of people can have value, and my dh believes this even more strongly. He teaches me all kinds of things about the human spirit because he doesn't try to shut people out. I don't think I know anyone who really treats ALL other people with disregard.

So I guess, again, I will have to say that I just don't feel comfortable relying on leading by example, especially because I will sometimes make mistakes. I hope open, frequent discussion of morality and values will always be a part of my family life.

Dal, btw, my mother was a college writing teacher for years, I'll have to ask her what she thinks about your plan. I'm going to guess she'd say it would never work, 'cause she's a huge cynic!


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

I've included a summary of my ideas in my next post. The ideas here help to fill it out and add to it. So, you may want to read the next post first to see if this one is worth reading.









I haven't had a chance to read all of the recent responses. I'm looking forward to doing so. I had to finish grading those papers (they're done now) and now I need to recover and to sleep!

Just a few thoughts I want to add (sorry if they've already been mentioned). One need not deny fallibility to advocate that there are indeed rights and wrongs in the world, or, for that matter, that 2+2 = 4. Yes, we may be mistaken just as we may be sleeping when we think we're awake or awake when we think we're sleeping, we may be brains in vats. I really think that what some of us are defending here is as straightforward as that. Pleasure is good, unnecessary pains are bad. I know this just as well and as thoroughly as I know that "here is one hand and here is another." That was G.E. Moore's argument against the belief that we can't really know anything, not even whether we are here or whether there is a physical reality (everything may be mental). I know that my hands are typing at this moment. It is debatable as to whether I can genuinely doubt that my hands are physical things (extended objects in the world) that are currently typing. I can believe that they are composed of atoms, but I can't really deny that they exist. Not honestly at least. Do you know that a person who you see on the street exists and really is a person and not an automatron? If you see that person being pinned down against her will, being beaten or raped, screaming out "OMG OMG! HELP! HELP! Please stop!!!" . . . if you are witness to that, can you doubt that she's in pain? She might be pretending? I suppose that is possible. Maybe she's a human-looking robot. You may be wrong about the facts, but it is still safe to say that you know that she's in pain. It is more than safe. It would be preposterous to act as though you are uncertain about her pain. It is unreasonable and dangerous to live according to the belief that the pain and suffering that other people endure may be of no consequence to them.

Now, if you accept that you can know that she's in pain (or know it enough), we can move to step 2. Can we know that we should care about her pain? We certainly do. If you met another person on the street who watched on in awe, laughing all the while, unbuttoned his own pants, you'd be in the presence of a person who is mentall
y ill or morally corrupt. Allowing that it is not morally imperative to care about her suffering is passing out a liscence to kill, rape, main, what you will, or what amounts to the same, a liscence to look the other way. This is antithetical to the goal of world peace; "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing" (Edmund Burke).

Whatever may be true of an ideal situation, would you want to remove the laws in this society that help to prevent people who lack a sound moral compass from killing and otherwise harming others? These laws are justified. They aren't neutral laws, e.g., that we stop at a red light. They are founded on our common moral beliefs (which is not to say that some laws are mistaken and violate ethics. We need to discuss things in terms of right and wrong in order to better arrive at a set of laws that best ensures everyone's well-being). Some deviants may act in opposition to these beliefs and may not hold them, but most of us do. Why give merit to a position that is or ought to be so clearly an immoral and deviant one (e.g., that the holocaust was not morally wrong)? We may choose to tolerate such rubbish (when it's in the form of a belief), but why accept that there may be some truth to it? It's about as likely to be true as I'm likely to jump off the top of the CN Tower and survive the fall. Actually, I won't even allow that comparison. I can fathom somehow surviving the fall despite all of the obvious reasons that make that virtually impossible. I cannot even fathom that the holocaust might have been a morally justifiable enterprise, or what amonts to the same: a neutral one.

Let's turn to Exhibit A: the suicide bombers. They believe their warped beliefs and are willing to die for them. What is going on here? How can they believe that? I believe just as strongly (or even less so) that it is wrong to needlessly harm innocent people. I think that they agree with this. I think it's a boundary condition that pretty much everyone accepts. We just know it. They think that what they are doing is mandatory. They think it's a good way to further their cause. I think examples dealing with war are more complex than the core issues this thread is about. I will grant that sometimes particiating in a war may be necessary (e.g. self-defense of the defense of others), though the war itself is a bad thing. The core belief that I'm defending is not this, but whether everyone does and/or ought to believe that it's morally wrong to needlessly cause harm to another being. We should perhaps stick with humans for now because what we're trying to do (we're -- ha ha ha) is establish some boundary conditions. Once we have some that we think every reasonable, compassionate person ought to accept, we can continue to work at things to arrive at mutually agreeable consensus. When we wise woman from Mothering.com rule the world, we can have it so that the deviants are forced to live up to these boundary conditions (since they lack the internal motivation to do so on their own). We may not end up with veganism, and I'd be willing to accept that as a compromise, but I'm pretty sure that we'd at least do away with "factory farms" and other needlessly and excessively cruel practices. So, I'll agree that you can continue to eat meat (though maybe I'll still call it corpse since I'm progressive and there is room for change), but that flesh would come from animals who were respected and who were given the chance to lead a reasonably good life. We could debate that and arrive at a non-static, mutually agreeable consensus about what conditions are acceptable and which are cruel. (I did a really good job sticking to humans, eh?)

About the suicide bombers again: Should I grant that it's possible that they are right: that if they die in the process of killing us "infidels" they win the prize of 75 virgins or whatever it is? No. If someone arrived with that view on their own, they'd most likely be considered mentally ill, and rightly so. I can't say with an infinite degree of certainty that they do not earn "their" virgins. I've been wrong in the past and may be wrong even about the most basic aspects of life. Even so, I would bet every life on this planet that there are no afterlife orgies with virgins going on at the moment. I'd do so without flinching. The chances of them being right is beyond negligible. I don't really think that there is any chance of them being right at all. It's really only a possibility within the confines of philosophical thinking.

Now what would I bet that the holocaust was wrong? What wouldn't I bet? Why should someone act in accordance with the ridiculously negligible (if real at all) possibility that this was actually an acceptable thing to do, rather than with the vastly, vastly, vastly more probable likelihood that it was atrocious and vile. Indeed, talking about probabilities of being right about this isn't quite right. Indeed, it's downright offensive. Imagine saying that to the face of someone fresh from a concentration camp who has lost her children, her spouse, and her parents to Nazi experiments and gas chambers. I don't for a second actually believe that these deaths and confinement might have been an o.k. thing to do. Sure, cosmically and "when we've been dead 10 000 years" or maybe more like 10 billion years, what does this matter? We're all just so many blips on an immense cosmic radar, right? In a sense, sure; I'm an atheist too. But, the pain and the suffering that were needlessly caused were real (and are real). Needlessly causing pain and suffering is a bad thing because it creates something that is known -- intuitively, viscerally, experientally, empathetically -- to be a bad and undesireable thing.

Now, perhaps you may respond that this is because I haven't dulled my senses through meditation. Of course you woud work it in your own way and make it sound good. My view of the world is biased, unenlightened, and arrogant, you might say. If I saw the world for what it truly is -- "atoms and the void" or whichever materialistic account you prefer -- I would realize that everything is neutral. Um. No. Everything is neutral from the standpoint of a rock, not from the standpoint of a sentient being who has interests. So to correct myself, if there is a standpoint, there is no neutrality. I do not want to become a rock, or, rather, to live as if I were one. I want to live life. I want deal with unavoidable pains rather than mute my ability to feel them. Other people are not rocks either. Perhaps if they were all "enlightened" enough to have snuffed out their natural, evolutionary, sensible appreciation that some things are horribly painful, and the natural fellow-feeling and compassion that comes from seeing others in pain, well perhaps then it wouldn't matter what happened to them? I don't buy that either. It does matter. In the moments of agony, it matters. To inflict agony on another person because I'm having a bad day is wrong. It is not akin to throwing a stone off a cliff or taking an axe to a tree.

Correct me Buddhists in my midsts, but this is what I've gleaned. Buddhist thought comes from a negative view on life. It takes life as inherently painful. We need to protect ourselves from these pains by distancing ourselves from ourselves and from our natural, innate reactions to the world. No Clinging (not even to our babies); No Aversion. From what I know, Buddhists do not deny the pain of others. Do Zen Buddhists do this? The Buddhism I'm familiar with holds that we should aim to reduce the amount of pain in the world. I first learned about veganism from a Buddhist monk (at the 10 000 Buddha's for World Peace temple not far from downtown Niagara Falls - which seemed at the time a very strange place for such a temple). He was asking his former student, a dear friend of mine, whether he was sticking to his vegan diet. Since I didn't know why there was a problem with dairy products and eggs, the monk explained it to me. Was I convinced? Nope. I shut it into the back of my head and didn't give it any thought. Well... it must have left a mark because several months later I started to research it and ultimately became a vegan.

Back to Buddhism. Anicca, anicca, anicca. Impermanence. This too shall pass. Death is nothing to me since once I'm dead I'll be no more. (That's actually from Epicurus, but it works here too). There is strength to be found in these beliefs. Amazing Grace was the only thing that comforted me during my grandfather's funeral. Attempting to live in accordance with these beliefs is a denial of life, it is hiding from life. They are good coping mechanisms, but I think that (provided one's basic needs are met and one is not dealing with an intense personal tragedy), life is something to be enjoyed, not coped with. That said, what do I know about enlightenment? It certainly isn't harmful to others when its advocates have as their first principle the belief that it is wrong to cause pain to others. That may well be my first principle too. Maybe it's my only principle as it covers others that I accept.

Death is something to me. When I'm dead I'll be gone, but should I be murdered tomorrow, I would be deprived of all of the life that I would have lived were it not for this crime. The fact that things change and the world is made up of atoms or what-have-you does not rule out the real pain of children who are needlessly starving to death. It is inherently bad because of what it is, how it feels. There is no neutrality to their experience. To make it neutral they would have to be drugged out of their misery, but I don't actually agree with this. If we aren't overwhelmed by pain, life is good. It is inherently good to use our senses and to be. We value life not because we are random atoms, but for what life is to us. I don't know that there is any such thing as a truly neutral human experience (well, aside from being in a deep coma or something of the sort). Desiring the continuation of life and freedom from harm are not neutral desires.
We do have knowledge of good and bad. To have this, we need not all agree to exactly what fits under each of the categories. There is of course room for discourse. Discourse is the key to mutual agreeability on this front. Free and open discourse will lead to expanding agreement on cases that are controversial -- assuming, that is, that people are willing to engage with ideas rather than stick to dogma. With such open discourse, certain controversial cases become less so, then over time, they become deeply engrained and even those who are dogmatic start to let go of them (e.g. the old belief that a man had the right to beat his wife -- still prevalent in parts of the world, I realize that, though increasingly less so).

Call all of this a barrage of cultural imperialism if you will. I think that's insulting to other cultures who are also capable of determining basic rights from wrongs. I may express myself in a style that is Western as this is my language and my culture, but the core ideas are ones of basic fellow-feeling and decency and we do not have a monopoly on that, to say the least!

I've having a happy heyday with this debate. So much for going to bed early tonight!


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Five Steps to Justified Moral Authority
by Dal

Step 1: It makes sense to say that we can have knowledge of various things in the world. Call it fuzzy knowledge if you'd like to differentiate it from absolute knowledge. Included in this knowledge is the knowledge that you and others can experience pain and that some painful situations are ones that we do not want to experience or be in. We're justified in believing that Judy is in pain when Judy says she's in pain, looks like she's in pain, and so on.

Step 2: When we see other people in pain, we care about it. We feel that it is wrong to not care and that there is something wrong with people who (e.g.) watch a person being tortured and feel no empathy for her or him. We know this through a variety of means. Caring for the well-being of others is natural to us and widely accepted, though, unfortunately, we are capable of distancing ourselves from others so that we can block these natural fellow-feelings (e.g., as was done by Nazi propaganda).

Step 3: Given 1 and 2, it is a bad thing to needlessly cause people to endure painful situations. We should feel concern for people in these situations and that should prevent us from engaging in them. Those who do not feel it are lacking in empathy or unable to access it (e.g., because they've been indoctrinated to see the victim as an inferior being whose interests do not matter).

Step 4: If someone is (e.g.) beating a child and we are aware of this, we will have empathy for the child. If an onlooker has empathy, she will want the needless suffering of the child to stop. If she wants the suffering to stop and she is capable of stopping it, she will want to intervene and stop the abuser. So, we know that it is right to want to stop the perpetration of unnecessary harms. What's to stop us from doing what we want to do? I think it's often that we want the perpetrator to be stopped, but do not want to stop it ourselves for whatever reason (some valid, some not).

Step 5: If someone wants to intervene to help another person and there is nothing preventing this from happening (e.g., the fear of death, insecurity, assuming someone else will help), she will intervene and help the other person.

So, in virtue of what would such an intervention be wrong? The real question seems to be "In which such cases is it acceptable to not intervene?"

I'd like to keep tweaking this but I really should try to sleep.

Thanks for your patience to anyone who is actually reading my lengthy posts.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dal*
Four Steps to Justified Moral Authority
by Dal

I don't see how these 4 things justify moral authority. What I don't understand about your argument is the need for external control. The things you mentioned are internal. Each person has their own moral code, it can't be forced on another. We might have many things that overlap and maybe you can even find a common subset but that, to me, doesn't lead to the need to have an external authority that attempts to force this subset on individuals. In fact IMO it's when a third party attempts to legislate or force their morality that you end up with the Nazi scenario.

OK, probably shouldn't be posting because I have read most but not all. I'm not loving it quite like Pat and Dal







But what I'm trying, poorly, to say above has been my issue all along.

Anna


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

It's 5 steps now.







Gotta go. Sorry.

I'm back. The boundary conditions I'm defending (not the 5 steps, but the types of situations the 5 steps aim to show that it is o.k. or even a good thing to intervene in relation to) are what would (or should) be mutually agreeable to any reasonable person. Everyone counts. There must be some laws, right, so how are we to determine what they should be -- in order to prevent things such as Nazi Germany from recurring? Don't we need to look for a common morality? This is far less an imposition than one that is arbitrary. The imposition is justified when a person is causing harm to another being. It is not at all arbitrary. It can be fully justified with appeal to reason and empathy.

What is disagreeable about my position? Surely you will agree that there are some cases that require intervention. Which cases do and don't is a difficult issue in its own right. What I'm arguing is that this intervention does not need to be arbitrary. That it can be well-founded and based on premises that are (or should be) acceptable to everyone. I need not accept that my position has no merits over Hitler's. Some positions are superior to others. Mine is better than Hitler's. Way better. Mine is jusified. His cannot be justified in a sound way. If it was taken apart (as I'm sure it has been), we could find faults with it and show them to others. We are hard-wired with the ability to identify inconsistencies and follow arguments.

I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone that I don't think they already accept, or that they will accept when they are older. The impositions only come into play when it comes down to stopping needless harm. What qualifies as such is a huge issue, but many issues are relatively easy and those offer a good starting point. E.g., that I have the moral authority to stop Simon from kicking a baby in the head. That is NOT NOT NOT an arbitrary, groundless moral code that I just happen to accept. It is NOT only acceptable within the confines of my home or my society. Anyone who is in that situation should stop the toddler from bashing the infant in the head. Failure to do so is not only immoral in my head. It is immoral outside of it too.

In an Ancient Chinese text (can't remember which one at the moment) this is discussed in terms of our inclination to save a toddler from climbing into a well. We all would stop the toddler from doing so. Failure to do so would be wrong -- whether it happens now or if it happened in Ancient China or anywhere else. What I'm advocating is not a purely Western invention. Far from it.

What more needs to be done to arrive at agreement that we are sometimes fully justified in intervening? Who thinks that I'm doing nothing wrong if I sit back and watch as a toddler in my care repeatedly kicks a teensy infant in the head? And I don't mean "Well... I think it's wrong, but that's only within the confines of my belief system. It may be legit within another system. I might be wrong. Who am I to claim authority over others?" If no one is willing to claim authority and insist that others do the same, who is supposed to help the people who are genuinely being victimized by the *arbitrary* use of power? They don't need help? The victimizer can proceed unimpeeded because it is just too dangerous to claim moral authority, whatever atrocities are being committed?

I don't think that claiming moral authority is any more a problem than claiming to be a relativist. I don't think it's a problem at all. I take appeals to relativism to be a huge threat though. Relativists are willing to let go of any moral authority (or so they claim) and give it instead to neo-nazis and whoever else happens to claim it. There are some clear-cut cases in which we can tell right from wrong. Someone needs to tell the neo-nazis in no uncertain terms that what they are advocating IS wrong. If they or other cretins want to act on their sick beliefs, we want to have a justified reason for stopping them when they try to kill anyone who violates their ideal of white purity. If we don't have this, what are we hoping to act on? Might makes right? Just stay out of politics altogether and hope for the best?

Is there really no such thing as an arbitrary and unjustified use of power? Strangely, that's what seems to be advocated here, since I have no justified right by which to claim that any such use of power is wrong. That all uses of power are arbitrary and unjustified aside from the confines of our fallible belief systems. I've got no justified right to insist that it would be WRONG for someone to come into my home and rape me and kill my toddler? That is outrageous.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I am not done reading yet; but I just want to submit a question based upon the assertion that there is an inherent and obvious, undeniable "good", why does one need to "teach" it then?

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

When we wise woman from Mothering.com rule the world, we can have it so that the deviants *are forced* to live up to these boundary conditions (since they lack the internal motivation to do so on their own).
This is the same _"moral"_ premise of Hitler, I might add. Only "deviants" were racially determined and the degree of "internal motivation" was not the criteria/justification, it was internal genetics.

Who is to dictate what defines the criteria of "deviant"? A one proscribed "morality" to which all others are forced to live up to these boundary conditions (since some may lack the internal motivation to do so on their own)?

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Just a curiosity. OT for sure. But wouldn't you all eat dead humans if you were starving? Seriously, I have little doubt that I would/could. (That didn't come off sounding very "non-deviant", I am afraid.







: )

Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
Wait, I thought you were just arguing against this!









Actually no. I have been in the odd position of simulatneously arguing for moral relativity AND a degree of objective morality.
I'm a complex gal


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

About the suicide bombers again: Should I grant that it's possible that they are right: that if they die in the process of killing us "infidels" they win the prize of 75 virgins or whatever it is? No. If someone arrived with that view on their own, they'd most likely be considered mentally ill, and rightly so. I can't say with an infinite degree of certainty that they do not earn "their" virgins. I've been wrong in the past and may be wrong even about the most basic aspects of life. Even so, I would bet every life on this planet that there are no afterlife orgies with virgins going on at the moment. I'd do so without flinching. The chances of them being right is beyond negligible. I don't really think that there is any chance of them being right at all. It's really only a possibility within the confines of philosophical thinking.
The moral egocentrism of this paragraph was too far beyond my comprehension to go without note. This is exactly the same arguement that OUR President George Bush is using 'The good of God directs us (the U.S. with masses of (non-suicide) bombers) to go and invade another country (at their unintended peril) with the intent of providing some good.' To dismiss the "bomber's" religious devotion and beliefs is no different than to dismiss Bushes' religious devotion and beliefs. Not that I am advocating either moral "imperitive" be imposed upon another group. But no moral imperitive (by right of force) of theirs or yours/ours/mine is what I advocate. As such either is equally valid as mine but I am not imposing mine.

The moral perogative of self-defense is the subsequent paradox.

Pat-isms

Btw, I don't recall that the afterlife glory was xx number of virgins. The glory was no more or less than a purple heart/going to heaven by our increasingly proscribed and constitutionally imposed/sanctioned "moral code" of Christianity in America. The premise is the same that 'there is One *moral* code "mine". And all others are 'mentally deviant' or 'morally corrupt'.'

The basic premise of both is My moral code= good; other moral code= bad. But let's hide behind some 'common boundary' definition of a compromised moral code and impose/force it on others who are not 'motivated' to comply. The Religious Right is actively sanctioning this practice outright. Dal are you also?????? Hitler succeeded for a while. Bush is too. So are the bombers. All are equally relying on the premise of imposing ONE moral code by force. Might makes right. The end justifies the means..........


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Dal,

I believe that you are at the disadvantage of sleep deprivation. I slept last night. Evidently you did not. Go sleep and come back to argue with a rested brain. You have gone too far to the Right of Might.























Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

:


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Ok, I agree with you more all the time Joline. But don't you see that I am more right (or is it Left, big L)?







Or is it that you are starting to agree with me?









Pat-isms









Going out. Back soon.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I agree with you about cultural morality being relative.
However I disagree about not being responsible for teaching our children our chosen morality.
This thread has changed topics so many times. . .


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

I can't keep up with all the reading and typing. I just can't get on the computer for long enough at one time.... so I piece my replies together and that's why this is coming now









So I guess everyone is in agreement that this is also an issue that can be approached with non-coercive tactics.....









Quote:


Originally Posted by *anna*
I just don't understand why the need to stop her from something that she enjoys, would you take away a book or a blanket or stuffed animal?

You know why, that's what this is about







It's about her health. Helping her to choose health over habit. I think it's an important issue, more often than not. Convincing an alcoholic to throw away his bottles isn't going to take away his desire for the enjoyment or escape they provide for him. But it is no less an important part of learning to put health before habit. Would I take away a book or blanket or animal? That is more or less irrelavent since those things are hardly detrimental to one's health







And no, I wouldn't.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubabmama*
The issue is she *needs* oral sensory stimuli to provide self-soothing. And something to occupy her hands.

I was a nail-biter my whole life and am only now getting a handle on it. I don't recall either of my parents ever bringing it up to me in an informative way, or at all for that matter. I wish they had - perhaps it would have been different. After all, it's a nasty habit. But I certainly don't need to do it. Not until I was in highschool did I realize that if I wanted to, I would have to struggle against the desire to overcome it. What was stronger - my desire (habit) to chew or my desire to have beautiful hands? The battle's still ragin....







Is it oral fixation? I dunno. I'd like to think it's just habit. Nothing more. Honestly. But she is still young. Yes, an oral phase is still present and I respect that of her.

Quote:

By judging what is or isn't needed by another individual, you are discounting her own opinion. I am not discounting that you think that your daugher needs to stop sucking her thumb.
Pat I am so glad you worded it that way at the end because any thing less may have sounded contradictory to m own feelings







I know my daughter very well and I can say that my implying she doesn't "need" her thumb is perfectly reasonable. Her opinion: "I like it" with a







and a







.....








No "I need it" in there....

Quote:

You do not "have to" provide her with braces.
This hadn't even occured to me as an option. Of course, from this thread it is inferred that no one "has to" do anything, but it had never occurred to me that this in particular was hanging out there... of course I would if it were needed, because one can hardly blame a child for not wanting to give up something so precious to them, or punish them by not providing braces because it was "their fault" so to speak. (Actually I "blame" someone else







)

Quote:

She apparently doesn't have a concern about that at this point.....And sucking (or not sucking) her thumb is her department to control.
So yesterday we were in the car and she was sucking. I said, "So Raye, I wonder if you notice that you are sucking your thumb?" She said "Oh, yes I guess I am." Then I explained in an informative kind of way of what thumb sucking may do to the teeth, casually mentioning that the sucking action may move the placement of the teeth or what-not and that when she is older, she may need braces to realign them. I assured her that the reason I want to talk about it is because I hope she always desires to have healthy teeth, not because I think she is wrong for wanting to suck her thumb. (She is big on "what's healthy" right now so this is right up her alley







) Anyhoo, we went to the library and got some books about braces and thumb sucking and after reading them objectively, she ultimatly decided that she will _try_ to be more aware of the sucking. That's good enough for me







I told her that sometimes she does it and I think that it's out of habit - that she may not realize it, and that I may point it out to her but it is her decision whether she wants to continue doing it.

The last thing I ever want is a battle. And rarely do we. To tell you the truth, she is an incredibly well-behaved and undertanding person and even when I have shut the TV off, she would say "well, okay then." because she knew that there was a rhyme and reason for it. And I would explain that she CHOSE thumb sucking over the TV. It was never a _punishment_ or an argument. It was cause and effect, a consequence of her choice. She could continue sucking after as well, because it was what she chose. I think there is a difference between the way we approached it and punitive limitations. We were very considerate of her feelings; but there ARE consequences to be learned.







We decided to drop it all together and stick to the informative approach instead, however. Now and then (not always) I will casually say "Raye, did you know you're sucking your thumb right now? Are you sure it's something you want to do?" "Yes/no" "Okay" end of conversation. Just for awareness sake.

On a lighter note, I think instead of "punishing" my daughter for sucking her thumb, I will "punish" my mother for giving her the idea!







Maybe I'll have her pay for the braces if they are ever needed







(she still hasn't lived that one down







)


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SunRayeMomi*
You know why, that's what this is about







It's about her health.

OK, well I guess this is where we differ because I don't see it as a health issue. I found no one that could prove it would cause x, y or z and had examples in my own family and friends where it hasn't. So to me it's just a 'boogeyman'. I see you that you feel differently.

Anna


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

SunRayeMomi,

I will refrain from comment unless you are requesting further non-coercive "guidance".









Pat


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

I wouldn't really be posting about it here if I wasn't. Actually, no that's not entirely true. Sometimes I like to hear myself talk.







But BY ALL MEANS, please share advice if you have it!


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Pat, you don't believe in the need for any kind of social contract? How then are we to get on as a society? There are people who want to harm others. It is not o.k. to stop them because I might be wrong that rape and murder are wrong? I'm saying "I" here only because you are refusing this. The boundary conditions I'm defending are hardly my own creation.

You accept anarchy now? By what basis, please do tell, should I never interfere with Simon's autonomy? Because according to your argument, I'm not really ever justified in doing so, though sometimes I'll do this because of my "hang-ups" about the importance of his health and the well-being of others. These are hardly hang-ups. What mother doesn't feel this way? Sometimes things go wrong, but we do have natural inclinations to care about each other. You don't agree that this is the case?

If you see a person running from a lion, do you know that that person is scared and doesn't want to be harmed? Everyone knows this. None of us wants to be eaten by a lion. The position that you are defending refuses to acknowledge that we can have any knowledge at all, moral or otherwise. There is no need to think that knowledge has to be absolute to be worth asserting. Were that the case I would not be justified in stating that I know what my name is as I may be dreaming or what-have-you.

You haven't dealt with my argument, you've just rudely spit on the effort I put into writing it and claimed that I must not have been of sound mind while writing it.

You can see a child being tortured and have no sense of concern for that child? You don't think that this is our natural state of being? You don't think this is a universal human sentiment (shared by many other species as well, I believe)?

Morality never requires that we help others? It's never a good thing to discount the opinion of someone who insists on coming into my home to kill me? This is not founded by morality, just my own subjective preference? Some opinions suck. The beliefs of the KKK suck. They are wrong. It is a good thing to discount their opinions and force them to stop acting on them. Would you rather they be allowed to put their burning crosses on people's lawns and hang people? There is nothing morally wrong with that, and no sound moral reason to stop them?


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

I think _sometimes_ people set up a belief system and tout it as perfection, so when there are eventual possible exceptions to the rules of the system brought forth, the people must then create more levels and sublevels and rules to cover the exceptions so as not to imperfect the system they believe in. Does that make sense? .... I'm not sure. I'm still working it out. But the ideal of perfectly non-coercive parenting is so majestic it's making my head spin a little.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Dal,

I am sorry that you feel that I discounted your efforts in articulating your beliefs. I fully agree with your autonomy to believe as you do. And Trust you to act on your moral code as you see fit in those self-defensive or 'helping others' situations that you described. However, I do not believe as you do regarding imposing my morality as an external universal (or societal) moral code on others. I have no perception that this would be effective in providing the protection from the Fears that you speak of anyway. There are already laws against murder. People murder irrelevant of laws. I do not share your Fears of others acting violently due to a lack of an external moral authority.

Proscribing a moral code against which others are punished serves no real assurance such as you desire, imo. It is no different in children. The underlying need is the catalyst for people's actions, positive or negative by whatever definition. I believe that meeting the underlying needs of our children (which our culture is widely failing to do (according to the individual child's judgement, not mine), and which our culture fervently sanctions ignoring) is the most effective means of honoring and nurturing the inherent value of life that you embrace, imo.

The judgement that the KKK's beliefs "should be" forbidden is no different than the KKK's beliefs that equality of rights for African Americans "should be" forbidden. The common premise is the belief of one's own higher moral authority; and both beliefs embrace using force to subject others to their own moral code.

I truly believe that nurturing the development of communication skills of finding mutual agreeablity is that which will change the dynamics of the world from force to negotiation and consensus. As such, I believe there are many non-mandated ways that society can exist and prosper without force. I agree that sharing a common belief system based upon common "moral" precepts makes that more likely. But forced morality doesn't effectively control people's actions; it is only when morality is *internally directed* that it is most likely to be consistent.

I am fully confident in applying my own moral code (irrelevant of any externally imposed one) based on many of the instinctual reactions which you define as needing to be mandated. I believe this is an aspect of your assertions. As a child, my own instinctual reactions (representing my underlying needs) were subjected to imposed consequences (punishments without regard to the underlying need); and I _learned_ to ignore (and distrust) my instinct unless it was externally validated by higher "moral" authorities than myself (parents, teachers, police officers, ministers, etc.). Or, I would circumvent to obtain my desires anyway without getting caught (we are talking sneaking to see boyfriend, trying alcohol, that sort of moral depravity.







) However, as an adult, I have regained much of my instinctual moral authority for myself. (I confess to being concerned with what people think who hold the threat of legal authority over me, and this does generally deter my desires to act in opposition to amoral (according to my own personal moral code) laws (ie. taxation)). But my *learned* Fear of acting upon the externally imposed moral code of our culture in opposition to my internal moral code (my natural moral imperitive), has waned greatly. Now, I Trust my moral compass, irrelevant of any other's beliefs (except for a few people with whose moral codes I confer).

I believe it is the act of parents modelling disregard (distrust) of their children's own instinctual moral code of valuing the autonomy and integrity for their own life that disrupts (and diminishes) their natural regard of other's autonomy and integrity of life. I Trust that our son will continue to naturally regard his own and other's autonomy and integrity *because* his has been honored consistently, if not perfectly. But, I do not spend my life Fearing those adults who had their autonomy and integrity disregarded who _might act_ against an external moral authority, as they will regardless of an external moral authority.







: Those adults who were disregarded and act on their own internal moral authority do not cause me Fear either. I am one, and I turned out pretty damn moral, even by your high standards.









I believe the construct of "The Lord of the Flies" (depicting "instinctual" moral depravity) is a product of the disregard of human instincts *in our culture*, not the naturally inherent regard of human instincts of humanity. In general, I Trust people's inherent moral compass based upon my own instinctual perception and awareness. I haven't always Trusted and I was "taught" not to. But, I have unlearned Fear of other's morality.







(except morality dictated by the government





















)

Pat-isms

Btw, the Buddhist beliefs that I have been exposed to about suffering and living in the moment (as opposed to distancing from our innate reactions) are different than you depicted to such a degree that I don't know where to begin. And I don't hold the "life is suffering" premise inherent to Buddhism either. I believe I am more Taoist, no justification necessary for that which is. But, I am frequently conflicted by what I have learned to 'expect' and what is.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

I can't read everything now, but are you glad that there are laws? According to your position, it is wrong for there to be such laws since they can never be justified and they disrespect the opinions of the "criminals."

Your position seems to fold because as you present it, it seems incompatible with respect for respect. What is that respect founded on? Why is respect a good thing?

I prefer a mutual agreeability that is founded on commonly accepted beliefs about the importance of respecting people. Without this, what you seem to be advocating is complete moral relativism and anarchy.

There are situations in which it would be wrong to not impose your will on your son. You do not believe that? You would be doing absolutely nothing wrong if you sat back and watched as he picked up an infant and threw her into a well?

Because Hitler imposed his ARBITRARY position on others and much harm resulted does not mean that all impositions of power are arbitrary and wrong. What is important is to identify when it is justified. There are needs for the use of power unless one accepts anarchy as a mutually agreeable position, or as otherwise acceptable.

It seems politically naive to say that "well, there are laws so I don't need to worry about this." Are the laws just? I assume you value your safety. If they are all as arbitrary as you sugget must be the case, they are unjustified. So are you willing to accept that your position leads to the end result of a total hands off society in which there is no widely accepted moral or legal authority by which to stop anyone from doing anything? How is that a good thing?

Libertarianism is about minimal governmental imposition, the government should ensure people's basic rights, whatever these are taken to be (I think most libertarians take them to be quite minimal, and not to include health care or education, but I could be wrong about that). The position is distinct from anarchy, which is opposed to any government at all.

I'm sorry that I haven't had a chance to read all of your response. I meant for this to be just a few lines. I only have so much time to engage in this debate and regret that I haven't been able to do more to respond to individual posts and points.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I do not consensually embrace any law which is not solely for self-defense of the autonomy of the individual. I would believe that I fall much farther from the Libertarian platform and closer to no governmental rule. I have often stated that the only proper role of government is self-defense. Where as others in this country also have a say in the implementation of government, I am able to be in consensus with the implementation of a government for the sole purpose of self-defense of the individual to the degree that the individual expresses or implies a desire to be defended. (Disregarding my stated wishes not to have a feeding tube is not the role of governement to impose on me as an individual imo, fortunately the Supreme Court agreed. However, the issue of my right to euthenasia, is subject to the government in ways that I do not agree with their imposing "self-defense" upon myself from myself, for instance.) And there are tons of laws that others feel impose on their own rights to self-defense such as gun laws, abortion, and acts which are initiated in the name of self-defense such as the War in Vietnam, Iraq, interrogation of suspected "terrorists", etc.

But any further role of government in our lives is not consensual to me. The system we in America have is flawed to be certain. But there is some opportunity to alter the system. However, I choose to voluntarily subject myself to living within the community of a system that imposes upon others and myself beyond the scope of my moral code. And it is getting harder to condone what America does around the world and here, to be sure. I am actively working to change that in the manners that I can. I did not originate the system obviously; and it isn't compatible with my code of non-force by a LLLOOOONNNNGGGG shot. But, so far, it seems the best current alternative for me based upon my own current priorities.

But, no government involvement in my life and living in community by consensus would be my preference. And obviously with 290,000,000 people, getting as close to that as is mutally agreeable requires considering other's moral standards which are in opposition to mine. The fact that we are governed by a representative democracy is perhaps as good as it can get? But, that doesn't seem to be working very well for many people either. I do not know the answer to this. But it is not up to me alone. And fortunately it isn't up to Bush alone either. But he certainly is eating away our civil liberties with the Homeland Security impositions.























I have no meglomaniacal precept of changing the system to my moral code.







But, I am working to change it from the point of advocating parents embrace mutual respect, non-coercion and mutal agreeablity as a means of conflict resolution. And every child will touch many lives. And the world will change.

Pat


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

Pat:

It is not megalomaniacal to search for an ethical code that is apt to be mutually agreeable to the vast majority of humans. I do believe in right and wrong and feel a need to arrive at a justified answer to the questions we've been discussing in order to decide how to best parent my son. When am I justified in asserting authority over him? I do not want to decide this arbitrarily and do not believe that it is never justified (if I did believe this, I'd have to accept that I somehow violated his interests by keeping him alive when he wanted to dart out into traffic, which is both absurd and patently false). Safety issues are not the only issues that come up in our lives. I want to do the best I can to determine when it is fair for me, dh, or someone who is taking care of him to expect Simon to do something or to refrain from doing something.

You are taking my desire to arrive at a determination of what is ideal as though I'm trying to impose it on others. How could I do this? If we have no ideals, at what are we to aim? I'm all for determining ideals, discussing them with others (who come to the table with their own account of what is ideal), and ideally arriving at mutually agreeable consensus about what is and is not acceptable to the group. So, I set out to limit my position to that which I think is most apt to be mutually agreeable.

Back to the discussion. It's hard for people to have self-defense of their autonomy if they are murdered. And of course, no one wants to be raped -- that is also an infringement on autonomy. So, your position does seem to advocate the use of power to prevent someone from infringing on another person's autonomy. You do want for there to be a government (or community consensus) and do believe that the government (or consenting body) has a proper role (protecting the autonomy of individuals). As such, you do seem to embrace the boundary conditions that I've been advocating. The idea of forming a society in which no one ever violates that which has been agreed upon is utopian and unrealistic (unless perhaps the community is very small and very isolated). In real life, there is sometimes a need to impose these limitations on others as they are unable or unwilling to respect the well-being of others on their own. When we are dealing with toddlers and children, even in a Utopian consensual community, they will sometimes do or try to do things that violate the autonomy of others (e.g., hit a sibling).

It is not possible for the government to protect individual autonomy if it doesn't prevent people from doing things that infringe on the autonomy of others. It is not the case that any and every infringement is a problem, which is what you seem to have been arguing in your previous posts. It is justifiable to impose a limitation on a person's autonomy if that person poses a real threat to the autonomy of others (what counts as such needs to be decided). So then, your position does seem to hold that the government (or intentional community members) must prevent actions that cause needless harm. It is safe to assume that everyone wants their safety and autonomy to be respected. So, the autonomous choice of Jimbo to take his gun and shoot school children need not be respected, and indeed, force should be taken if he were to attempt to do this. Such a shooting is antithetical to the morally sanctioned respect for autonomy that is guaranteed to every citizen and ensured to the greatest extent possible by the governing body. Ideally Jimbo will not want to shoot anyone and will happily agree with the rest of society that such an action is morally corrupt. If he does this, we have no issue to deal with. If not, there is a need to somehow coerce his compliance or otherwise deter such actions.

Am I right in thinking that we've achieved some degree of consensus?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I just "had to" revive this thread since I keep hearing people say they "have to" do xyz and their child "has to" do abc.









Pat


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

How would you have them say it?

Under duress that if I fail to do this I will not be able to get my child to the doctor appointment and may have to wait for two months to get another appointment- I choose to rush my child out the door?

Would that be better?


----------



## TinkerBelle (Jun 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I just "had to" revive this thread since I keep hearing people say they "have to" do xyz and their child "has to" do abc.









Pat


You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I respect that. But, I do not fully agree. While everything is not a "have to", sometimes it is. Perhaps you have oodles of time to take care of things. Perhaps you have lots of help to do it with. I do not. Sometimes, it has to be the way it has to be, because of time constraints or other reasons. Like I have stated before, I do not feel that way about EVERY situation.

Everything has some shades of gray.


----------



## TinkerBelle (Jun 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyMine*
How would you have them say it?

Under duress that if I fail to do this I will not be able to get my child to the doctor appointment and may have to wait for two months to get another appointment- I choose to rush my child out the door?

Would that be better?

Exactly. It is not like I stand over my kids and shove and push them and pull them by their hands to do everything I want to do, and nevermind their feelings. But, I believe in teaching children that sometimes we do not always get to do whatever we wish anytime we want, or fullfill every whim and desire, whenever we feel like it.

I think it is more like give and take.

The other day, my 11 mo old had followup to some minor surgery he had a couple of weeks ago. I homeschool my 8 yr old. The 8 yr old did not want to go. He wanted to stay home. Well, I could not reschedule the appointment until after the first of the year, and that was not going to happen. The baby needed to have things checked out. My husband works and cannot just take off anytime he wants to. What was I supposed to do? Just sit and wait for DS1 to decide to go? Leave an 8 yr old home alone? No way. Not go, although the baby needed to go? Anyone I would trust to sit with my child works for a living. Not any family nearby. So, guess what, DS1 did go with us. And guess what? He lived. And he learned a lesson that other people have needs too.


----------



## 2tolove (Mar 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I just "had to" revive this thread since I keep hearing people say they "have to" do xyz and their child "has to" do abc.









Pat

So....What do you say? Do you just NEVER get anything done because my two yo would rather sit in the play room and NEVER go to bed, eat, go potty etc...? While I have read numerous things by peole who feel the same way as you, I have not seen any real practical suggestions that I could use in my daily life.

I guess that I am not able to read the entire thread due to having two little ones







So please forgive me if thathas been answered already....

I LOVE doing things that my dc's like to do, BUT I also do HAVE to get things done aroun the house in order to live in it...And sometimes this requires the HELP of the family as a whole. I do think that is important to teach that there are others around you that have needs and we function as a more civilized society if we can be aware of that fact... (IMHO)









I love all of the help & encouragement that I get from all of you at MDC! However I sometimes feel judged







for asking the question and trying to do the right thing...rather then encouraged in a new direction


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

WHy bother. Nobody was convinced the first go-round. . .


----------



## KaraBoo (Nov 22, 2001)

I think it all comes down to how someone views life and priorities and choices. I don't think anyone "has" to do anything. For example: There's an old saying that you don't have to do anything but die and pay taxes. Well, you have a choice about paying taxes...you just might not like the consequences if you don't.

I think that many people go through life thinking there aren't that many choices but I disagree. Choices are limitless. It's just that we may not like all the choices equally.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KaraBoo*
I think it all comes down to how someone views life and priorities and choices. I don't think anyone "has" to do anything. For example: There's an old saying that you don't have to do anything but die and pay taxes. Well, you have a choice about paying taxes...you just might not like the consequences if you don't.

I think that many people go through life thinking there aren't that many choices but I disagree. Choices are limitless. It's just that we may not like all the choices equally.

The problem is that when people say "I have to do this"
The "Or this will happen" is implied but not said.
IT is always true that it is a choice. But when the consequence is unacceptable there really isnt a choice.
But it doesnt make the "I have to " any less true for the speaker.


----------



## mommaJ (May 3, 2005)

I have taken a long break from this thread in order to give-it-a-go with "non-coersive" living in our home. The points made by Scubamom early on made me think about this topic and I sincerely wanted to give it a shot--I liked that way of thinking/living.

Well, I'm back to report.....it hasn't gone so well. Though I haven't read the entire thread, I know it has turned to a discussion about morality/political affiliations/religion, etc. but I am back to discuss the mega-important topic of oral hygiene









I tried the "give her the tools and let her brush her teeth when she wants to" tactic. Guess what? No interest--for days. After a few days I "insist" that she brush her teeth and then she is confused because it had been a non-issue and suddenly I was insisting. It occurred to me that this inconsistency is much more confusing and damaging to our relationship than any sort of gentle coersion to doing daily hygiene.

In a previous post (early on) someone said that if we "make" them brush their teeth they may grow up to hate it. ??? How many adults do you know who despise brushing their teeth? Or love it? or are torn over the process? NONE! It just IS. Its so silly to take a simple daily task such as this and analyze it to the point of how we "feel" about brushing our teeth.

I am no longer worried about whether or not DD will be ruined for life and have a horrible relationship with her toothbrush as an adult. She has to brush her teeth. Simple as that. I will make it a fun process, but a necessary one. Some things just don't need to be analyzed. There are some things in our house that we "have" to do. Yes, I know there is an alternative, but its not one I'm willing to accept and I believe DD is too young to decide whether or not she wants to keep her teeth for the rest of her life. (and yes I know she looses her baby teeth anyway....not quite the point). BTW, I am not a freak about this....brushing every other day is fine.

Sorry for once again reducing this fabulously intelligent discussion to healthy hygiene habits. Scubamom, please know I mean no disrespect to your ideas, I love them. Some of them just didn't work in our home.

I will leave you with this smilie, as she is showing her pearly whites, from years of brushing no doubt


----------



## KaraBoo (Nov 22, 2001)

Are you suggesting that if a consequence is "unacceptable," then there isn't a real choice? What if putting on a coat when you tell her/him to is "unacceptable" to your child, do you consider it a real choice then? Or does that only apply to adults?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I wouldn't make my daughter put on a coat if she didn't want to. Cold weather doesn't cause illness...and I would have the coat available should she get cold. I would want someone to do that for me...the same way my husband will put my cell on the charger when the battery is low if I forget...he doesn't "punish" me by making me have the natural consequence of a dead phone...

As far as the teeth brushing thing, I dunno. I think playful parenting is great, making things fun is great, gentle reminders even...doing it together...letting them pick out their own toothbrush...all that, wonderful and maybe it is slightly *coercive* if taken too far... but I wouldn't make my daughter brush. I would not force her to by holding her down or under penalty of punishment or threat that she couldn't leave the bathroom or have a toy or snack or whatever until she brushed. That just is wrong for our family.


----------



## mommaJ (May 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I would not force her to by holding her down or under penalty of punishment or threat that she couldn't leave the bathroom or have a toy or snack or whatever until she brushed. That just is wrong for our family.


ITA! I would never force her to in this way either and hopefully I did not imply that I would do this. When I say "make" her, it means that I find a playful way to get it done. It has never been a situation that has involved punishment, bribes, physical force, etc--this is all wrong in our family as well.

As for the coat. I guess we all "pick our battles" because the coat/clothing thing isn't an issue for us....DD chooses what she wants to wear and when. Sometimes that means a swimsuit and rainboots on a cold,dry day. And I always have extra clothing in case she gets cold, which she rarely does.

I supposse its about knowing your child. I concede that if brushing her teeth reduced DD to tears for some reason, then it would be a battle not worth fighting, I would just give up for a few months and approach it again later. I've done this on many occassions with many issues. Because I know that it only takes some creativity, effort and patience on my part, the teethbrushing is worth it to me.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommaJ*
In a previous post (early on) someone said that if we "make" them brush their teeth they may grow up to hate it. ??? How many adults do you know who despise brushing their teeth? Or love it? or are torn over the process? NONE! It just IS. Its so silly to take a simple daily task such as this and analyze it to the point of how we "feel" about brushing our teeth.

I do. I hate brushing my teeth. lol Always have. I don't know if it has anything to do with being forced to brush or not (don't think I was forced to do it though). I do it anyways, so I don't have bad breath or nasty feeling teeth. But there's something about it that I've always felt like putting it off. I have a feeling that I brush my teeth more often now of my own volition than I would if I had someone constantly telling me I "had to"- then there would be 2 issues- one of control, and one of not wanting to do it anyways.
Not really saying that one ought to make their dc brush or not. Just wanted to point out that there is at least one adult who hates teethbrushing. hehehe (ftr, I don't force teeth-brushing on ds)

I should add, that I tried the completely non-coercive thing a few days, and it was not working for us. The vast majority of the time, I let ds do what he wants. But, for example, we went toy shopping the other day. The first while was great- he stayed close to me, we played with toys, and had fun. Then he started going further away, and not coming back when asked. He wanted held, then down, then in the cart so he could climb from front to back. He didn't know what he wanted (yep, he was tired). So, I put him in the front of the cart and left the toy section. He made a small effort to get out (so I essentially was coercing him to stay), but once we left the toys, he was fine sitting there (he usually likes sitting in the cart). If he had really protested, I would have found another way to do it, but I don't imagine anything would have been completely acceptable to him at that moment.
So, I'm still "for" low coersion. I just really don't see how no coersion could work for a 16 mo. I'm sure it could work for some families. Gotta say, that I love the theory, and the ideas of the people who are using it.

I'm not entirely understanding the "you don't HAVE TO do anything" thing. You "have to" drive on the right side of the road. Well, you could choose to not drive at all. or you could choose to drive on the wrong side, and it wouldn't take long before you'd get a ticket, then lose your license, then...whatever. So, I guess in that sense, you don't "have to." But, to me, that's the same logic that someone uses when they give their dc the "choice" between doing x and a timeout. I mean, on the surface, it seems like a choice, but it's not really a choice.
Dp and I can't put up a fence around our yard. That's not a choice we have. We "have to" keep our yard unfenced, even though my dream is to have a fenced in yard for my ds and dogs. The city won't allow fences in the front or side yard, and we have like 3 feet of a backyard. I guess we could build a fence, but then they'd fine us, and probably take it down anyways. We could move, but at this moment, that's not really an option, for a lot of reasons.
I guess I understand the thought behind "you don't have to", but it doesn't seem to be entirely relevant to me, for some reason.
Mind you, I'm not argueing FOR coersion. If I could find a way to raise ds without coersion, I would. (though I do believe children need parents to be authority figures- but that needn't involve coersion).
Just...ok, I actually have no idea what my point is. Just that there are some things that we "have to" do, imo. I do try to keep ds's "have to's" to a minimum, and when he does "have to" do something, I try to use as little coersion as possible.

Ok, blah blah blah. sorry for that. hehehe


----------



## mommaJ (May 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*

So, I'm still "for" low coersion. I just really don't see how no coersion could work for a 16 mo. I'm sure it could work for some families. Gotta say, that I love the theory, and the ideas of the people who are using it.

Mind you, I'm not argueing FOR coersion. If I could find a way to raise ds without coersion, I would. (though I do believe children need parents to be authority figures- but that needn't involve coersion).
Just...ok, I actually have no idea what my point is. Just that there are some things that we "have to" do, imo. I do try to keep ds's "have to's" to a minimum, and when he does "have to" do something, I try to use as little coersion as possible.










:


----------



## mommaJ (May 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
I do. I hate brushing my teeth.

Opening my mouth, inserting my foot.







Well if there's one there must be more who also hate brushing their teeth. Hhhmm...I guess to me it just IS. Hopefully DD won't be on Oprah someday crying about her mommy dancing and singing and making up games to get her to brush her teeth


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't know as I am saying that one can live a completely non-coercive life 100% of the time in 100% of situations... that would be (to me) trying to live up to a standard of perfection that I couldn't achieve. For instance (this has been brought up 234093278 times but oh well lol) if my child was running toward the street and a car was coming, I would pull her back... that is coercive. If she were running a 104 degree temperature but didn't want to go to the doctor and nothing was bringing it down, I would take her... I am sure that is coercive too...

...but these things *generally* don't happen in every day life. I am aiming for a standard of non-coercive living within the realm of what happens 99% of the time in the life of a sahm and her child --- putting on clothes, what to eat, where to go, what to play, brushing teeth, when to bathe, how to learn (homeschooling, unschooling), if and when and how to nap, whether to wear a coat or not etc... and I do think that in 99% of those cases, one can live non-coercively and peacefully.


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KaraBoo*

I think that many people go through life thinking there aren't that many choices but I disagree. Choices are limitless. It's just that we may not like all the choices equally.

Philsophically you are right...but language is limited and it takes a lot of words to say that. Why can't you all assume when I say "I had to take them to the doc" I mean I knew i could choose not to but in this instance I did the calculation in my head and realized that this was a time when to choose not to would be so odious that I felt that there was really only one true choice?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyMine*
Philsophically you are right...but language is limited and it takes a lot of words to say that. Why can't you all assume when I say "I had to take them to the doc" I mean I knew i could choose not to but in this instance I did the calculation in my head and realized that this was a time when to choose not to would be so odious that I felt that there was really only one true choice?

Exactly, when we say "we had to" we have already reviewd all of the possible outcomes and choices and come to that conclusion.
It doesnt mean we really believe there was absolutely no choice under the pain of death.
But it is simply not efficient communciation to go through the entire list of all the things we considered before making a decision so we shorten it to "I had to".


----------



## winonamom2be (Nov 7, 2005)

I, too, despise brushing my teeth. I do it, twice a day whether they need it or not, but I really hate it and always have. When I was a kid, I would not, would NOT use toothpaste - the foaminess of it made me gag. Long and the short of it, my dentist told my mom, "So whatever, let her brush with just water." I didn't use toothpaste until I was a teen.

Mom was never coercive about the tooth brushing; in fact, she never told me to do it or not do it, and as a child, there were many days when I chose NOT to do it. I had quite a few cavities in my baby teeth as a result, fewer in the adult teeth. And a root canal at the age of 14. After the root canal, I got better about brushing them, not wanting to repeat the experience.

Point being, I guess, is that mother nature is a patient teacher, and sometimes (as I suspect my mom felt) things are just not worth a fight over. I suppose she figured that eventually I would get sick of having dental work done and start taking care of my teeth, and, lo and behold, she was right! I haven't had a cavity in 18 years.


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

And I was forced to brush my teeth and while I don't relish doing it- I am not one who just LOVES brushing teeth, I do it without fail. It just is something that I view as something you do. Like going to the potty...not good or bad. It just is.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I don't know as I am saying that one can live a completely non-coercive life 100% of the time in 100% of situations... that would be (to me) trying to live up to a standard of perfection that I couldn't achieve. For instance (this has been brought up 234093278 times but oh well lol) if my child was running toward the street and a car was coming, I would pull her back... that is coercive. If she were running a 104 degree temperature but didn't want to go to the doctor and nothing was bringing it down, I would take her... I am sure that is coercive too...

...but these things *generally* don't happen in every day life. I am aiming for a standard of non-coercive living within the realm of what happens 99% of the time in the life of a sahm and her child --- putting on clothes, what to eat, where to go, what to play, brushing teeth, when to bathe, how to learn (homeschooling, unschooling), if and when and how to nap, whether to wear a coat or not etc... and I do think that in 99% of those cases, one can live non-coercively and peacefully.

Yeah, I basically agree with you. Though I can think of every day life situations that I would feel comfortable using coersion of some sort (like playing in the trash, or with something that's not safe. I will do what I can to explain and redirect, and most of the time that works. But, ultimately, if it takes coercing, I will). But, yeah- aiming for a standard of non-coersion (for you) or low-coersion (for me) is different from saying 100% no coersion 100% of the time. Or, it could be that my *ultimate* goal is non-coersion, and that low-coersion is a midterm goal until I can figure out this non-coersion thing. lol
And I realized that people like to argue, and bring up extreme examples just to prove someone wrong. And I didn't intend to come across that way, but I may have.
I remember a time when I was telling everyone I was vegetarian (not making judgements on them, just telling people why I wasn't eating such and such) and I constantly got REALLY stupid responses. "what about carrots? they're living. I believe they have feelings too." etc. And there's always the "yeah, but would you eat meat if you were stranded on a desert island, with nothing to eat but meat?" and the thought is that if you WOULD do it, then you MUST be a hypocrite for eating meat NOW.
I had a friend who made those types of comments to me and didn't how silly they were, until she witnessed someone else say some really stupid things about it. Then it hit her.
I know there's a point in there somewhere. Something about extreme situations not proving or disproving anything. hehehe


----------



## mommaJ (May 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyMine*
And I was forced to brush my teeth and while I don't relish doing it- I am not one who just LOVES brushing teeth, I do it without fail. It just is something that I view as something you do. Like going to the potty...not good or bad. It just is.

Exactly. It just is.

But as for the original topic....."HAVE to".....in our house I make the day have a few "have to" moments as possible. In fact, some days there is literally nothing we have to do--nothing. Other days there may be a few things. Ultimately though, I want as little coersion and my chlid does. It just makes more sense and for much happier people.


----------



## mommaJ (May 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *winonamom2be*
And a root canal at the age of 14. After the root canal, I got better about brushing them, not wanting to repeat the experience.

Point being, I guess, is that mother nature is a patient teacher, and sometimes (as I suspect my mom felt) things are just not worth a fight over. I suppose she figured that eventually I would get sick of having dental work done and start taking care of my teeth, and, lo and behold, she was right! I haven't had a cavity in 18 years.


I agree that mother nature is a good teacher. I think in this situation I'm not willing to let mother nature teach the lesson. Who has to foot the bill for the root canal at age 14? Certainly not DD.

Okay, I'm going to stop with the topic of dental work. I know its off topic. I'm done.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Lisa needs braces....DENTAL PLANNNNNNN!!!

Fans of the Simpsons will get that haha


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
I should add, that I tried the completely non-coercive thing a few days, and it was not working for us. The vast majority of the time, I let ds do what he wants. But, for example, we went toy shopping the other day. The first while was great- he stayed close to me, we played with toys, and had fun. Then he started going further away, and not coming back when asked. He wanted held, then down, then in the cart so he could climb from front to back. He didn't know what he wanted (yep, he was tired). So, I put him in the front of the cart and left the toy section. He made a small effort to get out (so I essentially was coercing him to stay), but once we left the toys, he was fine sitting there (he usually likes sitting in the cart). If he had really protested, I would have found another way to do it, but I don't imagine anything would have been completely acceptable to him at that moment.
So, I'm still "for" low coersion. I just really don't see how no coersion could work for a 16 mo. I'm sure it could work for some families. Gotta say, that I love the theory, and the ideas of the people who are using it.

I am with you, I don't see how you can really not coerce a 16 mo. I have been thinking about this thread while it has been on hiatus and here's the conclusion I have reached.

All over the world, millions of parents coerce their children every day, and have been for generations. However, there are also millions of healthy adults who are capable of reaching compromise with others, making decisions for themselves, extracting themselves from uncomfortable situations, not allowing others to take advantage of them, etc...

So I have to think that slowly turning over the reins to your children as you teach them how to care for themselves is a very workable model. I just don't see any harm being done to children by their parents having more control over their lives when they are little. In fact, I mostly see good.

So I guess I think if it works for your family, and your relationship, that's great, but I really think most families cannot function this way.


----------



## mommaJ (May 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Lisa needs braces....DENTAL PLANNNNNNN!!!

Fans of the Simpsons will get that haha


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
So I have to think that slowly turning over the reins to your children as you teach them how to care for themselves is a very workable model. I just don't see any harm being done to children by their parents having more control over their lives when they are little. In fact, I mostly see good.

I see ONLY good. I see kids that are too empowered at too early an age to make too many decisions. Decisions they are not yet emotionally ready to face. Children want and need to be protected. One thing I protect my son from for example is his own power. I mean he CAN hit and hurt his brother. It is a choice. But I do all I can to limit his ability to make this choice. Becuase he doens't under stand the ramifications of this choice and he doesn't have the emotional maturity to make it and I don't want him to suffer with his own mind if he did hurt him.

I see this in older kids say 4-10 a lot. Parents who want to never coerce give kids the power to dictate for the whole family and it is terrifying for the kids.

I give my children lots of choice. I help them to see that they have choice in thier own behavior and I guide them when they make the wrong choice. I try to not make a fight or cooerce where there is no need (like what they want to wear) but I do set boundaries where there are things that are not thier choice. So for example I might at lunch ask my son what he wants to eat but at dinner his father usually picks the meal and my son can either choose to eat it or not. (though I always try to make at least one side I know he loves so he can tank up on that if he wants.)

Anyway I am babling but I think that too much choice is damaging to children. I Think they depend on us to limit their choices a bit.


----------



## winonamom2be (Nov 7, 2005)

I think there is a difference between labelling an action such as toothbrushing or going to the doctor as "necessary" and just "something we do" and actual COERSION. I mean, coersion is a very strong word, in my opinion, and not a very nice one.

"Coerce:

To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly.
To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement. "

(dictionary.com)

But saying to a two year old whom you believe should be wearing boots to go out and play in the snow (we live in Minnesota), "Would you like to put on your left boot or your right boot first?" (ie: providing the illusion of a choice in order to obtain the objective of getting the boots on so that the feet do not get frostbitten), in my opinion, is NOT "coersion".

Singing songs or providing a funny toothbrush in order to encourage children to brush teeth, in my opinion, is NOT "coersion".

Letting a child know that others in the household have needs, and that the child does in fact have (age-appropriate) responsibilities as a member of the household community, in my opinion, is not "coersion". It is part of community living.

I don't believe in threatening children with punishments - to me, this is coersion. BUT there are ways to get kids to do what needs to be done (like putting on the boots) without threats and intimidation. The fact of the matter is, I am not going to let a child go play in the snow without shoes on - that is called "neglect". So if saying, "Well, you can't go outside in the snow without shoes on" constitutes a "threat" (which in my opinion, it does NOT), then I guess I would be considered coersive.

But again, I think the word "coersive" is being bandied about a little too loosely, in my opinion.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

See where I am coming from though, is the perspective that my daughter probably wouldn't choose to play out in the snow in bare feet. I am coming from the perspective that if I said, "okay, do you want to feel how cold the snow is on your feet and then decide if you want boots or not?"...that most children would opt for boots, at least after a minute or two.

...now I know there will be the inevitable story to come about someone or their brother or cousin or child who would play in the snow for hours bare footed and got gangrene and had to lose their foot all because their parents didn't want to be coercive *sheesh*... but I would say in 99% of children, if you actually took them to the door and said "go on, feel how the snow feels on bare feet...and your boots are here if you want them" ...ya' would be putting on boots in about 30 seconds.

That is just how I would handle something like that because I trust my child's inner gauge of comfort and feel that most children don't want to feel uncomfortable.


----------



## winonamom2be (Nov 7, 2005)

I think that's a very good point. And I believe you are right, that most children would opt for the boots in about two seconds. Sheesh - they're kids, they're not DUMB!









However, there are a lot of instances where repercussions and consequences are not as clear-cut. As an adult, I believe I have learned things over the course of my life that enable me to make good decisions for myself, and hopefully for my family as well.

Was I always so good at making them? No, frankly, not so much. And I grew up in a very permissive household, where I was pretty much allowed to make most of my own decisions, without an overabundance of guidance or discussion of the options with the person who was supposed to know better than me (because of sheer life experience) what the best choices were (my mom).

I just don't necessarily think that letting the kids do whatever they want whenever they want, and not ever "making" them do anything they don't want to do is the best way for my family. I grew up into a terrible diletante with very little self-discipline, and I blame it on the fact that I basically never HAD to do anything. Never had chores, never had bedtime, could eat as many bowls of ice cream for breakfast as I wanted, was not forced to attend school, etc. And I would say that I have actually had to OVERCOME a lot of that upbringing in order to turn my life into something positive.

I still don't believe in coersion, but understanding that you have responsibilities and obligations to the community (family) you are a part of is not a bad thing, far as I am concerned. Thanks for listening.


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

Taking medicine is a good example I think of something no kid is going to get that they really do need to do. I have had to actually hold my son down to give him amoxicillin the first time he ever had it. The taste was so awful compared to anything he had had before.

Same with ear drops and eye drops the first time.

Now he will do all of these things with ease but the first time was a combo of me explaining and distracting and doing all I could but in the end the medicine HAD to get in the boy. I was as loving as I could be and I absolutly had empathy for him not wanting it but I did know best. He really did need it! He really wasn't going to decide on his own that drops in his eyes would feel cool!


----------



## OneCatholicMommy (Jan 21, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
That's where we differ I suppose. Our child is (or will be, she is still only 5 months) allowed to eat anything we have in the house, for any meal. I don't worry about this at all, as we tend to eat very healthy, so it isn't as if she will be reaching for cheetos or banana splits, as we rarely have anything like that in our house.

If however, we happen to have tofutti (vegan ice cream) or tortilla chips (I make them homemade) or whatever else, that may not be "breakfast" food or even the utmost healthy, she is welcome to it for breakfast if she wishes.

You see though, I believe children and people in general are basically creatures of habit, or they find comfort in routine. If from the time she can eat finger foods until the time she can actively choose her own food, we are serving healthy meals, chances are this is what she will prefer -- but if one day she wakes up and says "mama, can I have tofutti for breakfast?" I would let her have tofutti. That will be her choice. The fact that nothing is off limits in our home foodwise, nothing will feel "forbidden" or off limits or like a big old treat that she can't have, or can only have when she finishes her meal, or can't have before a meal, or whatever....limits the novelty of eating tofutti for breakfast every morning. I feel if you take the punishment/reward/consequence/treat dynamic away from children, in this case regarding food, most children will naturally just think "I can have tofutti if I like, no biggie, but today toast sounds good" or whatever...

I wouldn't want to fix a different meal for everyone. Like I've told my kids before, I don't run a cafeteria.


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

This has been such an interesting thread from what I have read (I admit I haven't read all of it -- the first 5 or so pages and the last few). I always enjoy seeing the different sides in the non-coersion/have to do things debate. It is something of course that I go through myself each day with my three kids. We're not non-coersion, though I looked into it a lot when my oldest was a baby. I just wanted to point out, for those who are saying they tried it for a few days and it didn't work -- I really think it is something that would work better from birth. If I, say, suddenly decided that we wouldn't limit ice cream to on occasion and after a meal, yes, my kids would want it all the time. And maybe they would want it all the time forever. Not because I think any given kid would want to eat ice cream all the time, but because I *have* made it an issue in our home. I don't think it would be fair for me to let my kids choose what to eat and when for a few days, and then say Oh, they've eaten nothing but ice cream this whole time, so non-coersion must not work. I'm also not saying I think that non-coersion will work for every family -- obviously I did look into it and it hasn't ended up working out for us. But that is my issue. Maybe if I had been parented "perfectly" and had more energy to put into it, things would have gone better. Or maybe it just *isn't* the right fit for my family. I don't know. But I wouldn't say for sure that it isn't right for us based on raising my kids with low coersion/playful encouragement to do what I think they should do when needed and then suddenly trying to be no coersion. I hope that muddle makes some kind of sense.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brisen*
I just wanted to point out, for those who are saying they tried it for a few days and it didn't work -- I really think it is something that would work better from birth.

I agree with that. Or just over a longer period of time than a few days (way longer). And, when I tried for a few days to be non-coercive, I wasn't *really* non-coercive at heart. Like I'd try to let him decide whether to get in the carseat or not (and if not, obviously that meant we weren't going). But I wanted the end result to be that he would choose to get in. So, really, I wasn't doing it at all, I realize. lol
It seems like something that would be best to work into gradually. kwim?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
But I wanted the end result to be that he would choose to get in. So, really, I wasn't doing it at all, I realize. lol?

I think this is very important so I wanted to highlight it. I think the most important thing about deciding to go NC is being able to let go of immediate results. You can behave non coercively most of the time, but if you havent truly changed your way of thinking at its core, you will only be going through the motions. It isnt so much what you do, as what you believe.
First you have to let go of the desire for the end results, and then not coercing is easier and a natural result of giving up the idea that you do have or should have control.
Does this make any sense?


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *winonamom2be*
"Coerce:

To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly.
To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement. "

(dictionary.com)

Letting a child know that others in the household have needs, and that the child does in fact have (age-appropriate) responsibilities as a member of the household community, in my opinion, is not "coersion". It is part of community living.

I don't believe in threatening children with punishments - to me, this is coersion. BUT there are ways to get kids to do what needs to be done (like putting on the boots) without threats and intimidation. The fact of the matter is, I am not going to let a child go play in the snow without shoes on - that is called "neglect". So if saying, "Well, you can't go outside in the snow without shoes on" constitutes a "threat" (which in my opinion, it does NOT), then I guess I would be considered coersive.

Good points. I'm trying to live as non-coercively as possible with my children. Every person in our family has needs, we need to meet everyone's needs. Every person has wants, we meet needs before wants and do not meet all wants (because that is at times impractical, at times impossible, and at times meeting wants interferes with meeting another's needs). It's difficult. I do believe that when everyone's needs are respected and met, and punishments, threats, intimidation and rewards are not used that one is parenting non-coercively. I think it would be impossible to parent without ever coercing or using force-partly because at some point children will need to be protected especially at younger ages, and partly because families are made up of people who each have needs which sometimes conflict with other family members' wants or needs. I would not hesitate to use force to protect my child from harm.

I do not hesitate to say "it's non-negotiable" when I believe that's what's necessary to protect my child. I do not hesitate to say to one child "this is non-negotiable" because I am protecting and meeting the needs of another child when the first child is expressing a want rather than a need. Example: ds doesn't want to get into the car when it's time to pick dd up from school and dd will be frightened if we're late and can't walk home herself and no one is available to stay home with ds-is this coercion?







I try to make getting in that car as pleasant as possible for everyone, because that just seems to make life more pleasant for all of us. All I know is that it doesn't seem reasonable to not pick up one child (or be late picking up that child even) because the other child prefers not to go in the car, and it isn't safe to leave a little one home alone to go get the first child-so it becomes non-negotiable by my choice.

Bottom line for me is yes, we always have a choice. Knowing this, being aware of this always, I choose to parent with as little coercion as possible, but I do choose it sometimes in order to meet everyone's needs as best I can or to protect a child. I really think most of us are on the same page here, too.


----------



## loon13 (Dec 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
I agree with that. Or just over a longer period of time than a few days (way longer). And, when I tried for a few days to be non-coercive, I wasn't *really* non-coercive at heart. Like I'd try to let him decide whether to get in the carseat or not (and if not, obviously that meant we weren't going). But I wanted the end result to be that he would choose to get in. So, really, I wasn't doing it at all, I realize. lol
It seems like something that would be best to work into gradually. kwim?











To chime in with my own experience: I have been low-coercion/striving toward non-coercion regarding food since the beginning of the year. (And non-coercion in general for longer than that, but the food issue is a biggie for me.)

If it's in the house, dd can eat it. So I have some control in the way that if I don't buy it, we don't have it--at least until we go shopping again. But when dd goes shopping with me, and asks for something, I don't refuse.
So mind you, it's been almost a year, but so much better. I limited cookies and ice cream for a long time, so yeah, she's more apt to want those first when they're available. But really, she's not asking for those things every day. She might have ice cream (along with other foods) for about 3 days and then she won't ask for it for weeks.

To tell an even better story that made me realize the non-coercion food thing was working:
We went to the store and dd asked for "numbers" (her word for "M&M"s







They do look like little 3s...)
She chose the big bag. We came home. She was playing with paper cups. She would put some M&Ms from the big bag into the cups and pour them into other cups. It was like her version of the sand box but with M&Ms.
If an M&M fell on the floor, she would say "Uh-oh, that has to go in the garbage." I asked her if she was eating them, because if she was only playing with them, she could use them again. No, she said, she was only playing but they still had to go in the garbage. I swear, I watched this kid play and I didn't see her eat NOT ONE M&M.
By the end of the night, quite a few had spilled and been put in the garbage. Dd said she was finished playing and asked me to throw the rest of them away.
How many kids do you know who can be exposed to candy and NOT eat it? How many adults? And better to play with the bag of M&Ms than eat the whole thing.

That night she asked for a banana, a glass of milk, and a scrambled egg to eat.









Seriously, we've taken away the "forbidden" image of it and I like the result.

I also agree that it's a lot easier if you start from birth. The food issue is still hard for me some days b/c I'm trying to follow a specific diet (healing the gut tribe) that dd could benefit from. But she's 3.5 now and very aware of choices, so it's harder than if I had started from when she was a baby. And if I learned anything it's that the harder I try to force her to eat something and not eat something else, we get into some major battles that are not worth it.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Reviving this thread as one of my favorites!

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I misspelled "consensual" until like the 9th page or something
















Oh well, spelling isn't a marker of intelligence, thank goodness.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I misspelled "consensual" until like the 9th page or something















.

Now you are telling me. And I have been copying your spelling, because after all you are a native speaker









Actually I think I have been alternating copying you and Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Bumping this thread as one of my favorites.









Pat


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I have not read the entire thread (I am on page 5) but I wanted to ask a question/make a comment.

My nearly 3 year old son generally responds well to choices, non-coercive parenting techniques, etc. However, there are times, generally when he is overtired or hungry, when he needs ME to take control of him. He doesn't understand why he is upset. He doesn't understand that his loss of control over his emotions is due to a blood sugar crash. All he knows is that he is an emotional mess. And even though he protests, I know that he wants me to come in and take control - if that means picking him up and removing him from a situation (and getting him something to eat or sitting down for a little nurse/rest), then that is what I do.

I know what this feels like - when I was pregnant with him, I suffered from pregnancy induced hypoglycemia. I had to eat every three hours or I would have a massive sugar crash.

One day, I was having a crash and my brain spun out of control. I was literally sobbing to dh, saying "I am hungry, so hungry. feed me."

And he sat there giving me CHOICES. I didn't want choices. I couldn't handle choices. My brain was incapable of making a decision. Instead, I needed him to take control, make me eat something (anything with protein would have been fine) and basically take care of me.

The situation only resolved itself because dh finally got so frustrated he took a piece of cheese from the fridge and threw it at me, saying "eat this!".

And I did. And I got my brain back.

So as a PP said, I never say never. My parenting philosophy is based on respect for my children as people. Respect for their needs, including learning how to negotiate, learning how to make decisions, and learning to demand respect. Learning how to respect others and learning how to work with the limitations we all face in life.

But it also includes me taking charge when the situation warrents it. That is because they are children and have imperfect knowledge and imperfect emotional control. As they grow older and gain more of both, I need to step in less and less.

My 2 cents.

Siobhan


----------



## sparklefairy (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Envisoin this for example. You want your child to have a healthy breakfast. YOur child wants the ability to choose their own breakfast. You offer yogurt with fruit or scrambled eggs and fruit. Your child feels powerful that they get to choose what they want. Mom feels like she has controlled the situation because she did not offer a banana split. If the child has unlimited choices, he or she might choose the banana split. Mom might not like this but mom is uncomfortable having control over the choice.
But in the above scenario where a child is given choices, the child has power appropriate to his or her age and experience but underlying it is the strategic control of the parent. Mom is calling the shots in the sense that only healthy choices are given. But the child is still respected when the choices are things she likes and she gets to choose what she wants at that moment.
This type of interaction is repeated in all types of circumstances. The child has a reasonable amount of control but it is underpinned by the overall control of the parent.
Joline

Good points. You didn't exactly say what I was thinking, so I'll add that some children are actually uncomfortable with unlimited choices and feel very insecure without limited choices ie boundaries.

Another thought -- is this an example of controlling a child or controlling a child's environment? When my children added solid food to compliment the milk they got from me, I offered them age appropriate choices from our family's table. Food is one area where I feel very uncomfortable exerting any control at all, though I've found that everyone in our household is on a more even keel if I do set limits. But I didn't offer every possible food at every possible meal or snack time, and I didn't start buying things at the store just so that my kids could have the benefit of unlimited choices -- there are some products that I never buy and I didn't begin to just because I had kids. Is it controlling to never have, for instance, twinkies as an option? Really no one has unlimited choices, do they? They can choose from what's available. At some point, we decide to call it "controlling" if what's available is however limited describes "controlling" by our standards.

One thing that springs to mind is that I don't think that my kids are really aware of "white bread" as an option. I've never eaten it, I've never bought it, my mom never served it to me. We just buy what we buy, I explain what I look for on the label (which usually means one brand of whole wheat bread has corn syrup so we avoid it and choose another brand that doesn't,) and it's not an issue. But was it controlling of me to not offer white bread, whole wheat bread, a variety of bagels, croissants, etc. etc. ?


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sparklefairy*

Another thought -- is this an example of controlling a child or controlling a child's environment? When my children added solid food to compliment the milk they got from me, I offered them age appropriate choices from our family's table.

and further to this point, is it controlling to not make a special meal for the child just because he wants it? I mean, to use an example from early in the thread, when the kid asks for a banana split - is HE going to make it or are you?

My brother did this all the time and (in my opinion) my mother was waaaaaaay to accomodating of his whims. He used food to control her - he'd refuse to eat whatever she had prepared and demand to eat something else - and she'd go off and make it for him. It was incredibly inconsiderate, in my mind.

And he does this with his wife - she told me she works hard to make him food he likes, only to have him come home and demand something else or be critical of her cooking. I told her to bitch slap him next time he did it (yeah, it really pisses me off).

BTW, it didn't start with my brother - it started with my dad. I never noticed it as a child because I was used to it, but a friend spending Christmas with us pointed out to me how my mom and my dad's sisters practically hovered around my dad over breakfast, refilling his coffee cup, his orange juice glass, running off to make him eggs and toast (or they would even "redo" them because the toast wasn't done "right").

So when I read these threads about "not limiting choices" for kids, these dinner table scenes during my childhood are exactly what I envision - the men in my family getting exactly what they wanted, whenever they wanted it, and expecting the women of the family to provide it.

You can see why it gets my back up...









Siobhan


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Let's keep in mind the philosophy of this board.

Gentle Discipline is based on loving guidance.

Unlimited choices (living without "have to's") are concepts some may want to explore. Misunderstandings may occur when new readers wonder if this view is necessary to Gentle Discipline. From the description of GD in this Forum:

Quote:

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.
Please keep this in mind while exploring the concepts of this thread.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

Gentle Discipline is based on loving guidance.
Yes, certainly, not "having to" do something you don't want to do doesn't preclude "loving guidance".

Quote:

Unlimited choices (living without "have to's")
Don't you believe that these are two very different things? Unlimited choices do not exist naturally in life. There are natural limitations. The discussion is related to imposing "have to"s on our children. We actually don't have things imposed upon us that we "have to do".

Pat


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Scubamama, Gentle Discipline works for parent created as well as environment created limits and boundaries. It is fine to explore life without parent created "have to's" in this thread. However, that isn't a necessary aspect of Gentle Discipline, and I have posted a reminder for the benefit of new readers. If there are any questions, please send me a PM.

Thanks for understanding,

Heartmama


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

Gentle Discipline works for parent created as well as environment created limits and boundaries

Quote:

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 interpretation seems in contradition to the Gentle Discipline forum guidelines that you quoted. Please see my bold. Guidance is not the same as "parent created limits and boundaries". Nor is *imposing* limits and boundaries the same at "nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries. There is a specific emphasis on NOT "curbing tendencies toward wrongdoing". And presumes that *cooperation* not _imposing_ can be engaged.

Perhaps, your interpretation is different? I would love to understand more accurately for the benefit of the forum's awareness, not only my own.

Thank you for the discussion.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Hi Scubamama,

Please PM me with any questions about the Forum Guidelines.

Thanks~Heartmama


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

A few musings on a glass of wine and staying up too late.

There have been multiple references to a child's autonomy.

I conjecture that a child has no true autonomy - and that human autonomy is limited at best. We are social creatures - we crave and thrive on social interaction. Solitary confinement is one of the cruelist forms of punishment our incarceration system metes out. Social ostracization is one of the most common forms of punishment for human misbehavior throughout known history - and directly referenced in the Bible starting with Cain.

In short, humans cannot survive 100% independently. In fact, the West is rather unusual in our quest for independence and our focus on the individual. In Japan, for example, it is assumed that the child needs to be integrated into the family, not made independent.

In parts of West Africa I am familiar with, a child is considered as an integral part of his family - "owned" for lack of a better word, but that relationship contains obligations from the family as well as to the family. People who leave the family are described as lost or cut off, and often described as mentally ill.

Even in the US, we talk about family, communities, networks, and tribes. We need these as much as we need air and water.

Financially, logistically, and economically in the US, child cannot survive without some sort of adult caretakers until at least age 16, when the child is allowed to work. It might be earlier in other societies, if the child is given decent survival skills.

From a biological standpoint, the parent/child relationship is parasitic.

Therefore, there is NO equality between parent and child. There cannot be equality, because parent and child are not equals.

This does not mean the child has no rights - on the contrary, the child is extremely vulnerable and has more needs and fewer options than an adult. But it also means the adult has more responsibilities over the child.

My time in Senegal was very illuminating as I realized that an asymetrical power relationship does not necessarily mean the more powerful person always dominates and the weaker person is subordinate. There is power in subordination. There is responsibility in power. And these obligations are reinforced by our communities.

Does this mean I get to lord it over my kids and enforce my will? Of course not. I have an obligation to treat them with respect due to all humans, especially my own kin. I have an obligation to love them and nurture them and help them learn how to be healthy adults with choices and skills.

But frankly, I am very comfortable in exerting authority in my family. Because it is my obligation. Accompanying power is a great and deep responsibility to use that power wisely. Abdicating that authority is, in my opinion, not a responsible use of it.

My two cents.

Siobhan


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Siobhang,

Succinctly, I believe that the parent/child relationship is symbiotic, not parasitic. I have gained significantly (growth and development, and joy) from being in relationship with a child. I feel our child has probably gained as much. I agree that we are an interdependent species, but that autonomy over one's own body and choices can co-exist in a consent based relationship, imo. If you are interested in exploring consensual relationships, please consider the Consensual Living yahoo group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consensual-living/ Or the Consensual Living Tribe: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ght=consensual

Introducing choices and refusing choices are very different. We _consensually_ avoid dairy, wheat, soy, artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, GMOs, antibiotic treated meat and eat significant amounts of organic. Our son is 5, eats whatever he wants: banana split for breakfast hasn't been requested, or offered. *But, it wouldn't be refused either.*

Supporting someone who is not feeling well does not necessitate imposing force. Proactive and attuned attentiveness to cues of needing support are very beneficial to our parent/child relationship. My goal is to not usurp our child's inherent autonomy, rather to support his growing self-awareness and self-control through honoring his self-determination. If the parent/child relationship feels out of balance, (ie. the parent is "sacrificing" or the child is dissenting, resisting, protesting, contrary, "defiant", "obstinate", etc.) the communication of their needs is apparently not being effectively communicated, heard, supported or honored, imo. I believe that mutually agreeable solutions which honor the parent, AND the child's choices can be found.

The communciation tools of NVC are very helpful in understanding and communicating underlying needs, feelings and making requests, rather than demands of others.
http://www.cnvc.org/motherin.htm
http://www.cnvc.org/hearyes.htm
http://www.cnvc.org/raisekds.htm

HTH, Pat


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang*
Does this mean I get to lord it over my kids and enforce my will? Of course not. I have an obligation to treat them with respect due to all humans, especially my own kin. I have an obligation to love them and nurture them and help them learn how to be healthy adults with choices and skills.

But frankly, I am very comfortable in exerting authority in my family. Because it is my obligation. Accompanying power is a great and deep responsibility to use that power wisely. Abdicating that authority is, in my opinion, not a responsible use of it.

My two cents.

Siobhan

Loved this post, Siobhan! That is exactly how I feel.


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli*
Loved this post, Siobhan! That is exactly how I feel.

me too! great post!


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

thanks!

Pat, thanks for the links and for the continued explanation/discussion.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I truly believe that a child is *incapable* of giving true consent. As the child grows older and more mature, his/her capacity to truly consent grows, and should be respected by the adults. I don't agree with the legal requirement that a child be 18 to be capable of consent, but I do not think that therefore a child of 5 is capable.

There will be some adults incapable of giving consent. My mother, during her last week of her life, was incapable of consenting to any decisions about her care - my father (and my extension me and my brother) had the authority to make decisions on her behalf. This is no different, in my opinion, than decisions I make every day on behalf of my children.

I also wanted to add something else that came to me last night.

I find these discussions about non-coercion to be very very useful. I have become much more mindful of when I do use coercion - and so far it seems to be limited to three circumstances:

* when there is an imminent danger (child running out into the road)
* when my child is beyond the point of self-control (i.e. over tired, afraid, hungry, etc)
* when I have not handled a situation very well - especially when *I* am overtired, hungry, frustrated, etc.

I think coercion just flat out doesn't work well in parenting as a sustainable technique. It doesn't teach anything other than "do as I tell you to do".

Frankly, the amount of out and out control we can have over another person is pretty minimal. Resorting to coercion is a good indication that other forms of teaching and communication are not working.

Thanks for the conversation and I look forward to hearing other people's thoughts.

Edited for clarity.


----------

