# What is that GD style...finding acceptable solutions for both parent and child?



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I was thinking about MDC and remembered a style of GD that was super popular when I frequented this forum back when my child was young. It would have been about 5 years ago. Forgive my rudimentary description of the style. I know it had a title, it seemed to focus on finding mutual solutions for both parent and child, it seemed to place a great deal of faith in the idea that a child would make good choices for her/himself. It seemed to be on the more "liberal/alternative" end of the GD spectrum. I know it had a website that was very informative. We referred to it by initials that had the letter "C" in them I think. Thanks!


----------



## tbone_kneegrabber (Oct 16, 2007)

Consensual living?


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

that would be my guess -- consensual living.

it really works, but I notice that it varies from family to family in how the principles are applied.


----------



## PeacemongerMom (May 8, 2011)

Unconditional Parenting sometimes abbreviated UCP or UP that would fit. There is a book by that title by Alfie Kohn. He didn't create that style. I think it really goes back to well known child psychologist Haim Ginnot. Another book that emphasizes that approach Parent Effectiveness Training by Thomas Gordon, he talks a lot about not just problem solving but finding a solution acceptable to both parent and child. Or could have been NVC non violent communication ( Marshall Rosenberg, Inbal Kashstan), they have a lot of good youtube videos explaining their approach. It's also a collaborative problem solving, active listening technique.


----------



## PeacemongerMom (May 8, 2011)

I would like to hear others experiences with it. I tried it, it sounded good, I wanted it to work but there are times in life that a child just has to follow the rules and the rules can't be bent or compromised in anyway to fit his wants. My son is in a Montessori school and having a very hard time with this right now. He also has great difficulty getting along with other children because other children aren't apt to sit their and work it out, they're not going to be patient and try to figure out what wants or needs are driving his motives when draws on their coloring paper like he did today.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

A few years ago, when I saw more posts about it, I believe people were describing it as "Consentual Living".

I will confess that I tried it for about 2 days and discovered that I could not do it. It fit neither my personality, nor my understanding of child development. But there were some really good discussions around the issue, and they certainly did make them think.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Yes, it was Consentual Living - thank you! When I was posting heavily in this forum it was the dominant philosophy (or at least one of the main ideas). I remember really liking the idea. Not for myself so much but as an idea to consider in contrast some of the more conventional GD approaches.

Now that my daughter is a little older and we're facing some new discipline issues I want to revisit the idea for our family.

I'll check out the website again and post back if I find some good information.

PMM - I love all the books/authors you mentioned! I love the philosophy of UP and thought PET was the best practical guide for parents out there.

All this talk also has me remembering Taking Children Seriously. I can't remember how all that fits in...will be back if I remember.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PeacemongerMom*
> 
> I would like to hear others experiences with it. I tried it, it sounded good, I wanted it to work but there are times in life that a child just has to follow the rules and the rules can't be bent or compromised in anyway to fit his wants. My son is in a Montessori school and having a very hard time with this right now. He also has great difficulty getting along with other children because other children aren't apt to sit their and work it out, they're not going to be patient and try to figure out what wants or needs are driving his motives when draws on their coloring paper like he did today.


I'm no expert on CL but I can see how it would be very hard to continue in a school setting, even one that's considered relaxed, alternative or unconventional. Montessori can be quite strict and might not be the best fit for a CL family. Also, I would not expect children, others or those from CL families, to apply the principles with each other so much, especially very young children (which is usually the make-up of Montessori schools). I would expect the adults to provide guidance in that respect but I don't think I'd expect Montessori teachers to know much about CL or subscribe to it. I don't know how you can incorporate CL into your family life and get a young child to understand that it doesn't apply in another place where he spends a majority of his time.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Consensual living was huge here at one point. I loved the discussions, and I learned a lot from them and got good ideas for my family, but I didn't find it was practical at all times for us. But I love the idea of thinking of ways everyone can be happy instead of making children yield to what the parents want. There really is often a solution everyone is happy with.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PeacemongerMom*
> 
> I would like to hear others experiences with it. I tried it, it sounded good, I wanted it to work but there are times in life that a child just has to follow the rules and the rules can't be bent or compromised in anyway to fit his wants. My son is in a Montessori school and having a very hard time with this right now. He also has great difficulty getting along with other children because other children aren't apt to sit their and work it out, they're not going to be patient and try to figure out what wants or needs are driving his motives when draws on their coloring paper like he did today.


It (the "coersion and consequences are BAD!" theory of parenting) was a disaster with my temperamentally "spirited" kid. It works great with my other kid who is more of a natural "people pleaser."

I've decided that nobody really knows what's going on with this stuff. I STRONGLY suspect that different kid need different parenting styles, depending on temperament. I did find this in google scholar:

http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/2244H/Maccoby_ParentsMatter.pdf

Quote:


> Evidence has been emerging that a given parental practice can have different effects
> on children with different temperaments. Kochanska (1995, 1997a) studied the development
> of conscience in young children. She reported that for shy, temperamentally
> fearful children, parental power-assertion does not appear to promote conscience
> ...


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

My older dd is temperamental and spirited too, and she's the one with whom I found Consensual LIving to be impractical. I love the idea but I couldn't make it work for us. I have found I haven't needed to punish, but I will admit there are times I have been tempted and I can see how it might have helped me have more control in some areas than I had. I just decided that the control I might gain wasn't important enough for me to punish. And maybe people who practice CL have decided to give up on things I wasn't willing to give up on because those things weren't as important to them as living consensually. I don't think it's impossible to raise a well behaved child who has self control without punishment or coercion any more than it's impossible to raise a well behaved child who has self control without spanking or other physical punishment, and that goes for spirited children too. My 9-year-old is now very well behaved and has great self control, though she's still emotional and intense, but the first 6 years of her life were very difficult. When she was 6, we finally decided we could handle having another child. LOL.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

I think it's not just the temperament of the child but also the temperament of the parent. I have decided that I do not have the capability to follow a rigid routine or schedule or system. My first child (who is 20yo now) was definitely "spirited". He was diagnosed with ADHD when he was 7 or 8yo. We went to counselors and I read all kinds of books. That was before I knew about AP or any of this other stuff. The thing back then was the rewards/punishment chart of just rewards chart. You kept a chart of desired behavior, for which the child got rewards. You could also remove points or stars or whatever for undesired or unacceptable behavior. Thinking about that system now, it makes me think of training a dog. Anyway, I could never stick to it for more than 2 weeks. My spirited child didn't respond well to that kind of system but then maybe it was because I never stuck to it long enough to completely retrain him.







It doesn't really matter because it didn't work for _me_. I'm terrible at sticking to schedules or strict routines. I can stick to relaxed routines, though.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> My older dd is temperamental and spirited too, and she's the one with whom I found Consensual LIving to be impractical. I love the idea but I couldn't make it work for us. I have found I haven't needed to punish, but I will admit there are times I have been tempted and I can see how it might have helped me have more control in some areas than I had. I just decided that the control I might gain wasn't important enough for me to punish. And maybe people who practice CL have decided to give up on things I wasn't willing to give up on because those things weren't as important to them as living consensually. I don't think it's impossible to raise a well behaved child who has self control without punishment or coercion any more than it's impossible to raise a well behaved child who has self control without spanking or other physical punishment, and that goes for spirited children too. My 9-year-old is now very well behaved and has great self control, though she's still emotional and intense, but the first 6 years of her life were very difficult. When she was 6, we finally decided we could handle having another child. LOL.


Interesting, and I believe you. You really never even used any logical consequences with her?


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

No - I mean logical consequences sometimes just happen despite me, but I never imposed a consequence or purposely allowed one to happen when I could intervene. It seems like kids have so many limits and consequences that naturally come up I didn't feel like I needed to create any. Though there were times I wanted to put her in her room or something, but really only because it seemed like it would STOP the behavior in the moment, which would be useful in the moment, but I didn't personally feel like it would actually teach why the behavior was a problem. Though it isn't like I always have a plan. Some of my parenting is probably best called "muddling through the best I can until she outgrows a phase." And there are definitely times when I'm muddling through a phase and would just like a brief break from the phase, even if it's just a few minutes of peace while she's in her room. LOL. I can definitely see why people use time outs, and I don't disagree they can be done very gently and are within the realm of GD, I've just tried very hard to avoid punishments and have been successful so far, and plan to keep trying. I've read a lot of Alfie Kohn, and I know a lot of people aren't into his stuff, but it really made sense to me, personally.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tbone_kneegrabber*
> 
> Consensual living?


yeah that


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

I suppose that we are closer to unconditional parenting, but I haven't been in a situation where punishment/etc is necessary. He's only 3, too, and so not in a logical place where we are talking out solutions. I do try to think about what is going on from his perspective, though, and work from there.

I suppose that this is consensual in that his needs are taken into consideration. What I want in our household is for my son to feel happy and supported, and so I work diligently to create that. I have several methods of doing so -- from simple living to having a strong rhythm to making sure he has outside time to making sure he gets consistent meals and so on and so forth. I make sure, too, that any transition has a lot of time as well. If the bus leaves at 9:01, and it takes 3 minutes to get from door to bus stop, I'll actually leave 10 minutes out, because I'd rather wait at the bus stop for 5-7 minutes.  This means that shoe time can take 5-10 minutes before that, and coat before that, and tidying away before that, and ending play time before that. Each has it's own duration -- I give it a lot of space.

This helps him move at his own pace through these things. Some days, that is quickly, and other days, it is more slow. If it is a quick day, I add in an activity. If he's moving from passive to active (which is common with the bus situation), then I create an active game for us to do either prior to going to the bus stop or after we get to the bus stop. It's usually movement based. This keeps him happy and meets his need, while also meeting my need to be at the bus on time and without a fussy child. If he's moving from an active to a passive activity, then I'll typically choose a passive activity for us. I typically use cuddles plus story telling. Again, this allows him to transition without feeling rushed one way or another. Most times, he needs the time that I provide for him to transition, and it works great.

I would say that my son is easy-going, but he is actually quite a strong and spirited personality. So, I am firm with him -- there are rules. Most of them have to do with manners around other people and safety. "This is how we do things" -- and I am firm on them.

As an example, when you get on the bus, you greet the driver. You sit down properly on the seat ("like a gentleman"), and you do that the whole ride. If you don't sit like a gentleman (and you're told once), then you sit on my lap. That's the rule. 90% of the time -- and we ride the bus frequently -- DS sits properly. 5% of the remaining time, he needs one reminder and then sits properly. the remaining 5% of the time, he is in my lap for at least part of the ride (sometimes by his request), and if he is sitting peacefully in my lap, I'll ask him "would you like to sit in your own seat like a gentleman?" And then he will. The reasons that this is important are two-fold: 1. safety -- the bus jostles around and he can get thrown around. Heck, I get thrown around. 2. being polite -- getting dirty shoes on the seat means that other people cannot sit there later, or won't want to. We need to be polite to our fellow travelers, and leave the bus as clean as we found it. Of course, we also *model* all of this behavior with him, and we point out how all of the other passengers on the bus are sitting and behaving as well.

When I feel that DS is "acting up" (a term DH uses), I find it's usually due to hunger, tiredness, or a need to switch activities. It's rare that he gets that way with me, it's more common with DH. He doesn't think beyond his own head most days, so he doesn't grasp the forethought that this process entails. BUT, he does great when he does have that forethought AND when he keeps a strong rhythm with DS. it's just that -- and I understand this -- sometimes you want a day to just relax and not be responsible for anyone. I get it.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> I can definitely see why people use time outs, and I don't disagree they can be done very gently and are within the realm of GD, I've just tried very hard to avoid punishments and have been successful so far, and plan to keep trying.


There are ways to do time-outs without it being a punishment. In our family, if one person is out of control, they are asked to leave the rest of us until they can calm down. It's not a punishment, "You've been bad so now you have to sit in the corner for 5 minutes," or whatever. It's more along the lines of, "I can see that you are very upset and having a hard time handling this situation right now. Why don't you go to another room until you are calm enough that you can talk about it while still respecting the rest of us." That works with my middle ds, who is 7yo now. He goes to his room to be alone when he feels overwhelmed. He started doing that when he was very young. I want to say 3 but I'm not sure.

My 4yo is a different story. He is much more energetic and spirited. I do sometimes have to physically remove him from situations. Again, it's not as a punishment. He is allowed to return to the rest of us when he can calm down. Sometimes it gets extremely difficult with the two of them because they are so different. My 7yo is very low-key and sensitive and he gets extremely bothered by his little bro's constant movement and noise and commotion very easily.

It's a fine line and probably seems like splitting hairs to many people but I think a lot depends on the approach. If you approach the situation from anger or disappointment with the sense of feeling that the child is bad or misbehaving, the child will feel like anything you do or say is punishment. If you can find a way to approach it from a place of understanding that the child is just being himself and not intentionally trying to bother anyone else, it's easier to find ways to accommodate everyone without punishments. I'm certainly not perfect at it but I try.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

From what I recall with the CL discussions from way back CL is quite different from other forms of GD including UP. While I'm sure punishment had no place in CL this is not where it differed from other forms of GD (as there are many approached to GD that also do not include punishment, UP for one). From what I remember the main difference was in this idea that kids kind of intrinsically make good choices for themselves. I remember CL discussions over things like food and television and how choices about those things in particular happened in a CL family. From what I recall CL was pretty radical in this way.

Here is from one website: "Consensual living is a process, a philosophy, a mindset by which we seek to live in harmony with our families and community. It involves finding mutually agreed upon solutions, where the needs of both parties are not only considered but addressed. Everyone's wants and needs are equally valid, regardless of age. Conflicting wants or needs are discussed and mutually agreeable solutions are created or negotiated which meet the underlying needs of all parties."

I think the "equally valid" think would be key here. While I think many of us feel that our kids wants and needs are valid - CL may take this idea to heart and to practice way more than the average GD family.

Do we have any parents that are still here that practice CL?

Does anyone have experience with Taking Children Seriously? I remember that idea as being pretty popular as well but can't remember how that is or isn't related to CL.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Yeah, CL was where, like, you would have to make sure every person was happy with every single thing that happened. Like if you were going somewhere and the 2-year-old didn't want to sit in a car seat, you wouldn't make him sit in a car seat. But on the other hand, if the 4-year-old was looking forward to the destination, you'd have to find a way to make the 4-year-old happy too. Maybe mom takes the 4-year-old and dad waits until the 2-year-old chooses to go in the car seat? But everything- tooth brushing, bed times, TV, food, every single thing requires the child to be happy with what happens. That's where I'm not CL. I put a kid in a car seat if we need to go somewhere. I empathize, and stay nice, but the kid is forced in the car seat if we have to go somewhere, and I would include somewhere my older child really was looking forward to going that we'd planned in that. I would not take two cars. UP is just about not using behavioral techniques - rewards, punishments, charts, praise used in a behavioral way - but it is not about making sure the child is happy at every moment with every thing that happens. It's like if something has to happen, you simply make it happen and, if practical, explain what's going on, but you don't on top of that punish if the child is fighting doing it, or reward the child if the child doesn't fight it, or say "good for you!" when the child finally does agree to do it. People use the two terms interchangeably sometimes but they are really not the same at all.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Now, what I should have added is that, I did take a lot of good thoughts away from all those discussions about CL. I love the idea of opening up possibilities and considering other options that maybe CAN make everyone happy. I mean maybe in some cases, mom driving one child and dad driving the other won't be wasteful - maybe you're not going far anyway or whatever. There often ARE solutions that make everyone happy. I have really opened my mind up after reading about CL and I appreciate the viewpoint and now do look for mutually agreeable solutions. But there is not part-way to CL. The idea is that you can't do it part-way. Either the kids are always able to have things work for them, or they know they someone else can coerce them if they want to. The knowledge that someone has that power over them makes it no longer CL even if you don't use the power often. So if you do leave the option of coercion available for ANY situation - taking medicine, getting into a car seat, going to bed at night - ANYTHING, then it isn't CL.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> But there is not part-way to CL. The idea is that you can't do it part-way. Either the kids are always able to have things work for them, or they know they someone else can coerce them if they want to. The knowledge that someone has that power over them makes it no longer CL even if you don't use the power often.


This is why I don't consider myself CL as much as I may aspire to be. I don't force and try really hard not to coerce things like food or medicine or bedtimes or brushing teeth. There are some things that I have to make my children do no matter what. My dh is away a lot. In the last 7 years he has been gone at least as much as he has been home, probably more if I were able to add all the time he was away and not just the extended periods. He's deployed right now for a year. I'm the only parent in the household. I don't have family close by. I homeschool so my kids are always with me. I don't have a childcare place where I can take my children for an hour or two. If I have a prenatal appointment, I have to go and be on time and my kids have to go with me at that time whether they want to or not. Sometimes if my adult ds is home and doesn't have to work and is agreeable, the LOs can stay home with him. I don't, however, force or coerce my adult ds into watching my LOs just because he's part of the family. A lot of people don't get that. They say since he's part of the family and he lives with us he has an obligation to help me. I disagree with that. He didn't have these children. He didn't agree to be an equal partner in caring for them. He is not their parent. I didn't have children so they could work for me.

My point is that I try as much as possible to work with everyone in my family to get everyone's needs met but sometimes that just isn't possible and I do have to use my power to make my kids do things they don't want to do. I do consider my children's feelings, needs and wants just as valid as mine but I can't please everyone all the time. I also can't always take my kids all the places they want to go. I just don't have the energy or the time.

I haven't seen much about CL on here in a long time but I quite looking around because it seemed like the atmosphere was changing to a more strict, non-GD one and I didn't like it. I got tired of arguing every little point so I quit reading and quit posting.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> My point is that I try as much as possible to work with everyone in my family to get everyone's needs met but sometimes that just isn't possible and I do have to use my power to make my kids do things they don't want to do. I do consider my children's feelings, needs and wants just as valid as mine but I can't please everyone all the time. I also can't always take my kids all the places they want to go. I just don't have the energy or the time.
> 
> I haven't seen much about CL on here in a long time but I quite looking around because it seemed like the atmosphere was changing to a more strict, non-GD one and I didn't like it. I got tired of arguing every little point so I quit reading and quit posting.


I'm right where you are re CL. I love the ideal of it, and I do consider my kids' feelings and needs and wants as valid as mine, but I just can't make everyone happy all the time as much as I'd like to, including myself for that matter. Occasional disappointment seems to me to be a part of life, and I guess I've decided it's OK. Or a regrettable necessary part of life or something. Anyway, I put that under "don't sweat the small stuff" and move on. I at least take into consideration all their requests, but I try to be "big picture" and look at our overall relationship and happiness, and not get bogged down in every detail that comes up.

The atmosphere around here is getting a bit stricter. I like having a range of viewpoints, and I personally find gentle time outs and other gentle behavioral things to fall within GD, but I would like having more of us on the less behavioral side of things here as well. I know there are more of us out there.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> Now, what I should have added is that, I did take a lot of good thoughts away from all those discussions about CL. I love the idea of opening up possibilities and considering other options that maybe CAN make everyone happy. I mean maybe in some cases, mom driving one child and dad driving the other won't be wasteful - maybe you're not going far anyway or whatever. There often ARE solutions that make everyone happy. I have really opened my mind up after reading about CL and I appreciate the viewpoint and now do look for mutually agreeable solutions. But there is not part-way to CL. The idea is that you can't do it part-way.


I agree totally!

I really found the people posting from a CL perspective to be super helpful even if I did butt heads with the ideas a lot of the time. Back whenever that was ('06 or '07 maybe?) I really felt middle of the road here on the GD forum and I LOVED being able to get ideas and suggestions from both sides of the GD spectrum.

I wish those ideas were still around because I actually have some questions about CL nowadays. When my child was super young I just had such a hard time with the "equal say" thing when it came to things like TV and "unhealthy" foods. Now that DC is older I can totally see turning the reigns over to her more and more. She will, after all, be 100% in charge of her own life in what I know will feel like a flash.

I'm sure one can't consider themselves CL just because their child is older but it I still wouldn't mind hearing from those mamas.

MW, I totally hear you too about the issue of "splitting hairs". It took me a long, long time to accept the difference between "punishment" and "just the way things are sometimes" - for lack of a better description. In time though I really came to feel the difference. It came from some book or some philosophy...which I could remember the name (I'm breastfeeding and have a mushy brain) because it really was a wonderful idea. The gist is that you have positive expectations and somehow like magic your child just lives up to them. Like when you're ready to leave the park you just walk - with full faith that your child will join you...and then she/he does! I remember hearing about it and thinking it was the craziest thing but I tried it and it was really wonderful. Anyone know what I'm describing now?


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

I know what you are describing. I do it all the time. I don't force my 4yo to hold my hand while walking across a parking lot, for example. I fully expect him to be careful. He doesn't want to get hurt. He knows that cars can be dangerous and he's not going to walk out in front of one. I do keep an eye on him, though. I wouldn't just let him take off through the parking lot but he's never done that. He stays close to me. Rather than making my kids hold my hand or stay right next to me when we are out in public, I tell them I'm going this way or that and they follow.

I did not treat my oldest that way. I was so afraid of him getting lost or kidnapped that I wouldn't let him out of my hands. He would try to take off any chance he got. My younger children are completely opposite because they know I trust them to do what's safe.

I think it really starts with that mindshift you are talking about. So many adults seem to start out with the presumption that children will be unsafe or disobedient or difficult or whatever you want to call it. Since they think that way, they are more likely to see any behavior as bad. If you can shift your thinking to the presumption that children want to cooperate and be happy and make others happy, you can see the things they do in a different light. Then you can have different expectations, or maybe no expectations, of them. I don't know if I'm explaining myself very well but I do get what you are saying.


----------



## PeacemongerMom (May 8, 2011)

This post is so timely for me, I'm having a parenting identity crises. I have been struggling with my ds 5 and and his behavior. He more or less got kicked out of a Montessori summer program this week. He's been out of control for awhile. This is in part because I was too permissive, which is not part of UP or CL. I am conflicted about UP and some of the methods I've been practicing. I had this realization yesterday or the day before that UP and CL are two completely different things. I started out loving UP philosophy and ended up somehow trying to practice CL which wasn't really my intention. How ironic that I saw someone point out the distinction between the two here today. I too found myself getting bogged down in every little detail and I think both DS and I were drowning in the details. All of the open endedness, coming up with solutions and doing things for intrinsic reasons seemed too abstract for him.

I started out loving UP because it was value based and not fear driven. I placed values ahead of good behavior. I was crazy about the idea of raising a kind and morally pure child that wouldn't be tainted by external motivators.The idea of bribing children to do the right thing never felt right to me but previously I hadn't known any alternatives. As strange as it may sound everything and everyone in my frame of reference was very mainstream and mostly either too permissive or too authoritarian. Not to say this is how all mainstream parents are but just a lot of the ones I experienced.

In my quest to learn more about UP I started learning about other parenting methods of similar philosophies and CL kind of crept it's way on to my radar. I liked the idea of a child collaborating and coming up with solutions. Again, this so out of the realm of my experiences. I still vividly remember times in my life as a teenager and even older being startled by the simple solutions people would come up with to solve problems. I had such a fatalistic perspective of a bump in the road as being the end of the road. I think part of this was because of how I was raised, decisions were made for me and the only thing to do was accept them. I wanted my son to be able to think creatively to solve problems. What I imagined was a thoughtful, respectful negotiator. After a while of picking apart every little thing, finding ways to please him in every situation that presented itself, he seemed more like a bully and a tyrant than an internally motivated, kind, respectful problem solver. I fully admit the problem could have been and I'm sure was in part me, in the execution of the methods. But my son fully expected to placated in some way, to some extent in every situation and when he wasn't all heck broke lose. Sometimes he would whine and cry and others he would have aggressive, violent outbursts. He could not handle "no" at all. This culminated with being told the school was not a good fit for him. Sometimes in life it's not going to go his way, it's just not. That's not only coming from me, we don't live in a bubble, his peers aren't always going to try to please him and he was frequently at odds with other children over this, his teacher and other family members also aren't always going to try to please him.

So I've been thinking things over a lot. Happiness is not always getting your way. If a person can only be happy when things go their way, they will never truly be happy because everything can not always go your way. A person must learn to find some happiness and inner peace despite that. I think the ability to move on and be happy and calm even when things aren't going well is a true indicator of happiness and coping skills. I am still at odds with myself because rationally and logically both UP and CL make sense to me, I hear the argument and believe it. I want so much for it to work and foster wonderful traits in my son. I'm not sure what I'm doing next. Right now, I'm working on dealing with no. He got physical with a girl at school because it wasn't his turn on the tire swing. Today he had a meltdown because I was using the computer and he wanted to use it. I didn't try to work out a solution with him that we would both be satisfied with. I told him no, I'm using it now. He had a tantrum, when I sensed it was losing steam, I had him take some deep breaths and talked about ways to calm himself down. I should say earlier today I had a talk with him about ways to stay calm and deal with his emotions. I told him he had an imaginary tool box, with tools, like taking deep breaths, drawing pictures about how he feels, instead of yelling, throwing, hitting, etc. I don't want to use rewards or punishments just calming down skills. Once he masters that maybe we can try again to work toward mutually acceptable solutions. I'm not sure. It's only been a few days of trying this and having these talks with him but so far he hasn't used them without pressure from me. I'm still conflicted because now I feel like the tyrant laying down the law and he can take it or not. Which is what I was trying to avoid in the first place. I did tell him tonight if he didn't calm down we were not going out ( we had plans to go have pizza with friends). I didn't really intend it to be punitive but more matter of fact, it is not acceptable to behave that way in public and be disruptive toward others. In a way I just feel like I've gone full circle and am more or less back to where I was before CL and UP.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm with mamazee on this one. I got a lot of great ideas from the CL threads and posts, and I DO think that my kids' opinions/wants/needs are just as important as mine are. I try (though I fail sometimes) to find solutions that make everyone happy. That just seems like the nice thing to do, kwim? But I also think that, even though their opinions/wants/needs are as important as mine, I have more life knowledge and am more likely (though definitely not always!) to have more information about the situation. As such, sometimes I have a reason to overrule what they want. Also...I want my kids to listen first, ask questions later when I use a certain tone or look. This tone or voice is reserved for situations where I know something that they don't, and it is NOT the time or place to discuss it.
At the same time, they are welcome to question me or offer other solutions almost any other time. Ds1 is really good at this, and often finds solutions that are mutually agreeable that I never even thought of.

So I like a lot of what CL says, and I'm another that would like to see more posters in this forum who are on this side of the GD spectrum, as opposed to the more strict side. I don't punish, but am not terribly opposed to logical consequences in theory (though I can't think of any that I've actually enforced. I sometimes threaten, but I take it back and explain why as soon as I chill out. Ds1 basically ignores me when I'm being like that, so that's good, I guess. lol) I am somewhat strict as far as my expectations, but it's more of a "this is what I expect, and I want you to do it" type of thing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> MW, I totally hear you too about the issue of "splitting hairs". It took me a long, long time to accept the difference between "punishment" and "just the way things are sometimes" - for lack of a better description. In time though I really came to feel the difference. It came from some book or some philosophy...which I could remember the name (I'm breastfeeding and have a mushy brain) because it really was a wonderful idea. The gist is that you have positive expectations and somehow like magic your child just lives up to them. Like when you're ready to leave the park you just walk - with full faith that your child will join you...and then she/he does! I remember hearing about it and thinking it was the craziest thing but I tried it and it was really wonderful. Anyone know what I'm describing now?


It sounds TCC'ish to me.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> It sounds TCC'ish to me.


What is that...I can't remember - brain mush. (Or do you mean TCS?)

ETA: Got it!! Continuum Concept - YES, you're probably right!


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PeacemongerMom*
> After a while of picking apart every little thing, finding ways to please him in every situation that presented itself, he seemed more like a bully and a tyrant than an internally motivated, kind, respectful problem solver.


I'll come back (haven't given your post full thought yet) but the TCS website had a really nice quote about the idea that this consensual / non-coercion thing goes BOTH ways!! It is neither the child nor the parent who is left unhappy.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

I don't know what TCC or TCS is. Please explain.

Another tool I use that helps situations a lot of times is empathy. That's a big one for me because I was never empathized with as a child. If I ever had a feeling or opinion that was contrary to my mother's, I was told I was being silly or difficult. I was never treated as if what I thought or felt mattered. I can't remember if UP gets into empathy a lot. I think maybe not because I vaguely remember that the idea of validating feelings, whether positive or negative, was counterproductive. Kids know all their feelings are valid and don't need to be told so, especially since we tend to validate the "negative" emotions and just let the "positive" emotions be. Maybe I'm getting things mixed up, though. It's been a long time since I read Alfie Kohn and have since lent the book to a friend who promptly lost it.









The book that I got the practical applications of empathy was _Raising Our Children, Raising Ourselves_ by Naomi Aldort. I understand there was some stink about her credentials a while back, maybe she was claiming to have a PhD when she really didn't. I don't know about that so I won't endorse the book, per se, but I don't think that necessarily disqualifies what she says in her book. I don't think the people who wrote the How to Talk books had PhDs but I could be wrong. Anyway, the idea is to verbalize what your child is feeling without any judgement or expectation.

For example, if the child is having a complete meltdown because he has to wait to use the computer, you would say something like, "You really want to use the computer right now and don't want to wait." There's no validating in that, either. You don't say something like, "It's ok to be angry or upset that you have to wait, but you still have to wait," or, "It's ok to be angry, but it's not ok to have a fit." All you do is state the child's feelings. You may get it wrong a few times and the child may correct you if he can. The child may also start to cry or whine or scream more or louder at first. You just continue stating how the child feels with no other statements about the situation. No "buts". You also have to let go of the expectation that this will quickly and easily diffuse the tantrum. It may not right away. Eventually, though, the child is supposed to start feeling understood and also learns ways to express feelings without the crying and screaming and whining. When I remember to do it (which is very hard for me in the moment), it works. My children actually usually calm down very quickly when I empathize with them.

Even when these practices are used, children will still get upset. It's not about them always being happy and never crying or having a meltdown. That's impossible. I think that's an expectation that parents get hung up on a lot when they start using UP or CL or empathy. Then they think it's not working or they are failures because their child still gets upset sometimes. If we do what we can to accommodate everyone as much as possible, hopefully our children will trust that is our goal and will understand the few times when that's just not possible. Does that make sense?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> I don't know what TCC or TCS is. Please explain.


I am not sure if there is also a TCC...Oh wait - that's "The Continuum Concept"!! I knew I recognized those initials. Ok, so...

TCC is "The Continuum Concept": from a book by some sort of anthropologist. Interesting ideas as I recall and, yes, the trust that the child will go with the group would be part of that idea from what I recall.

TCS is "Taking Children Seriously": a philosophy which seems closely related to CL from what I can tell. They have a website for more info.

It's all coming back...

So long as we're talking about so many ideas I should mention that my favorite book for ages about 4-7 is PET: Parent Effictivness Training.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I agree that empathizing helps kids, and I don't remember anything in UP that said otherwise, though I also loaned my copy to a friend who lost it. LOL.

I also agree with the PP who said that learning to accept that things won't always go our way and that it's OK when things don't go our way is an important part of becoming a happy person, and I think an important part of maturity. That is another issue I have with CL. I really do think I'm happier for learning and internalizing "the serenity prayer" - God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> I am not sure if there is also a TCC...Oh wait - that's "The Continuum Concept"!! I knew I recognized those initials. Ok, so...
> 
> ...


Oh, ok. I know The Continuum Concept. I don't know Taking Children Seriously specifically but I do believe in that, especially because of the way I was treated as a child. I was never taken seriously and that has caused me to have a lot of issues. I took a PET class/seminar with my dh soon after we got married because I came with a child and he had no experience parenting at all. I remember being worried that it would be more of the strict child-training stuff that my dh was familiar with but ended up being pleasantly surprised. That was many, many years ago and I have forgotten the details. Unfortunately, I don't think my dh quite got it.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> What is that...I can't remember - brain mush. (Or do you mean TCS?)
> 
> ETA: Got it!! Continuum Concept - YES, you're probably right!


Yep, TCC! Sorry 

I do that (leave and expect them to follow) as something that I learned from TCC. I despise when people say "ok, I'm leaving without you then. bye bye!" to get their kid to run after them. But I never portray what I'm doing like that. There's no implication that I might leave without them. I'm leaving, and they are to follow. Not that it usually works with my 2yo, mind you. We're working on that. lol.

I know that a lot of people find TCC suspect, but I LOVE some of the ideas I got from it. Basically, that people are innately social, and (in general) want to behave in a socially acceptable manner, and will do so if they are capable. There are a lot of things that keep people from being capable (hungry, tired, mad, developmental stages, bored...whatever), though, and that's what we need to work on (I'm not sure that thought is in TCC, but it's one that seems like a logical extention to me). OH, and another one I've totally adopted from TCC is (let me see if I can explain this)- to let the kids do physical things on their own, without hovering over them and telling them to be careful, or that they'll get hurt, or even acting like I'm worried about them. I've totally seen evidence that my kids are less careful and more likely to get hurt when someone is *right there* to help, because they are worried that the kids will get hurt. Ds2 is so active and has so little fear, that from the get-go I decided that I was going to let him do what he could, and experience consequences (within reason) so he'd get a good idea of his capabilities, and learn to be careful for himself. I figured that it was best to learn this when he was little and couldn't get into seriously dangerous situations.
One of my very favorite parenting quotes ever is from TCC (Intro xv):

Quote:



> Children need to see that they are assumed to be well-intentioned, naturally social people who are trying to do the right thing and who want reliable reactions from their elders to guide them.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> I don't know what TCC or TCS is. Please explain.


I actually don't know what TCS is. From the title, I can guess what it's about, but I don't know any details. Off to read...

Quote:


> If we do what we can to accommodate everyone as much as possible, hopefully our children will trust that is our goal and will understand the few times when that's just not possible. Does that make sense?


Yes yes! I've thought that so many times. I definitely think that ds1 is ok with the occasional "not negotiable" thing precisely because he knows that the vast majority of the time, I'm happy to work with him (though I've been sort of crappy about that lately  Must resolve to get better at it!


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

There was also "Taking Children Seriously" or TCS. In my memory, TCS was a harder-core version of CL, in which parents strove to never, ever coerce their child in any way. I remember (but cannot find, in browsing the archives) a post in which a TCS advocate said that because the parent chooses to have the child, but the child did not choose to be born, that if no "mutually agreeable solution" could be found, having the family do what the *parent* wished was unacceptable coercion.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DevaMajka*
> 
> Children need to see that they are assumed to be well-intentioned, naturally social people who are trying to do the right thing and who want reliable reactions from their elders to guide them.


This is a more concise statement of what I was trying to get at before. That mindshift from assuming that children are always trying to manipulate and just get what they want without any regard for anyone else (my dad thinks this way and it really makes me angry and sad for him) to assuming that children are well-intentioned and are not doing things to the rest of us.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *savithny* [IMG alt="View Post"]https://www.mothering.com/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
> 
> I remember (but cannot find, in browsing the archives) a post in which a TCS advocate said that because the parent chooses to have the child, but the child did not choose to be born, that if no "mutually agreeable solution" could be found, having the family do what the *parent* wished was unacceptable coercion.


I sort of think this way up until the last part. I do try to keep in mind that my children did not choose to be born or be part of my family. I chose to have them. Therefore, it's my responsibility to take care of them, not the other way around. I don't know if other parents mean it this way (or if they even consciously think about it), but a lot of what they say and do seems to me to communicate that they expect their children to do for them.

Maybe they are making a distinction between needs and wants or wishes. There are a lot of things that adults do that they perceive as needs that aren't really needs. It can be a real mind blower to think long and hard about that. Even something like feeling that you need to go to the grocery store. Do you really? Yes, everyone needs to eat but there may be ways other than taking everyone to the grocery store to accomplish that. They may not be what the parent thinks are the most practical or responsible but they are options.

I got into that in another discussion about getting help when I have my baby because my dh is deployed. I have an adult son. He's 20yo and does still live in our home. Everyone else seemed to think he was obligated and had a duty to take care of my younger children while I was in labor and during the early PP time and to take care of me. I just don't get that. I can ask him to help and it sure is nice when he does but I don't expect him to. He has his own life. He did not choose for me to have another baby and certainly not while my dh is deployed so I don't see how any of this would be his responsibility.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion.
> 
> ...


Yes, that was huge for me. It seems so logical now, but when I first read it, it was a real paradigm shift.

Another book I read that supports this is Einstein Never Used Flashcards (something along those lines anyways). There was one study in the book that clearly demonstrated that young children (I think under 4) just don't have the logical capacity to know that other people feel/think differently than they do. The project was something like this (it was a long time ago that I read it, so I might have some details wrong, but the basics are there):

There was a researcher, a mom, and a child (various ages, but perhaps up to 5 or 6?). The researcher had an M&M box full of m&m's. She showed both the mom and the child, and then asked the child what the mom thought was in the box. They answered correctly- m&m's. THEN the mom left the room. The researcher put pencils in the box (without mom seeing the change). She asked the child what she thought the mom would think was in the box. Overall, kids under 4 said that mom would think that there were pencils in the box. Since the child knew what it was, they just assumed that mom would as well.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Interesting research DM. I wonder how accepted this idea is in the CL community/philosophy and how it impacts how one goes about finding common preferences with a child who can't developmentally understand that people feed differently from them. Interestingly, my child was under 4 when I started reading about CL.

Similarly to many of you I feel like an adults experience and the reality of life sometimes means that a child may not get what she/he wants in a given minute and that's OK. My feeling that this is OK and, like many of you, the feeling that learning how to overcome life's little disappointments is important is actually one thing that drew me to the idea of non-coercive parenting. Books like Positive Discipline and Playful Parenting were also very popular when my DC was young. In books like those I always had this nagging feeling that some of the methods were essentially "tricking" the child into doing what the parent wanted (essentially manipulating the child so the parent didn't have to deal with the child's disappointment). Those methods always left a bad taste in my mouth and, to top it off, I think my child could see through many of them at an early age. Here is where I really clicked with the non-coercive thing.

BUT, I diverged from the philosophy in that I didn't mind the kid just having to deal. I know that sounds harsh and perhaps not empathetic. In practice though I think my DC was mirroring off of me the severity of the situation. She saw from my reaction that this really was a small thing (not worthy of a big game to "make it go away" and also not worthy of a lot of empathy either) and I think it helped her get some perspective. Similar to TCC, I expect that the child will be able to deal and she lives up to those expectations.

I think I've lost my way with her a little as far as guiding her with small regrets. I notice a strong trend now that she is able to deal with delayed gratification that I feel like I'm often offering to "make it up to her" rather than help her deal with minor disappointment. Beyond that (and more in line with CL and TCS) I have probably not been doing enough lately to try to avoid disappointment in the first place. Hum....lots to think about!


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> Interesting research DM. I wonder how accepted this idea is in the CL community/philosophy and how it impacts how one goes about finding common preferences with a child who can't developmentally understand that people feed differently from them. Interestingly, my child was under 4 when I started reading about CL.


ummm...I never thought about it that way. lol. I always thought about it in terms of more harsh parents, who are convinced that their kids are manipulating them, and doing stuff on purpose to make them mad. And they just aren't. I think some kids find the reactions humorous, and get caught in the moment, for sure. But they just don't have the brain power to truly understand how other people feel.

Now, I DO think that they get something when you say "Shiloh doesn't like to be hit. It hurts her." But I think what they get has more to do with knowing that you don't want them to hit, and that you are giving them information on how they are affecting the other person, moreso than truly understanding how it affects the other person. It's similar to when children are very young, and explanations seem to help them do the right thing. I don't think they truly understand all of the words, they just get that you are trying to work with them, and that you have a reason.

Quote:



> Books like Positive Discipline and Playful Parenting were also very popular when my DC was young. In books like those I always had this nagging feeling that some of the methods were essentially "tricking" the child into doing what the parent wanted (essentially manipulating the child so the parent didn't have to deal with the child's disappointment). Those methods always left a bad taste in my mouth and, to top it off, I think my child could see through many of them at an early age. Here is where I really clicked with the non-coercive thing.


Yes, me too. I hate "reverse psychology" for the same reason. (I'm also obsessively honest, and it seems like lying to me). I don't mind being playful if that's my gut reaction to a situation. But I don't do "playful" as a discipline style.

Quote:



> BUT, I diverged from the philosophy in that I didn't mind the kid just having to deal. I know that sounds harsh and perhaps not empathetic. In practice though I think my DC was mirroring off of me the severity of the situation. She saw from my reaction that this really was a small thing (not worthy of a big game to "make it go away" and also not worthy of a lot of empathy either) and I think it helped her get some perspective.


omg, yes. We did that with ds1 with brushing his teeth. We tried really really hard to never do it against his will, and I think it made him think that it was a really big deal. He hated having his teeth brushed, and it just got harder and harder.

With ds2, I just brush his teeth. Period. I sing, "eat" his toes, make funny faces, whatever to make it more fun. But the brushing is not an option, and in the end, I do it whether he wants me to or not. (ds1 ended up with lots of cavities, that are likely unrelated to brushing, but I'm not taking a chance with ds2's teeth like that. It SUCKS watching your 2yo get a cavity drilled an filled







) Ds2 is not traumatized by me holding him down to brush his teeth. He actually likes it right now. He runs laughing into the bedroom, and has turned it into a little game. The other day I mentioned flossing his teeth, and he indicated that he wanted me to. I got some floss, and tried to floss his teeth but he ran away, so I thought it wasn't worth forcing the issue, and went to take the floss back to the bathroom. He cried and got all upset because he *wanted* me to chase him and "hold him down" to floss his teeth. lol. When I "hold him down" I have his head between my legs and his arms under my knees. The vast majority of the time, I'm not actually holding him down- he's holding on to me.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

As I recall, back in the heyday of there being lots and lots of hardcore CL people on this board, a lot of them claimed that a big part of their interpretation of CL or TCS philosophy was not just treating children like real people -- but assuming they were rational human beings with the same thought processes as adults.

This is where I seriously part ways with those people. As I said, back then, my then-5-yo had a perfectly rational -- to HIM -- belief that Thomas the Tank Engine was real. Kids have real, verifiable differences in how they see the world around them, and there is a real, identifiable, process of developing social cognition to understand that other people have different points of view and that your actions can affect others in certain ways. It's unfair to that developmental process to make a small child utterly responsible for things like her future dental health before she has a real concept of what "future" means (or what "dental health" means, for that matter).

This process is also where I part ways with hardcore Kohn fans, too. Children learn the rules of their social group, and how their actions affect others, and how they fit into human groups, through the reactions of adults to their actions. They specifically do things to prompt reactions, actually. They are intensely aware of our facial expressions from the time they are *minutes* old, and they want to know what those epxresions mean and what actions prompt them. To never offer constructive praise or criticism denies children something they are instinctively looking for -- feedback on the way their social world works.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *savithny*
> 
> This process is also where I part ways with hardcore Kohn fans, too. Children learn the rules of their social group, and how their actions affect others, and how they fit into human groups, through the reactions of adults to their actions. They specifically do things to prompt reactions, actually. They are intensely aware of our facial expressions from the time they are *minutes* old, and they want to know what those epxresions mean and what actions prompt them. To never offer constructive praise or criticism denies children something they are instinctively looking for -- feedback on the way their social world works.


To deny feedback in the form of manipulative praise, which is what Alfie Kohn talks about, is only to deny feedback in the form of manipulative praise. It does not deny children all feedback on the way their social world works. He's just talking about behaviorism - saying "good job" or other praise as a reward to try to get children to behave how we want them to behave. I don't know where he talks about criticism. He is only opposed to behaviorism - punishment and rewards - so helpful criticism wouldn't really be part of that. It isn't about being stone faced and not reacting to anything.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> To deny feedback in the form of manipulative praise, which is what Alfie Kohn talks about, is only to deny feedback in the form of manipulative praise. It does not deny children all feedback on the way their social world works. He's just talking about behaviorism - saying "good job" or other praise as a reward to try to get children to behave how we want them to behave. I don't know where he talks about criticism. He is only opposed to behaviorism - punishment and rewards - so helpful criticism wouldn't really be part of that. It isn't about being stone faced and not reacting to anything.










. You said that much better than I ever could. I don't praise my children in order to get them to behave a certain way but I do express my excitement or joy or surprise or anger or hurt when they do things that genuinely affect me. One thing that has been bugging me lately is the instructors at their Tae Kwon Do school. They do a lot of "good job" and high fives for things that don't seem necessary to me. There's no way around that in those types of setting, though.

I read a blog or an article a while ago that has me wondering. By the title, I thought I'd really dislike it. It was something like, _"I won't let you"...the next best phrase after "I love you_." But the idea was that when a child does something such as hitting, rather than just telling them to stop, don't do it or something along those lines, you say, "I won't let you hit because it hurts." The idea that you won't let it happen makes a difference in understanding to the child. I have to deal with that a lot between my boys. They get angry and frustrated and one hits the other. I tried this the other day and they both just stopped mid-fighting and asked me why not. Then we got into a discussion about how hitting hurts. I have talked to them before about that but for some reason the fact that I told them I would not let them do it made them stop and think. What you all think of that?


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

That may be what he means, but I read enough Kohn threads here back in the day to know that he was frequently interpreted to be saying "Any evaluative comment whatsoever is manipulative and should be avoided."

The number of people suggesting that a good response to "Do you like my picture, Mama?" was "You used a lot of green. What do you think about your picture?" is pretty telling.

In fact, here's Kohn himsel, suggesting we stick with "You used a lot of purple," rather than saying something that might give the child feedback on how her work affects others.

Quote:


> And what can we say when kids just do something impressive? Consider three possible responses:
> 
> ** Say nothing.* Some people insist a helpful act must be "reinforced" because, secretly or unconsciously, they believe it was a fluke. If children are basically evil, then they have to be given an artificial reason for being nice (namely, to get a verbal reward). But if that cynicism is unfounded - and a lot of research suggests that it is - then praise may not be necessary.
> 
> ...


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Those examples are presented as something to say when you're impressed by something they did, not something to say when the ask you if you like something. If a child asks me if I like something, I say "yes". But I don't continually offer up praise when they do stuff that impresses me. I say something else, or wonder whether they need a running commentary from me and whether I need to express my opinion on it at all. Kids need feedback, but they don't need a play by play on how we feel about everything they do in their lives.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *DevaMajka* Now, I DO think that they get something when you say "Shiloh doesn't like to be hit. It hurts her." But I think what they get has more to do with knowing that you don't want them to hit, and that you are giving them information on how they are affecting the other person, moreso than truly understanding how it affects the other person. It's similar to when children are very young, and explanations seem to help them do the right thing. I don't think they truly understand all of the words, they just get that you are trying to work with them, and that you have a reason.

Originally Posted by *MarineWife* 
I read a blog or an article a while ago that has me wondering. By the title, I thought I'd really dislike it. It was something like, _"I won't let you"...the next best phrase after "I love you_." But the idea was that when a child does something such as hitting, rather than just telling them to stop, don't do it or something along those lines, you say, "I won't let you hit because it hurts." The idea that you won't let it happen makes a difference in understanding to the child.

These are two interesting ideas. If I try to look back on early childhood and the act of hitting I recall thinking that most children who hit lack impulse control and/or the ability to really understand their actions. This would go in line with DM's study AND I love how it can be applied to the article MW read. I like the "I won't let you" because it can be interpreted to mean that children need help to not hit -- that the responsibility of something so huge is not 100% on them. Of all things a parent is going to step in and help with I would think this should be a top priority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *savithny* 

The number of people suggesting that a good response to "Do you like my picture, Mama?" was "You used a lot of green. What do you think about your picture?" is pretty telling.

In fact, here's Kohn himsel, suggesting we stick with "You used a lot of purple," rather than saying something that might give the child feedback on how her work affects others.

Not having read AK in a long time (but having loved him back in the day!), I take a slightly different view. I always thought of AK's suggestions like "Talk about the purple brush strokes" as a suggestion on how to give more valuable feedback about the child's work. At least that's how I chose to read that type of suggestions. So rather than saying "Good job." We say something like, "I really think the purple brush strokes make the yellow sun the focus of the painting." Less empty praise; more constructive feedback.

We are having a AK issue in our extended family right now. DC (9 years) has really made a huge stride in reading this year and it is a huge accomplishment as a result of hard work. We are having a celebration for her (she chose to have it) but my inlaws keep saying "I'm so proud of you." I guess I may be an AK mama through and through because I really wish they wouldn't say that. I feel like DC interprets this as they are not proud of her at other times. I also feel like this takes away from her accomplishment that is for HER as an individual and makes it about them...sigh.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> We are having a celebration for her (she chose to have it) but my inlaws keep saying "I'm so proud of you." I guess I may be an AK mama through and through because I really wish they wouldn't say that. I feel like DC interprets this as they are not proud of her at other times


That's the type of thing that concerns me with that sort of praise. I worry that it conveys the idea that the child is only worthy when they do things we like. I avoid using that phrase no matter what because I want my child to feel worthy just for existing not because of something specific he's done. My 4yo asks me why I love him and I say because he's my child. That's enough.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *savithny*
> 
> As I recall, back in the heyday of there being lots and lots of hardcore CL people on this board, a lot of them claimed that a big part of their interpretation of CL or TCS philosophy was not just treating children like real people -- but assuming they were rational human beings with the same thought processes as adults.
> 
> ...


I was in agreement until I got to the last sentence. I think it's completely possible to give feedback without praise.

I used to be very much in the "don't praise" category. It still makes logical sense to me, but I'm just not so sure it's the best way to go. So I've been a little more generous with my "evaluative praise" in some situations. "That picture is fantastic! I love it!" (then add something specific). Or in situations where I'm trying to teach a specific task, for example: teaching ds2 to blow his nose. When he does it right, I might say "Perfect!" or "Good" or something like that. I could easily convey to him that he's done what I asked without those words, but oh well. (for example "yes, you are blowing your nose! That's how you get all the snot out!" something like that.)

However, it still bothers me when people praise kids for doing things that the kids are doing for their own enjoyment. Like sliding down the slide. Or climbing on things. And when I say "it bothers me" I just mean that I notice that it's unecessary, and disrupts what the kid is doing, if even for just a second. It puts emphasis on how the parent feels about what the kid is doing. I certainly don't think those parents are bad parents, or that they are hurting their kids. I don't think excessive praise is too bad, in the whole scheme of things. lol (I DO disagree with some types of praising, but I very rarely see that irl. Like the types where parents or grandparents specifically withhold praise unless the child does something incredible, that is worthy of praise in their opinion, as a way to motivate them to keep doing better and better. Imo, that's sad.)

My grandma praises my kids for every little thing they do. Eating food. Playing with toys. Giving hugs. lol. Everything. I've actually come to think it's cute. At least they don't feel conditionally loved around her.


----------



## PeacemongerMom (May 8, 2011)

I am enjoying this discussion, the best I've seen on the topic. It helps me sort things out in my own mind, as I admit I'm kind of conflicted. I'm not loving the " you used a lot of purple" approach either but I think I understand why he advocates it. I do love the advice about looking for the effect on others and how it affected them as opposed to "you statements" like ' you were so kind to share your snack/toy'. That is the part of Kohn that I fell in love with in the first place.

Reading this now and re thinking it, how much can you expect a young child to see a situation from anothers perspective or consider another feelings? I've always known it was a lofty goal but thought it worthwhile. Now, I'm wondering if it's too unfair to put such expectations on a child, is too abstract, does it put too much pressure on them, which could leave them confused? Do they need more concrete boundaries? Can a parent create those boundaries and still have the child's motivation be intrinsic?

I like the idea of phrasing it " I will not let you" that brings up the question of what is the parent going to do to stop it? I know with my child I can't simply say ' I will not let you" and that be the end of the issue. He will do it again and now how do I follow through on that statement, which implies I'm going to do something to prevent him or stop him but if I want to be non punitive and non bribing how do I follow through?


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *PeacemongerMom* 

Reading this now and re thinking it, how much can you expect a young child to see a situation from anothers perspective or consider another feelings? I've always known it was a lofty goal but thought it worthwhile. Now, I'm wondering if it's too unfair to put such expectations on a child, is too abstract, does it put too much pressure on them, which could leave them confused? Do they need more concrete boundaries? Can a parent create those boundaries and still have the child's motivation be intrinsic?

I don't think you can *expect* them to see how their actions affect others (until a certain age, but that will vary with each child), but it's definitely worthwhile to *tell* them how their actions affect others. I think just the fact that you tell them will make a difference in their actions (eventually). They might not really get it, but I think they have a general idea of what's going on, kwim? Then there's the impulse control thing, and it's hard to tell if, for example, your toddler is hitting the dog because he has no idea that she doesn't like or, or it he's hitting her because he had the impulse and he just can't stop himself. Either way, your reaction is about the same. I'm just saying that they get the understanding gradually, and you don't really know when.

Quote:



> I like the idea of phrasing it " I will not let you" that brings up the question of what is the parent going to do to stop it? I know with my child I can't simply say ' I will not let you" and that be the end of the issue. He will do it again and now how do I follow through on that statement, which implies I'm going to do something to prevent him or stop him but if I want to be non punitive and non bribing how do I follow through?


For me, it means physically stopping him, and taking him away from the situation if necessary.

With my older son (who I tried really hard to be CL with, btw), if explaining, redirecting, etc didn't work, I could usually say "Should we take this away to take away the temptation to climb on it?" and he would agree that the thing should be put away.

Ds2...he's different. I often wonder if that's because I've never tried to be CL with him. I try to be respectful of him as a human being, and remember that his needs/opinions/wants are just as important as anyone else's. It's a little harder with 2 kids, but I try. He just gets stuck in the action, and can't stop himself. To be fair, he's not even 2yo yet. I'm working on being more UP with him, and working on not using physical force (ie: picking him up and carrying him when he won't go on his own) as much. Anyways, he gets stuck in the action of, say, running into the dog with his tricycle. And he will.not.stop. And when we try to stop him, he just keeps on trying over and over and over. He even has this laugh, and we know that he's just stuck in the impulse. We physically stop him, either by holding his tricycle or by taking the dog to another room and shutting the door.

So I guess it means physically stopping them, and being watchful to try to stop situations before they get to that point.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PeacemongerMom*
> 
> Reading this now and re thinking it, how much can you expect a young child to see a situation from anothers perspective or consider another feelings? I've always known it was a lofty goal but thought it worthwhile. Now, I'm wondering if it's too unfair to put such expectations on a child, is too abstract, does it put too much pressure on them, which could leave them confused? Do they need more concrete boundaries? Can a parent create those boundaries and still have the child's motivation be intrinsic?


I think you have a good point. I have a gut feeling that maybe some things we do as GD parents (and its range of philosophies) may well backfire a bit and, like you said, put too much pressure on kids. I can't think of a good example right now but I do remember times when the most GD, CL or UP (and etc.) approach was in reality not as gentle for my DC than something else that may have looked insensitive in comparison. Perhaps that's not what you had in mind though...

I also agree with DM that even if they don't understand at a young age it is helpful to start telling them. It will gradually sink in.



> Originally Posted by *PeacemongerMom*
> 
> I like the idea of phrasing it " I will not let you" that brings up the question of what is the parent going to do to stop it? I know with my child I can't simply say ' I will not let you" and that be the end of the issue. He will do it again and now how do I follow through on that statement, which implies I'm going to do something to prevent him or stop him but if I want to be non punitive and non bribing how do I follow through?


I agree with DM. "I will not let you" when it comes to things like rough physical actions would look like some sort of physical restraint. When my DC went through a phase where she was biting or hitting I just got really close to her and watched closely for when she may act on that impulse. For my DC what that looked like was me just kind of gently touching her to remind her that gentle touches feel nice. For other kids that may look like moving the "hit-ie" away, distraction (if you're ok with that), and etc. It was my belief that for many kids if you could just be super, super diligent for a few days and make them successful in not hitting/biting (however it works) they would kind of forget that they were interested in doing it.

I also like the idea of parents taking responsiblity for the hitting (at a young age) over punitive or reward based discipline because it implies that, as a parent, you truly understand that the child lacks impulse control. If the parent tries bribery or punishment it implies that they think the child can restrain themselves but chooses not to...unless the price is right. It's just way sweeter to keep in mind that young kids are not in control of that (which is true, imo).


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> I think you have a good point. I have a gut feeling that maybe some things we do as GD parents (and its range of philosophies) may well backfire a bit and, like you said, put too much pressure on kids. I can't think of a good example right now but I do remember times when the most GD, CL or UP (and etc.) approach was in reality not as gentle for my DC than something else that may have looked insensitive in comparison. Perhaps that's not what you had in mind though...


That was my experience too. I was trying to be CL, and it wasn't really a good match for me. (I will say that I don't think I was doing it "right"). I found that I was trying to make ds1 choose to do things my way. Not all of the time, but enough. I think that was harder on him than if I'd just insisted on some things, or made some things happen. Mind you, he is a really considerate, friendly, compassionate person. So I think there was a lot of good come from it too. It worked way better for both of us when I started being more direct, and insisting when necessary and working with him all the time.

Quote:


> I also like the idea of parents taking responsiblity for the hitting (at a young age) over punitive or reward based discipline because it implies that, as a parent, you truly understand that the child lacks impulse control. If the parent tries bribery or punishment it implies that they think the child can restrain themselves but chooses not to...unless the price is right. It's just way sweeter to keep in mind that young kids are not in control of that (which is true, imo).


The other day, ds1 was on a swing, and ds2 walked behind him and got knocked over. One of ds1's friends blamed ds1, and ds1 blamed ds2. In reality, if it's anybody's fault, it was mine. I was the one who was responsible for watching ds2. Ds1 couldn't possibly have seen ds2, and ds2 just doesn't understand the possible consequences of things like that.

I think hitting is like that for young kids.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

It's also the responsibility of the parent to make sure her child does not hurt others. The swing incident wasn't purposeful so it wasn't the younger child's fault. However, if your child is about to hit another child, it's not only appropriate but obligatory for the parent to stop the child even if that means grabbing the child's arm or hand and/or removing the child from the situation. It's not fair to everyone else to stay there with your child when s/he is hurting others.

If either of my boys or both are hurting each other, I will physically separate them. If I have to, I will take one in another room. I think a lot of times how something like that is perceived depends on how it's done. If I can do that without anger and just explain that I cannot allow them to hurt each other and feel that the only thing I can do at that point is separate them, then I am helping both children. If I get angry and yell and send one to his room or a time out chair alone, then it's punitive.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Yes, that's what I meant. It was my responsibility to keep ds2 safe with the swing, and it's my responsibility to keep other people safe from being hit by ds2.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> It's also the responsibility of the parent to make sure her child does not hurt others. The swing incident wasn't purposeful so it wasn't the younger child's fault. However, if your child is about to hit another child, it's not only appropriate but obligatory for the parent to stop the child even if that means grabbing the child's arm or hand and/or removing the child from the situation. It's not fair to everyone else to stay there with your child when s/he is hurting others.


I don't agree that you have to hover by the swings to make sure your child doesn't swing into anyone. If both my kids are at the park, the older one is often swinging while I'm spotting my little monkey who is climbing elsewhere. People need to not walk too closely to swings. If I were by the swings and saw someone was about to be hit, of course I'd intervene - I mean I wouldn't sit there and watch someone get hurt by any means. But obligatory for a parent to be available to stop children from getting hit by their child when he/she is swinging? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and this is a bit OT anyway, but if people have that belief, then I'm starting a thread asking about it in Parenting, because I'm curious how common a belief that is.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I think she's saying that it's a parent's responsibility to keep their young child from hitting other people. Like, hitting/biting/kicking, not referring to swings. That's what I got from it.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> But obligatory for a parent to be available to stop children from getting hit by their child when he/she is swinging? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and this is a bit OT anyway, but if people have that belief, then I'm starting a thread asking about it in Parenting, because I'm curious how common a belief that is.


Not MW but I don't think that's what she meant. I think the swing thing got mixed up in the question of a parent intervening when a child goes through a phase. I'm a total free range type when it comes to the playground. Unless there is a child who truly can't look out for themselves (like one who would walk behind a child swinging and get hurt) or there was a child who needed more supervision (perhaps because they are going through an aggressive phase like above) I let the kids roam - I'm a "if they can get up there - they can get down" mama.


----------



## wake_up (Aug 1, 2007)

What a great conversation. I really like hearing how all these parenting philosophies/labels overlap and work/don't work in people's real lives. DS1 is only 3.5, so I feel like I'm just coming into the time when I'll be able to put more trust in his decisions and these theories will become more real. We're planning to unschool too, and it all seems to fit in with that continuum. The gradual shifts in my perspective brought about by exposure to these relatively simple, yet hugely revolutionary, ideas about relating with kids are taking a lot of energy to integrate into my brain/life. I'm so glad I found them early on in the journey!

Ran across an article recently that had a somewhat relevant tidbit - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/how-to-land-your-kid-in-therapy/8555/1/

of course, it's full of the usual mainstreamy cliches and junk, but what I found interesting was the idea of happiness as a goal vs. a state of being. I don't want my kids to be happy all the time, I want them to feel capable of handling whatever life throws at them. That means being disappointed sometimes, so they can learn how to handle disappointment and not be afraid of it, etc. It doesn't mean I'm going to MAKE them disappointed with arbitrary rules and boundaries, though. That distinction is an important one to me, but I know too often I err on the side of avoiding DS's disappointment rather than deal with the aftermath of disagreement. Hopefully that will come easier as he gets older - and I suspect having subsequent kids will sort of make it happen, in a way. I won't be able to fuss as much over the reaction of this kid or that one when there are more of them, right? 

My little brother, who is in his mid-20s and doesn't have kids yet, questioned our parenting of DS when he was visiting over Christmas. He felt like we "let him have his way" too often and it was inconvenient/permissive. He was genuinely interested in why we felt the need to be so flexible with DS, and I told him I'd read a lot and thought through a lot and if he was interested in doing the same, I'd love to discuss it in depth sometime (didn't really feel like defending the whole thing off the top of my head during brief family visit). At the time I was rereading Kohn's Unconditional Parenting and told him I'd send it to him when I was finished, but of course haven't finished and keep forgetting to send it. I wonder if it'd be too much as an introduction to this type of thinking, though? I'm interested in a general way in CL and TCS too, haven't read/heard much about TCC, but I think of them all as being a part of the spectrum I'm sort of oriented towards. Anybody have thoughts about a good starting point?


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DevaMajka*
> 
> I think she's saying that it's a parent's responsibility to keep their young child from hitting other people. Like, hitting/biting/kicking, not referring to swings. That's what I got from it.


Yeah I see how I completely misread that.







Thanks.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> I don't agree that you have to hover by the swings to make sure your child doesn't swing into anyone. If both my kids are at the park, the older one is often swinging while I'm spotting my little monkey who is climbing elsewhere. People need to not walk too closely to swings. If I were by the swings and saw someone was about to be hit, of course I'd intervene - I mean I wouldn't sit there and watch someone get hurt by any means. But obligatory for a parent to be available to stop children from getting hit by their child when he/she is swinging? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and this is a bit OT anyway, but if people have that belief, then I'm starting a thread asking about it in Parenting, because I'm curious how common a belief that is.


Yeah, what everyone else said. That's not what I meant at all.









The swing incident got mixed up in there because I was trying to point out that I didn't think that type of thing was anyone's fault that one child got hit by the swing. I don't hover over my children at all. I was talking about when children get out of control and do things deliberately.
Quote:


> I don't want my kids to be happy all the time, I want them to feel capable of handling whatever life throws at them. That means being disappointed sometimes, so they can learn how to handle disappointment and not be afraid of it, etc. It doesn't mean I'm going to MAKE them disappointed with arbitrary rules and boundaries, though.


People have to deal with enough disappointment and unhappiness from the outside world. They don't need more arbitrarily heaped on them at home, to toughen them up or whatever.

I don't think that means it's impossible to be happy all the time. If you can achieve that zen state of not having any attachments to anything, then nothing will cause disappointment. It is what it is and it doesn't affect your mood. I've never been there but there are people who claim to be.

We unschool, too, by the way.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DevaMajka*
> 
> With my older son (who I tried really hard to be CL with, btw), if explaining, redirecting, etc didn't work, I could usually say "Should we take this away to take away the temptation to climb on it?" and he would agree that the thing should be put away.
> 
> Ds2...he's different. I often wonder if that's because I've never tried to be CL with him. I try to be respectful of him as a human being, and remember that his needs/opinions/wants are just as important as anyone else's. It's a little harder with 2 kids, but I try. He just gets stuck in the action, and can't stop himself. To be fair, he's not even 2yo yet. I'm working on being more UP with him, and working on not using physical force (ie: picking him up and carrying him when he won't go on his own) as much. Anyways, he gets stuck in the action of, say, running into the dog with his tricycle. And he will.not.stop. And when we try to stop him, he just keeps on trying over and over and over. He even has this laugh, and we know that he's just stuck in the impulse. We physically stop him, either by holding his tricycle or by taking the dog to another room and shutting the door.


My #1 was like that. We used to describe it to others just like that "Getting stuck." He'd often, specifically, "get stuck on 'no.' " meaning that he'd say "NO!" to something and then get stuck on the idea that HE WAS NOT GOING TO DO IT! even when he was offered alternatives that he normally would have liked.

Honestly, part of his issue was that he just wasn't ready for "if-then" or "First-next" statements when we started usign them because "GD experts" said we should. "Just explain that he has to hold your hand or he has to be carried," people would say. "Just tell him he has to leave the park so that you can go home to eat dinner," they say. Well, #1 was the kid screaming "WANT DINNER! NO WANT TO LEAVE PARK! WANT DINNER NOW!" and all the "Honey, there is no dinner at the park. We have to leave the park to get dinner. Dinner is at home, and we have to go home from the park to get dinner," made any difference.

Eventually, he grew into being able to process those statements. But I think trying to use those statements too much when he wasn't developmentally ready for them led to a lot of frustration on both our parts. I realized that if I just said "We are leaving the park now," he'd pitch a fit, but it was an easier fit than if I tried to cajole and reason and reason and cajole and then make a game and then give choices and then make a different game..... "Honey, It's time to go home now." Pick him up, carry him to the car. Console him with "We have to go home to get dinner," and then, LATER, after he'd calmed down, we could talk it out: "You didnt' want to leave the park today, did you? But you know what? You were happy when we got home and you saw we could eat dinner, right? Well, we had to leave the park in order to get dinner!"


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *savithny*
> 
> Honestly, part of his issue was that he just wasn't ready for "if-then" or "First-next" statements when we started usign them because "GD experts" said we should. "Just explain that he has to hold your hand or he has to be carried," people would say. "Just tell him he has to leave the park so that you can go home to eat dinner," they say. Well, #1 was the kid screaming "WANT DINNER! NO WANT TO LEAVE PARK! WANT DINNER NOW!" and all the "Honey, there is no dinner at the park. We have to leave the park to get dinner. Dinner is at home, and we have to go home from the park to get dinner," made any difference.
> 
> Eventually, he grew into being able to process those statements. But I think trying to use those statements too much when he wasn't developmentally ready for them led to a lot of frustration on both our parts. I realized that if I just said "We are leaving the park now," he'd pitch a fit, but it was an easier fit than if I tried to cajole and reason and reason and cajole and then make a game and then give choices and then make a different game..... "Honey, It's time to go home now." Pick him up, carry him to the car. Console him with "We have to go home to get dinner," and then, LATER, after he'd calmed down, we could talk it out: "You didnt' want to leave the park today, did you? But you know what? You were happy when we got home and you saw we could eat dinner, right? Well, we had to leave the park in order to get dinner!"


There were options to all of these. You could have brought food with you. Then dinner would be at the park. You could not worry about getting home for dinner at a specific time. You could have empathized with him in the moment like you did after he had calmed down without the "buts" and/or continuing to tell him that you still had to go. I'm not saying you should have done any of those things, but they were/are options.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *savithny*
> 
> ...LATER, after he'd calmed down, we could talk it out: "You didnt' want to leave the park today, did you? But you know what? You were happy when we got home and you saw we could eat dinner, right? Well, we had to leave the park in order to get dinner!"


We did so, so much of this and it really "worked" so well for my DC and our family. Probably from about verbal age until about 4 DC and I had evening talks. I guess cosleeping really lead to the talks at night. When DC got older she was no longer in our bed and we had moved to an area where we were doing lots of driving (not lots by US standards but what felt like a lot to me). I found the car to be an ideal spot for conversations. Even at 9 we still talk through a lot of stuff while we're in the car.

I don't think treating your child like you treat your partner is a really good analogy in general but when it comes to trying to reason during an argument I think it works pretty well. Most of the people I know are not good thinkers, compromisers or empathisers when they're in the middle of an argument. We don't generally expect adults to be at their best when they're upset and frustrated. Why would we expect something from a child what we don't expect from an adult?

So, yes, I like the idea of figuring your best way to avoid disappointment (like MW suggested in her response), then find the best way to handle a situation once it gets out of hand...and then talk it through LATER once everyone is calm. I LOVE the idea of talking a problem out later with a child and asking THEM for suggestions on how the situation could have been made better. I used to ask my DC this all the time. 90% of the time she says I handled it fine but could have been more strict! Funny little children. ;-)


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Of course we could have brought dinner. But we didn't, because there was no indication that he'd freak out about leaving hte park for dinner. (We also had to pick up Daddy at work on the way home for dinner. We have one car. If Daddy wants to eat, we still need to leave the park. Other options could include "Okay, daddy doesn't get to eat tonight," but I don't think that's very consensual either).

The idea of skipping dinner to accommodate the not wanting to leave the park thing would have been worse. because he wanted dinner. That was the thing - he wanted dinner very much. He just did not understand the If-then, first-next of how we were going to get to dinner. Making him get hungrier and more upset while he struggled with a concept he was unable to deal with would have been cruel and made matters worse.

(No, he did not actually want to eat dinner at the park, either. And I have a kajillion other examples that show that it wasn't just park-dinner. It was an overarching issue with Order of Operations. He'd want to go to the playground but not leave the house. He'd want to wear his red shirt but not take off his PJs (or put the shirt over the PJs). He'd want me to read to him, but not want me to hold the book so I could see the words.)

Once you're in a circumstance (at the park with no dinner), suggestions like that don't really fix the matter at hand. Offering to eat dinner at the park would still have required we get in the car, go get inner, and bring it back to the park. It was not an option I could have offered. Eating at the park was not an option, because

This is where. this "there is always a solution" tends to break down, for me. . It seems to require magic solutions, like I needed to predict that my child would melt down over simultaneous and mutually exclusive goals and bring everything I'd need to make those goals no longer mutually exclusive. And the "Oh, here's a solution!!!" gets wilder and wilder. It goes from "You should have known to have the food with you!" to "You could have called for takeout and had it delivered to the park! Daddy could have taken a cab to the park to join you!" (Yes, some of that might be true, but it would have blown our budget for the month AND would have taken over an hour to get both food and daddy on site.)

The "but" language was actually key for my DS. It helped him make the connection between "I was really disappointed -- but I survived that, and in the end I did get something I wanted." And eventually, we did reach the point where DS could understand that two things were mutually exclusive and could not be done at the same time, and he'd initiate things like "Can I have two more slides, and then we'll go get daddy?" Or even (and we did this) "Could we invite Friend X who works with Daddy to a picnic, and Daddy could get a ride with Friend X?" But he needed the developmental ability to hold those different ideas and goals in his mind and understand which of them could be done together and which could not be done together. And expecting him to use those skills before he developed them, or expecting him to develop those skills without time and practice really would have been unfair to him.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *savithny*
> 
> This is where. this "there is always a solution" tends to break down, for me. . It seems to require magic solutions, like I needed to predict that my child would melt down over simultaneous and mutually exclusive goals and bring everything I'd need to make those goals no longer mutually exclusive. And the "Oh, here's a solution!!!" gets wilder and wilder. It goes from "You should have known to have the food with you!" to "You could have called for takeout and had it delivered to the park! Daddy could have taken a cab to the park to join you!" (Yes, some of that might be true, but it would have blown our budget for the month AND would have taken over an hour to get both food and daddy on site.)


Well, the fact is that all of these are options. It doesn't mean you have to or should do any of these but you are choosing not to. That's really hard for a lot of people to grasp. You have the power and your child really has none. Sometimes it's necessary for us parents to use that power but many times it's us really just making a choice that is easier or more convenient or that makes more sense to us. Again, I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that is how it is, especially from the child's POV.

Maybe part of the problem is that you are searching for a solution to stop your child from having a meltdown. That's not really the objective. The objective is to let the child know his feelings do matter. In the Naomi Aldort book, she addresses the fact that empathizing in the moment may actually cause the child to escalate the meltdown. It works the same way with adults a lot of times. Most adults have never really been purely empathized with so when they are it's like opening the floodgates.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Maybe part of the problem is that you are searching for a solution to stop your child from having a meltdown. That's not really the objective. The objective is to let the child know his feelings do matter. In the Naomi Aldort book, she addresses the fact that empathizing in the moment may actually cause the child to escalate the meltdown. It works the same way with adults a lot of times. Most adults have never really been purely empathized with so when they are it's like opening the floodgates.


I didn't get the impression that Savithny was trying to prevent a melt down at all nor did I get the impression that she wasn't being empathetic.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Thank you. Both of those things are, in fact, true. I empathize deeply with my kid (in part because he's the one most like me in many ways). Preventing meltdowns was impossible, and his feelings were always acknowledged.

The fact is that many "solutions" offered by CL or TCS are simply impractical for daily living, or for anyone with a budget. Acheiving a total consensuality (which TCS defines at one point as everyone in the family, whatever their age, agreeing that the chosen action is the one they prefer over all other actions, rather than just the one they think sucks the least, is not always going to be possible.

And its especially not going to be possible in a system that ignores some basic facts about child development, and that assumes that children have exactly the same reasoning capacity and perceptions as adults do.


----------



## wake_up (Aug 1, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about arbitrarily heaping disappointment and unhappiness on my kids to toughen them up. I'm talking about not walking on eggshells for fear they'll be disappointed at some point. Anticipating needs is different from catering to every whim. Life happens, and sometimes we don't have all the options available to us, or the options we would prefer are not going to work for the people we're with. In those situations, which pop up quite often, I'm finding the best route is to reassure DS that I understand he is upset, explain the situation the best I can, and fully trust (and let him know that I fully trust) that he can handle the disappointment he's feeling.

I don't think happy all the time is a reasonable or even desirable goal. I think attachment to some things is good, and disappointment is part of being human. Guess I'd be an imperfect Buddhist.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wake_up*
> 
> I'm not talking about arbitrarily heaping disappointment and unhappiness on my kids to toughen them up. I'm talking about not walking on eggshells for fear they'll be disappointed at some point. Anticipating needs is different from catering to every whim. Life happens, and sometimes we don't have all the options available to us, or the options we would prefer are not going to work for the people we're with. In those situations, which pop up quite often, I'm finding the best route is to reassure DS that I understand he is upset, explain the situation the best I can, and fully trust (and let him know that I fully trust) that he can handle the disappointment he's feeling.
> 
> I don't think happy all the time is a reasonable or even desirable goal. I think attachment to some things is good, and disappointment is part of being human. Guess I'd be an imperfect Buddhist.


I got what you were saying and was agreeing with you about the arbitrary rules and such.

The happiness thing was just another POV I wanted to put out there. There are people who claim to be happy all the time because they don't let the disappointments of life negatively affect them. They know disappointments happen and understand that they are not the end of the world. Like I said, I've never been there but there are people who say it can be done. Maybe it depends on how you define being happy. Maybe it's more a state of being content or being ok with what is.









I haven't found a way to get CL to work all the time with more than 2 people, either. I do tend to concede to my children more because I usually realize in the course of discussions with them that my position isn't really that important and because regardless of how I like to look at it, ultimately, I have all the power in the situation and my children do not. So, I would be the person who might order pizza and have it delivered to the park if I hadn't thought to bring food or I would call my dh and ask him to get a ride and pick up dinner on the way to meeting us. I wouldn't tell my dh he gets no dinner but, as an adult, he's certainly more capable of fending for himself than my children are. A lot of it depends on what each person is comfortable with. I'm more comfortable with going along with what my children want than my dh is. He has a harder time not seeing it as spoiling them.

We're having a problem with our 4yo and the new kittens we got. He won't leave them alone. He's very high energy and too rough without realizing it. He grabs them and forcibly holds them and then cries when they run away from him. We have tried explaining to him how to be gentle with the and that they will eventually come to him if he's calm and relaxed and waits and lets them go when they want to go. We have modeled how we are gentle. He doesn't get it. Every day it's the same thing. I have to physically restrain him fro grabbing the kittens sometimes. He gets hurt and feels left out because he can't hold the kittens and everyone else can but I don't know what else to do. I can't let him hurt the kittens as part of the process of learning.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> The happiness thing was just another POV I wanted to put out there. There are people who claim to be happy all the time because they don't let the disappointments of life negatively affect them. They know disappointments happen and understand that they are not the end of the world. Like I said, I've never been there but there are people who say it can be done. Maybe it depends on how you define being happy. Maybe it's more a state of being content or being ok with what is.


I'm thinking people who have this kind of happiness or contentment have it because they learned through being disappointed when they were children. People aren't born like that.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I'm sure they had disappointments in their lives. Everyone does. The thing is that they either learned or were treated in way that allowed them to lot let the disappointments affect them. I'm not saying that children would automatically be like that. I'm saying that maybe it's possible for us to care for our children in a way that they can and will feel that way as they get older.

I do agree that it's impossible to have a life without disappointment but I don't know that it's impossible to be happy in spite of those disappointments. Studies have shown over and over that our moods are affected my our thoughts much more than our thoughts being affected by our moods. Disappointments can be easier or harder to handle depending on how we think about them.

I can think about my dh being deployed as the most horrible thing and make myself miserable the entire time he is gone. Or I can think about it as just a part of our life and understand that it's something that we have both agreed to live with and look at the positives surrounding it, like the fact that he gets paid quite a bit more money. Then I can be grateful for what he's doing for our family and it becomes a good thing. I'm not always perfect at that but I do my best not to entertain those negative thoughts when they come into my head and try to change my thinking around to the positive. It helps. I had to learn that as an adult but no one ever took the time to help me learn that as a child. Maybe there are things I can do to help my children learn how to do that now. KWIM?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wake_up*
> 
> I'm not talking about arbitrarily heaping disappointment and unhappiness on my kids to toughen them up. I'm talking about not walking on eggshells for fear they'll be disappointed at some point. Anticipating needs is different from catering to every whim.


Agreed! On the previous point: whether we, as parents, can create hardships to "toughen-up" our kids. I actually thought of this a wile back. I probably even posted about it on MDC many moons ago. When DC was from about 1-4 we lived in SUCH a child friendly world and DC truly had a blissful life. I actually began to worry that she would suffer from a lack of normal childhood challenges (similar to the ones I had that I felt helped make me the person I am today). Of course I knew that it was not my role as a parent to create hardship for my child but it was something I thought about back in the day.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> I'm thinking people who have this kind of happiness or contentment have it because they learned through being disappointed when they were children. People aren't born like that.


I am one of those people. I'm not sure where it comes from but I'm sure its from many, many things. I wouldn't be surprised if it was in part a genetic thing. I also think luck in life has a lot to do with it. Being raise well too. But, yea, I imagine it does come in part from having a healthy dose of disappointment as a child and learning to overcome and work through challenges.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> I do tend to concede to my children more because I usually realize in the course of discussions with them that my position isn't really that important and because regardless of how I like to look at it, ultimately, I have all the power in the situation and my children do not.


We are not so focused on the issue of power but I have needed to check myself on and off through my child's life to be sure I am not in a rut of knee jerk "no's". Sometimes I am just in this space of feeling like I don't want to do what DC wants (usually when I am feeling bombarded by requests...aka "the gimmies"). DC is almost 10 and we're really trying to work on requests that are "timely" and "thought through". I am working on really, really considering the answer before I give it. DC is then also working on seriously considered and judicious requests for me to reconsider. Ah...summer! 

Another thing I'm trying to get DC to become more aware of is how much I want her to be happy. I don't think she is all that aware of how much I want that for her and how much I absolutely hate for her to be disappointed. As she gets older I will be expecting her to be aware of her own power when it comes to this issue (perhaps this is why I don't feel especially powerful as a parent). My extended family has a culture of mother as giver and it becomes important for daughters and sons to be sure they are asking appropriate things from their mom. Of course, this is an issue for older children as the expectation would not be developmentally appropriate for a child still in the self-centered stage of life.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> I do agree that it's impossible to have a life without disappointment but I don't know that it's impossible to be happy in spite of those disappointments. Studies have shown over and over that our moods are affected my our thoughts much more than our thoughts being affected by our moods. Disappointments can be easier or harder to handle depending on how we think about them.


We cross posted but I was actually going to bring up the issue of metacognition in my last post. I absolutely think that happiness can be maintained and perhaps even increased/enhanced by one's thought process. I would argue, though, that this generally only works for people with a relatively happy disposition to begin with.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

I'm dealing with the "gimmies" with my 7yo and trying to find a balance between doing what I can for him and taking care of myself at the same time. It's been especially difficult lately with me being pregnant and anemic and my dh being gone for so long. There are many, many times when I just tell him, "no," because I am not up to it. I haven't found a better way yet and he doesn't quite understand, at least not when he's in the moment of wanting something. I do try to do more for him when I do feel better. I am concerned how things are going to be once the baby comes because I will have to spend so much of my time and energy taking care of the baby.
Quote:


> I would argue, though, that this generally only works for people with a relatively happy disposition to begin with.


I have to disagree with this. I am definitely not one of those people that has a relatively happy disposition. I have had trouble with clinical depression since I was at least 15 years old. The one thing that has really helped me handle it is controlling my own thinking. This idea wasn't introduced to me until I was in my 30s but once it was I couldn't believe how well it works. I can now recognize when I'm getting into a depressive funk and consciously change my thinking, which makes a huge difference in how I feel.

I've been thinking about how I think this is probably achieved in childhood. I think it has a lot to do with feeling unconditionally loved within your family and being empathized with. If one knows they are loved no matter what and understands that disappointments happen to everyone, I think they are more likely to be able to roll with the punches, so to speak. I remember reading about studies way back when that showed that children who were more attached and loved and treated nicely and with respect in the home were better able to handle the toughness of the outside world vs. children who came from families that believed they had to be tough with their kids to prepare them for the harsh, cruel world.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife* I am concerned how things are going to be once the baby comes because I will have to spend so much of my time and energy taking care of the baby.


I hope it goes well. When I think back to the time where I was worried that my DC had a "too blissed out childhood" a big part of that was that she was as singleton. I thought the stress of a younger sibling would have been good for her. I know that age 7 is way different from age 9 and that you have other children as well but I will say that my 9 year old is doing really, really well with the arrival of her baby sister. I'm loving the age gap and feel that DC #1's age is really well suited to having to put some of her needs behind her sibling and her mama. It's been really great and I hope for the same for you and your little ones.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> I have to disagree with this. I am definitely not one of those people that has a relatively happy disposition. I have had trouble with clinical depression since I was at least 15 years old. The one thing that has really helped me handle it is controlling my own thinking. This idea wasn't introduced to me until I was in my 30s but once it was I couldn't believe how well it works. I can now recognize when I'm getting into a depressive funk and consciously change my thinking, which makes a huge difference in how I feel.


That is great to hear!! Unfortunately, I am very close to a few people who suffer either from depression or just a depressed disposition. In general (and this is just the experience I've had and the books/articles I've read), I still think metacognition is the key to happiness for already (mostly) happy. In fact, I would think that the inability to change one's way of thinking may be the cause of many forms of depression; not the other way around. But I'm not saying it doesn't work for some and I am in no way suggesting that I'm an expert on this. I've just spent so many hours, days, weeks thinking about my loved ones with depression wondering why they don't "just" get some perspective, be happy for what they have and change their outlook and I have now come to the belief that they just can't and they most certainly would if they could.

If you feel like sharing I wonder what enabled you to change your way of thinking after many years of depression?


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

[quote name="IdentityCrisisMama" url="/community/forum/thread/1318110/what-is-that-gd-style-finding-acceptable-solutions-for-both-parent-and-child/60#post_16528021"Unfortunately, I am very close to a few people who suffer either from depression or just a depressed disposition. In general (and this is just the experience I've had and the books/articles I've read), I still think metacognition is the key to happiness for already (mostly) happy. In fact, I would think that the inability to change one's way of thinking may be the cause of many forms of depression; not the other way around. But I'm not saying it doesn't work for some and I am in no way suggesting that I'm an expert on this. I've just spent so many hours, days, weeks thinking about my loved ones with depression wondering why they don't "just" get some perspective, be happy for what they have and change their outlook and I have now come to the belief that they just can't and they most certainly would if they could.

If you feel like sharing I wonder what enabled you to change your way of thinking after many years of depression?

[/quote]

A really good therapist who taught me how to do it. It didn't happen overnight. It has been years. I was 30 or 31 when I started seeing her and I'm 41 now. It's almost certainly not something I would have discovered and been able to do on my own. I have since moved away from her and have not been able to find anyone like her.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

This is a nice thread, and timely for me. I have recently been thinking back on some of the approaches we've tried as parents, and what has worked for us and what hasn't, and why.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> I think you have a good point. I have a gut feeling that maybe some things we do as GD parents (and its range of philosophies) may well backfire a bit and, like you said, put too much pressure on kids. I can't think of a good example right now but I do remember times when the most GD, CL or UP (and etc.) approach was in reality not as gentle for my DC than something else that may have looked insensitive in comparison. Perhaps that's not what you had in mind though...


I agree with this. I've tried a CL kind of approach, and I do love the collaborative problem solving approach (explosive child book). BUT looking back now I can see that there were times when those approaches did not match my kids' abilities, and that did place too much pressure on them. I think the most important goal of gentle discipline is that whatever approach the parent chooses works well with the individual child's personality, needs and skills. Looking back, there were times that I wasn't aware that I was expecting my children to engage in a process that they really weren't ready for, and I do think that wasn't really gentle on them. I think it's far more important to be in tune with not only my children's needs but also their abilities, than it is to adhere to specifics of a particular discipline method or philosophy.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> Well, the fact is that all of these are options. It doesn't mean you have to or should do any of these but you are choosing not to. That's really hard for a lot of people to grasp. You have the power and your child really has none. Sometimes it's necessary for us parents to use that power but many times it's us really just making a choice that is easier or more convenient or that makes more sense to us. Again, I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that is how it is, especially from the child's POV.


I remember lots of discussions about choices, and arguments just like this one, years ago in this forum. I think it was useful for me to hear this argument only in that it helped me become a little more creative when it comes to problem-solving. It helped me start to think outside the box a little bit. But I think that in reality, it just isn't true that we always have so many options. People are limited by circumstances, and some potential solutions are not realistic given the circumstances. Sometimes bringing dinner to the park is a potential option but isn't a realistic one. And if something isn't realistic, I don't think it's really much of a choice. And while I respect my child's POV, and I love to see people advocate for empathizing with the child's POV, the fact is that families are complex. Each member of the family has needs, sometimes those needs conflict, and it's not always possible to find a "mutually agreeable solution" in the moment. In the moment, we may be limited by time, by obligation, by the needs of another person, by resources, or by any number of other circumstances. Importantly, sometimes one or more family member is not able to engage in problem solving in the moment because they're too upset.

Furthermore, children are developmentally different from adults, and do rely on the guidance of adults. There really are times when having the adult make the decision is actually less stressful for a child than engaging in problem-solving. I think that gets lost in these discussions sometimes. Additionally, I'm aware that sometimes my child's desires conflict with my child's needs. In that case I do think it's my responsibility as the parent to provide boundaries and guidance that will lead to meeting my child's needs, even at the expense of fulfilling their desires. I think this is another area where CL loses me. Sometimes we do understand better than our children do how a decision/action will affect our kids, and I believe that our children do look to us for guidance.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magella*
> 
> But I think that in reality, it just isn't true that we always have so many options. People are limited by circumstances, and some potential solutions are not realistic given the circumstances. Sometimes bringing dinner to the park is a potential option but isn't a realistic one. And if something isn't realistic, I don't think it's really much of a choice....Additionally, I'm aware that sometimes my child's desires conflict with my child's needs. In that case I do think it's my responsibility as the parent to provide boundaries and guidance that will lead to meeting my child's needs, even at the expense of fulfilling their desires. I think this is another area where CL loses me. Sometimes we do understand better than our children do how a decision/action will affect our kids, and I believe that our children do look to us for guidance.


Well, yeah, not every possible choice is a realistic option. My point was to point out that those are all still choices and that the parent is the only who, ultimately, makes the decision even if the decision is to do what the child wants. That's because the parent is the one who has the power to not offer or consider some choices for whatever reason and/or to say no to something the child comes up with. The child doesn't really have much power in these situations, depending on the child's age. It's like the child can leave if s/he doesn't like want the parent has decided or agreed to go along with.

To get very extreme in that type of thinking, I have the choice to completely walk away from my family. I am capable and legally able to financially support myself or choose to live on the streets or whatever. My dh or other people in my family can and would take care of my children. My children don't have that choice at the ages they are right now. It's very unlikely that they would survive if they left.

Then there's the whole thing with needs vs. desires. There are really only a very few true needs in life, oxygen, water and food. Everything else is really a desire on some level or another. So, what a parent may see as a need vs. a desire, a child may not see that distinction and that doesn't mean the child is wrong or doesn't understand. It may be that the child understands better than the parent.

So, everything other than very basic survival needs becomes part of a balancing act. Does my desire to buy organic food trump my child's desire for a new bike? When I say that I don't have money for something that my child wants, do I really not have the money for that or am I choosing to spend the money we have on something else? These are things I catch myself on all the time.

Buying stuff has been a big issue with my 7yo lately. He wants to buy all kinds of things. He doesn't understand that I have bills have to pay before I can think about buying something else. It's not practical for me to skip the mortgage payment or paying the electric bill so that I can by him a new bike, especially when he has a perfectly good bike. Apparently, the problem is that it doesn't have a kick stand or hand brakes. However, I could not pay one of those bills if I chose to. No one would die if I didn't. The world wouldn't end. So, I have the power and I'm making the choice and my child has to just go along with it. That's why I try so hard to accommodate my kids as much as possible.

Ya know, I've never actually asked him if he thought I should buy him a new bike instead of paying the electric bill. Now I'm wondering what he would say.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Hmm I don't know. Asking a child if you should buy them a new bike or pay the electric bill could potentially be taken as a guilt trip by the child. I don't know if giving them that option is really that helpful to kids.

I make the best choices I can and always keep both my kids' needs and wants in mind, but I'm better at seeing the big picture than they are and I'm more mature and can weigh plusses and minuses and see the big picture better than they can yet. I don't think I'd want to put a bunch of adult bill-paying fears and responsibilities on their shoulders. I'd empathize, "I wish we could afford to get you a new bike now" and keep it in mind in case things eased up and there was more money available. And I'd keep my eyes on craigslist and garage sales to try to find one cheaper.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

I don't really see how that would cause a guilt trip unless I said it in a way to make him feel guilty, which I wouldn't do. We've always been open about money and having bills to pay and such. It's not a secret or something to shelter our kids from.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> Then there's the whole thing with needs vs. desires. There are really only a very few true needs in life, oxygen, water and food. Everything else is really a desire on some level or another. So, what a parent may see as a need vs. a desire, a child may not see that distinction and that doesn't mean the child is wrong or doesn't understand. It may be that the child understands better than the parent.
> 
> So, everything other than very basic survival needs becomes part of a balancing act.


I see your point and understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I think people do have more needs beyond oxygen, water, and food. I think there are needs beyond the very basics needed for survival. People need adequate sleep, for example, and lack thereof can absolutely lead to problems with physical or emotional health. People need safety and security, both physical and emotional. People need relationships, and to be touched, and to be understood. At times people need health care. People have a lot of needs beyond the bare minimum needed to survive. True, sometimes a need is also a desire. Sometimes it's difficult to separate needs and desires, sometimes a need is also a desire. It's not always easy, but we parents are often responsible for making the judgment call because we are more knowledgable and more skilled than our children.

While I agree that sometimes it's difficult as parents to fully understand our children's feelings, needs, and desires, I also think that as adults we're often in a better place to understand the consequences of choices and to make decisions on behalf of our children. There are times when children do lack the understanding and/or knowledge to make a decision.

I also agree that children do not have the same power as adults do. Sometimes this is frustrating for children. At other times this is comforting to them, they feel more secure knowing they can depend on their parents to take the lead and to take responsibility for decisions. I think one can believe that parents must take the lead in decision making while also being aware and respectful of children's relative lack of power, while giving them as many appropriate opportunities to make choices as possible. I do think it's the parent's responsibility to determine when it's appropriate for the child to make choices, to the best of the parent's ability.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> Hmm I don't know. Asking a child if you should buy them a new bike or pay the electric bill could potentially be taken as a guilt trip by the child. I don't know if giving them that option is really that helpful to kids.
> 
> I make the best choices I can and always keep both my kids' needs and wants in mind, but I'm better at seeing the big picture than they are and I'm more mature and can weigh plusses and minuses and see the big picture better than they can yet. I don't think I'd want to put a bunch of adult bill-paying fears and responsibilities on their shoulders. I'd empathize, "I wish we could afford to get you a new bike now" and keep it in mind in case things eased up and there was more money available. And I'd keep my eyes on craigslist and garage sales to try to find one cheaper.


I agree. Adults are better at seeing the big picture. And I think that no matter how you phrase it, posing the bike vs. electric bill question to a child has the potential to cause the child to feel insecure. I've explained bill-paying to my kids. At times we've explained that we can't afford to purchase something at the moment. It's not that we don't talk about these realities. But I think asking a child to make a choice between paying a bill and buying a bike is too much for kids. That's a lot of pressure no matter how you phrase it. I do think kids need to know that their parents keep them secure and safe, that they don't have to make the big decisions that can affect their security and safety.

I do value finding solutions that address both my concerns and my child's. However, I think this is best done when everyone is reasonably calm, and when it's appropriate for the child to be involved in the decision-making process (which is a lot of the time, just not all the time). I think engaging in problem-solving to find solutions that work for both my child and myself has very much helped my kids develop thinking, communication, and problem-solving skills. Doing so has brought a lot of peace to our home, and helped us all grow. However, there are times when we as parents just need to make a decision in order to get through a situation, and we empathize with our children. Later we may talk with our children later about other ways we might have handled it. There are times when parents are better equipped to make a decision, and when it's not appropriate to invite the child to participate in making the decision. I welcome my children to share their thoughts and feelings about any decision, but I do not always invite them to participate in making the decision.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

My point was to be very extreme about needs vs. desires because that helps me to put things in perspective. And, I think a lot of adults don't think in those terms. They have so many things that they consider needs that aren't really and have a tendency to think of just about everything that kids want as desires. Thinking in terms of extreme needs puts everyone's needs or desires on a more level playing field, imo.

As far as the money issue goes, I think it's important for kids to know about and a part of the family budgeting once they are at a point that they are asking about for things. I sit down with everyone in my family periodically to go over the entire family budget. The kids need to know how money comes in and how it goes out. Right now my 7yo ds thinks that I get money when I go to the store because he sees me get change or that it doesn't cost us anything if I use my credit card. It's difficult for him to get the connections between what's written on our bank statement and the paper bills I give the cashier at a store and the check that I send to the credit card company. He does have an allowance that I give him in cash so he can see how that goes up and down and how quickly it can get depleted to the point that he can't buy anything. I think that's helping. But even that is a demonstration of my arbitrary power over him since I decide how much allowance he gets and when and he has to wait for me to give it to him. I had read in the past of families that worked out their budgets and then split whatever was left evenly amongst everyone every month.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> My point was to be very extreme about needs vs. desires because that helps me to put things in perspective. And, I think a lot of adults don't think in those terms. They have so many things that they consider needs that aren't really and have a tendency to think of just about everything that kids want as desires. Thinking in terms of extreme needs puts everyone's needs or desires on a more level playing field, imo.


I understand how thinking in these extremes can help some people, and glad it helps you, but I'm not so sure it's helpful for everyone. It's the extremes that always leave me feeling disturbed by CL threads (though I've learned a lot found a lot of clarity by reading them). I think any person can fall into thinking of their needs and desires as needs, and other people's (not just children's) needs as mere desires. But I think that taking the point to the extreme of saying that basic survival needs are needs, and everything else is a desire, can also (unintentionally) diminish some of the very real needs of children. If you think about things in terms of "oxygen, water and food are needs, everything else is a desire," that can diminish a child's less tangible (but no less real) needs. Doing so can also diminish some of the very real needs of parents (and ignoring a parent's needs can also be harmful to a family).

I'm sure if ten people each made a list of what are needs and what are desires, in the end there would be ten very different lists. I guess I find it much more helpful to think in terms of children needing as much autonomy and choice as they are developmentally ready for, and as is appropriate and realistic within the individual family. I find it more helpful to think in terms of children needing to have their needs, desires, and feelings listened to, understood, and taken into consideration.

Too often these discussions come across (to me, anyway) as advocating that we always strive to accommodate children's desires (often at the expense of the adult's/family's needs), and I think part of that is due to the extreme examples used. Going back to the example of leaving the park, I think some examples of alternative choices available are extreme and focused not on the needs of the entire family but on the needs of the child alone. This is my biggest problem with CL discussions. To me the terms "consensual" and "mutually agreeable" imply a solution that satisfactorily meets the needs of both parent and child, and that is realistic (actually doable). I find that when I read posts about CL I end up feeling as though I just don't understand CL, because there is talk of mutuality but so many of the examples of how to handle situations don't seem to meet the needs/desires of both parent and child, but only those of the child. Nor do advocates of CL seem to acknowledge the children are at a different place in development cognitively and emotionally than adults are, the assumption seems to be that children think and reason in the same way adults do. I value hearing the perspective, though, because it helps me clarify me own thoughts about parenting.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Loving this turn in the conversation!! The craziest thing is this idea of CL putting too much pressure on kids may well be the core of what I butted up against way back but I never got my mind to that point when we were talking so much about it.

I'll think more on the example of the bike vs. utility bill today. When MW suggested it I was really intrigued by the idea but I too would be cautious. The talks that DC and I have had about the household "big money" have seemed to be too much for my DC.

Here are two other things that crossed my mind throughout this tread:

1. The issue of power. Is it really a common issue on the home? Am I naive? Is it a give-in that parents have the power? Or do some children have the power in the home? Is it possible for that to just be a non-issue? Do we think that children are aware of the issue of power in the home? If so, how do you think they perceive this issue?

2. The issue of empathy vs. "finding alternative solutions to conflicts". What do you all think of the relationship between empathy and going to fairly extreme measures to find solutions to conflicts? For example does the focus on eliminating problems effect empathy? For adults, I feel that the focus on "solving problems" does effect empathy. How about for kids?

P.s. rushed post cuz baby is starting to fuss...


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

I think most times trying to find an alternative solution or re-evaluating what we, as parents and adults, think is most important is most considerate to all involved. Empathy can be used while doing that. I'm not good at examples of empathy but something like a parent saying to the child, "You are frustrated because you want another bike and I said I won't (or can't) get you one right now. Maybe we can find a way to save some money each week or month (or whatever) so we can get that bike as soon as possible." That seems a lot better to me than just saying, "I know you want a new bike but I can't afford to buy you one now." The "but" sort of shuts down the communication whereas the "maybe we can work something out" leaves things open. Does that make sense?

With a younger child who cannot understand such things yet and the parent is not willing to accommodate the child, I think pure empathy is the way to go. WRT a young child wanting to buy something, I have found with my 4yo, and when he was younger, making a list of things he wants for future purchase like a birthday or Christmas is enough for him.

As far as adults sometimes knowing whats best for the child, I think that really comes down to what the parent thinks is most important. If we don't give children a chance to decide for themselves what's best or most important for them, how do we know they won't make good choices?

I think food is a good example to use for that. I can insist that I know what my children should and should not eat for their health and well-being because they don't understand how what they eat today may affect them 20 years from now. The fact is, though, that I don't know how that will affect any of us in the future either. There are so many opinions swirling around about what's healthy and unhealthy that I can only make a decision for myself based on what makes sense to me. As far as my children are concerned, I offer them a variety of different kinds of foods and let them choose. I have watched over the years that they make a lot of what I consider healthy choices. We talk a lot about what food is and what nutrients different foods provide and why our bodies need those nutrients and how eating different foods can make us feel. Many times my 4yo would have a choice between drinking soda or milk and he chooses milk or he has a choice between a sugary cereal or an egg and he chooses an egg. If he does choose soda, he doesn't drink much at all, just a few sips. My 7yo is on a water kick right now. That's almost all he ever wants to drink, which I happen to think is very good for him in this heat and fire weather we've been having. I have not insisted that he drink lots of water but it's there for him along with several other choices.

Even if I can and do control what my children are exposed to and, therefore, what they eat when they are young, I will not have any control over that as they get older. I think it's better to let them makes their own choices now and experience for themselves how they feel based on their choices. That doesn't mean that I put soda in their sippy cups when they are babies. It means that when they get to the age that they see other people drinking soda and enjoying it and want to try it, I don't forbid them. I probably have a bit of a different perspective than many others with young children because I had an almost 13yo when I had my 2nd child so my 2nd child was exposed to many things at a much younger age than I might have chosen.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> 1. The issue of power. Is it really a common issue on the home? Am I naive? Is it a give-in that parents have the power? Or do some children have the power in the home? Is it possible for that to just be a non-issue? Do we think that children are aware of the issue of power in the home? If so, how do you think they perceive this issue?


This is such an interesting question. I'm struggling to figure out if "power" is the right word, actually.

As an adult, I certainly have more responsibilities, more choice, more autonomy, and more resources than my kids do. That probably does equal more power (or more agency or more autonomy, not sure which word I'm really looking for here). This (more responsibility, choice, etc.) is what I think of when these discussions turn to the idea that children have relatively little power within the family. Very young kids do mostly depend on adults to have their needs met. Little by little as they mature, kids take on more responsibility, develop more skills, are able to make more choices. As they mature kids develop their own inner resources, but usually it isn't until they're much older that they begin to acquire their own monetary resources (receiving an allowance is still depending on parents for that resource). I don't think this is a bad thing. It's just the way it is.

I do think kids, all people, have a drive for autonomy, though kids would describe it as "wanting to do it/decide it myself." I think it's important to pay attention to our kids' development so that we're giving them more autonomy as they're ready for it.

I do think kids sometimes don't like it when adults make decisions for them. One of my kids absolutely hates it, thinks it's utterly unfair, when I decide that we're going to the store. She hates shopping. I respect that and try to arrange not to take her to the store often, but sometimes I need to go and she's not ready to stay home alone. I know that in those situations, while she describe her feelings in terms of powerlessness, I know she resents that I can decide where she's going to go and when. She wouldn't call it a "power imbalance," she would describe it as "it's not fair, you always say I have to go to the store."

Quote:


> 2. The issue of empathy vs. "finding alternative solutions to conflicts". What do you all think of the relationship between empathy and going to fairly extreme measures to find solutions to conflicts? For example does the focus on eliminating problems effect empathy? For adults, I feel that the focus on "solving problems" does effect empathy. How about for kids?


This is also great food for thought. I would love to hear what you mean by "For adults, I feel that the focus on "solving problems" does affect empathy." When I read that, I immediately thought of how I used to tell my husband "I don't need you to try to fix it, I need you to just listen." I think sometimes people want and need to be heard more than (or before) they need help finding a solution.

I think empathy is the most important thing when conflicts arise. Not every conflict is one for which we need to problem solve and look for alternative solutions. I don't think we need to actually solve or fix every single problem that comes up. A really important piece of development is learning to cope when things go wrong.** To experience the sadness/anger/frustration, get through it, and realize you've survived is to develop resilience. Empathy helps kids build that resilience, to name those feelings, to learn to communicate about feelings. Problem-solving is a great skill too, but it's hard to engage in problem-solving if you can't empathize. I think the ability to empathize is partially neurological/developmental, but we also teach our children a lot about empathy by empathizing with them.

I also think that sometimes focusing on "solving the problem" gets in the way of empathy. It's possible to focus so much on finding a solution that you're not listening to the feelings.

I find that sometimes with my kids, I need to stop and just listen. No problem solving, no idea generating, just listening. Sometimes kids just needs to be heard, to know that we understand. Sometimes it's empathy kids need, not a different solution. I also think that taking time for empathy, to be sure you understand your child's feelings and concerns, can often lead you right to a solution if one is necessary. It's much more difficult to help a child or find an alternative solution if you don't first take the time to empathize and understand.

I'm sure this is all disjointed and rambling, and maybe repetitive. I'm typing between talking to kids and dealing with a barking dog.

**ETA: Above, I'm not suggesting that I arbitrarily decide that with any given conflict my kids need to just work through their emotions (rather than seeking alternative solutions) because I think it's good for them. I can think of times when trying to find alternate solutions to a conflict in progress actually added to the emotional "heat" of the situation, adding tension and making the whole situation worse. I think as an aware parent, you develop a sense for when problem solving is likely to add to the tension vs. when it's going to be positive and helpful. I can get a feel for when my child really wants a solution vs. when what she's really looking for is empathy. Sometimes due to circumstances it's just not a time for problem-solving, but I can offer empathy and that's helpful to my kids.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magella*
> 
> I understand how thinking in these extremes can help some people, and glad it helps you, but I'm not so sure it's helpful for everyone. It's the extremes that always leave me feeling disturbed by CL threads (though I've learned a lot found a lot of clarity by reading them). I think any person can fall into thinking of their needs and desires as needs, and other people's (not just children's) needs as mere desires. But I think that taking the point to the extreme of saying that basic survival needs are needs, and everything else is a desire, can also (unintentionally) diminish some of the very real needs of children. If you think about things in terms of "oxygen, water and food are needs, everything else is a desire," that can diminish a child's less tangible (but no less real) needs. Doing so can also diminish some of the very real needs of parents (and ignoring a parent's needs can also be harmful to a family).
> 
> ...


What I often see happening, in these discussions, is people starting to argue either that for the child, wants ARE needs, or that it is not the place of the parent to decide whether something is a want or a need for their child. What's often missing is that one aspect of becoming an adult in this world is learning that not all wants are needs, and how to distinguish between them. Much of that is developmental (you have to learn that your perspective and someone else's perspective are not the same, such that two different people might have simultaneous competing needs/wants) but much of it is learned.

There's also an interesting disconnect, because many CL advocates seem to simultaneously ignore real cognitive differences between adults and children and then insist that children *do* have different needs than adults, that don't seem to change from infancy on. Example: For an infant, wants do in fact equal needs. However, as a child grows and moves into the larger world, there really will be wants that aren't needs, but CL continues to act as though every expression of desire by a child reflects something that should be provided if at all possible, even at fairly great inconvenience, pain, or cost to the parent. The same child is also attributed with an adult capacity for reasoning and the ability to predict the consequences of getting what they want.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *MarineWife* I'm not good at examples of empathy but something like a parent saying to the child, "You are frustrated because you want another bike and I said I won't (or can't) get you one right now. Maybe we can find a way to save some money each week or month (or whatever) so we can get that bike as soon as possible." That seems a lot better to me than just saying, "I know you want a new bike but I can't afford to buy you one now." The "but" sort of shuts down the communication whereas the "maybe we can work something out" leaves things open. Does that make sense?

I'm struggling with this because it seems to me that the empathy is coming in the form of trying to fix the problem in the example above. What you are describing sounds a lot like what we've been doing lately and there is something that feels off to me - something I want to fix/change. Maybe it's that I feel like I'm trying to pacify?

Now a big part of this of course is my DC. She sometimes gets the idea that she wants something but she doesn't always stick to the idea of wanting that particular thing. So, for her, if she says she wants a new bike and I tell her that maybe we can save for it she will likely just forget about the whole thing. It's convenient but it doesn't feel genuine to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *MarineWife* 


> Even if I can and do control what my children are exposed to and, therefore, what they eat when they are young, I will not have any control over that as they get older. I think it's better to let them makes their own choices now and experience for themselves how they feel based on their choices. That doesn't mean that I put soda in their sippy cups when they are babies. It means that when they get to the age that they see other people drinking soda and enjoying it and want to try it, I don't forbid them. I probably have a bit of a different perspective than many others with young children because I had an almost 13yo when I had my 2nd child so my 2nd child was exposed to many things at a much younger age than I might have chosen.


I totally agree with you here and think we may have a pretty similar style when it comes to food. The food issue is one where I can see the problem of putting too much responsiblity on a child. For instance, my DC goes to school with several kids who have come to the conclusion that fast food is very terrible in an over the top sort of way. I'm not sure if I'm describing it well but I get the feeling sometimes that these kids are taking this view because they think it will please their parents.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magella*
> 
> This is such an interesting question. I'm struggling to figure out if "power" is the right word, actually.
> 
> As an adult, I certainly have more responsibilities, more choice, more autonomy, and more resources than my kids do. That probably does equal more power (or more agency or more autonomy, not sure which word I'm really looking for here). This (more responsibility, choice, etc.) is what I think of when these discussions turn to the idea that children have relatively little power within the family. Very young kids do mostly depend on adults to have their needs met. Little by little as they mature, kids take on more responsibility, develop more skills, are able to make more choices. As they mature kids develop their own inner resources, but usually it isn't until they're much older that they begin to acquire their own monetary resources (receiving an allowance is still depending on parents for that resource). I don't think this is a bad thing. It's just the way it is.


 Perhaps it is just that I don't really use the word power when I'm thinking of this stuff because of course I agree that parents have more agency, more autonomy and are not dependent on children. OTOH, (and perhaps this sounds super childish but I don't mean it that way at all), I do not have the power to NOT be responsible for my child. Yes, under the law maybe I do...or I could escape and assume a false identity but I'm not going to do that. I feel "powerless" to care for my child. I don't think of it as a bad thing - it's just the way things are.

Another way to imagine it may be to consider whether we feel less and less powerful over our children as they develop. I really, really don't feel LESS powerful as my child gets older, which makes me think maybe there isn't a power imbalance going on. Of course I don't have a grown, independent child so maybe it's something that just goes away once they move out? I'll ask my mom if there was a time she felt that she had power over me and, if so, when it went away. Or, maybe I'll find out that she still thinks she has power over me...that'll prompt an interesting discussion! :LOL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magella*
> This is also great food for thought. I would love to hear what you mean by "For adults, I feel that the focus on "solving problems" does affect empathy." When I read that, I immediately thought of how I used to tell my husband "I don't need you to try to fix it, I need you to just listen." I think sometimes people want and need to be heard mo before) they need help finding a solution.


 Yes, that's exactly what I meant. We have an ongoing debate in my extended family about what exactly it means to be sympathetic (the word we use). I'll admit that I am the type to dole it out pretty sparingly. I tend to want to give sympathy in amounts proportional to the problem and not in proportion to how much a person wants to dwell. Yes, I am known as the b!tch of the family (only in this way...in other ways I am thought of as one of the sweetest - I kind of like the contradiction). ;-) In contrast to this I feel as though people who consider themselves to be super sympathetic tend to be more of the "problem solver" types. I'll admit that this tendency to want to solve the problem seems like "fake sympathy" to me.



> Originally Posted by *Magella*
> 
> I find that sometimes with my kids, I need to stop and just listen. No problem solving, no idea generating, just listening. Sometimes kids just needs to be heard, to know that we understand. Sometimes it's empathy kids need, not a different solution. I also think that taking time for empathy, to be sure you understand your child's feelings and concerns, can often lead you right to a solution if one is necessary. It's much more difficult to help a child or find an alternative solution if you don't first take the time to empathize and understand.


 Yes, I agree.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magella* I can think of times when trying to find alternate solutions to a conflict in progress actually added to the emotional "heat" of the situation, adding tension and making the whole situation worse. I think as an aware parent, you develop a sense for when problem solving is likely to add to the tension vs. when it's going to be positive and helpful. I can get a feel for when my child really wants a solution vs. when what she's really looking for is empathy. Sometimes due to circumstances it's just not a time for problem-solving, but I can offer empathy and that's helpful to my kids.


 Again, I think this is a good thing to keep in mind because I do think it often comes down to the individual kid and the individual situation.

On the subject of empathy: what do you as a parent do in those situations where empathy is really difficult to achieve? For instance, when the child is focused on a problem that you *know* is not what the underlying issue is (but perhaps you are not 100% sure what the problem is OR that the child is not willing or able to acknowledge). Or what about when the child is very upset about something that you just find totally unreasonable and you find the prospect of sympathizing about it really difficult.

On a total off topic side note: Re: the "unfair issue". I heard this sweet response to the issue of fairness - this guy tells his kid that you never look to someone else's plate to see if they got more than you. You only look to see if they got enough. Sweet, ha?


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *savithny*
> 
> What I often see happening, in these discussions, is people starting to argue either that for the child, wants ARE needs, or that it is not the place of the parent to decide whether something is a want or a need for their child. What's often missing is that one aspect of becoming an adult in this world is learning that not all wants are needs, and how to distinguish between them. Much of that is developmental (you have to learn that your perspective and someone else's perspective are not the same, such that two different people might have simultaneous competing needs/wants) but much of it is learned.
> 
> There's also an interesting disconnect, because many CL advocates seem to simultaneously ignore real cognitive differences between adults and children and then insist that children *do* have different needs than adults, that don't seem to change from infancy on. Example: For an infant, wants do in fact equal needs. However, as a child grows and moves into the larger world, there really will be wants that aren't needs, but CL continues to act as though every expression of desire by a child reflects something that should be provided if at all possible, even at fairly great inconvenience, pain, or cost to the parent. The same child is also attributed with an adult capacity for reasoning and the ability to predict the consequences of getting what they want.


I agree with everything you've said here. I've noticed these things too. I agree that there's a tendency in these discussions to argue that children's wants are needs, and that is another example of the extremes that I find disturbing in these discussions. I think what I'm noticing over time is the implication that an adult's needs are actually wants, while a child's wants are actually needs. I think you captured perfectly the disconnect from the facts about children's development and children's cognitive abilities that I often see in these discussions.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> On the subject of empathy: what do you as a parent do in those situations where empathy is really difficult to achieve? For instance, when the child is focused on a problem that you *know* is not what the underlying issue is (but perhaps you are not 100% sure what the problem is OR that the child is not willing or able to acknowledge). Or what about when the child is very upset about something that you just find totally unreasonable and you find the prospect of sympathizing about it really difficult.


Oh, I have had so much experience with these situations! I have a child who, when younger, was just so rigid and so easily upset. This child could dwell on something for so long. I mean, crying and moaning and complaining and carrying on for and hour or more. And it was so often over something that to me was no big deal. I had trouble *sympathizing* but I could offer *empathy.* That is, I could not relate to feeling so upset over something so seemingly minor. I didn't really feel badly for her, in an "oh, poor dc" way. BUT I could listen and let her know I heard her and understood, I could say "you're disappointed, you didn't want it to rain today." To me, empathy is more just listening and letting them know we hear what they're feeling.

At the same time, there was a limit. After she'd been focusing on her upset for awhile, there would just come a time when I'd disengage from that particular interaction. I'd say something like "i hear that you're upset. I know it's hard. I'm done talking about it for now. When you're calm we can [do something else]." Sometimes there's a point when a child benefits from some space to work through their feelings, when continued interaction feeds the upset.

As to when the child is focused on an issue that is NOT the actual issue, we get that a lot here. Sometimes, the solution is to talk until we figure out what the underlying issue is. We might say something like "you're upset about [x], what's up?" Child may be able to say, we may be able to guess. But either way the empathy we offer is "you're upset." Example: "Wow, you're really angry. I know your brother bumped into you and that's annoying, but you seem extra angry. Did you have a bad day?" Or something like that. Sometimes, if I know what the underlying issue is I can point it out. For example, my oldest struggles with anxiety, and it often comes out as irritability directed toward her siblings (with lots of complaining about them). I might say "I notice that you're really cranky today. I'm thinking maybe you're feeling anxious today. What do you think?"

I also think it's hard to go very wrong with "wow, you're really upset. Do you need a hug?" Sometimes that's all they need in order to feel heard, understood, and loved. Sometimes it opens the floodgates of communication. And even if it's not perfect, it'll do for now.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Magella ~ Great posts.

ICM ~ I see what you mean about my empathy statement. I told you I wasn't very good at giving examples of that.







Those two statements wouldn't necessarily come in succession. It would be part of a discussion with those statements sort of being the beginning and the end. There might be a lot more empathy and discussion in between.

There is a big difference between empathy and sympathy. I think sympathy is when you feel sorry for someone else. Sympathy, a lot of times, is not helpful even though it seems to be the accepted, polite response to disappointments and hurts and such. I don't offer sympathy much, either. I don't find it useful. Empathy is acknowledging and accepting how the other person feels. You don't necessarily have to understand why they feel the way they do. You don't have to relate to them. You just acknowledge and accept it.

As far as what to do if you're not sure exactly what it is that the child is upset about, you can do just what Magella said. Guessing is ok as long as it's authentic. I think the child will most times get that you are really trying to understand the situation and they might then be able to give you more info about it.

I do think that parents have power over children, legally and just by the nature of the relationship. It's the same type of power that my dh has over me to a certain extent because he's the sole financial support of me. At this point in our lives, I am completely financially dependent on him. He could, if he wanted, use that to try to control me (as many bread winners do). The difference between that and the power parents have over children is that I can choose to leave my dh if he tried that whereas the kids can't. They can't get jobs and live on their own and support themselves. Kids get this very early on as they learn that they have to ask their parents for this or that. They can't just hop in the car and go to the store or a restaurant or the park or pool or a friend's house whenever they feel like it. They have to ask their parents and wait until they are taken, assuming they are taken at all. How kids feel about that power imbalance depends on how parents and other adults use it, imo. That's where the idea that the more you truly consider your child's POV and do what you can to help the child get what he wants as well, the less likely they are to react strongly those times when you can't accommodate them.

I don't really understand the feeling of being powerless to my children. I choose every moment of every day to take care of them. I do it because I want to, not because I feel like I have to. There are times when I feel more up to the task than others. Those times when I'm not feeling quite up to it I find ways to make things more easy for me and still give my children what they need. I'm not a supermom and I have no desire to be one. I just do the best I can on a daily basis to take care of them and me.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Well...I knew it would come to this. :LOL I just Googled "sympathy" and "empathy" for like the millionth time. I must say that I really don't get the distinction and never really have. It seems like people use those two terms to mean various things. I vaguely understood the difference to be that sympathy is feeling sorry for someone while empathy is the ability to put your self in the person's place.

Re: powerlessness towards our children - that's not entirely what I meant. I meant that I am powerless to the situation - to the relationship - to our roles. It's not a negative type of powerless; I guess it could be described as more "zen". Eta: Also, I am powerless but to care for them and caring for them can be much easier, pleasant, gratifying and etc. if they are cooperative. So, in that way, DC has quite a bit of power over my life. I guess you could say that we have a mutual goal.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

It's funny, when I was schooled on the difference between empathy and sympathy, back in the days of the beginning of "PC" (and I put in in quotes, but they aren't scare quotes. I've got no problem with being considerate with language) the thought was the exact opposite.

What I was told (and I don't remember by whom, now) was that "sympathy" is "I understand that you feel bad, and I feel bad that you feel bad," while "Empathy" is "I know JUST HOW you feel." And that assuming you know how the other person feels is presumptuous, and telling them you totally get exactly how they feel is patronizing.

Aha. I am remembering. It was the subject of a long discussion in a comparative literature class about assumptions made as to one's ability to truly understand another's point of view.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *savithny*
> 
> It's funny, when I was schooled on the difference between empathy and sympathy, back in the days of the beginning of "PC" (and I put in in quotes, but they aren't scare quotes. I've got no problem with being considerate with language) the thought was the exact opposite.
> 
> ...


I'd love to see linguist break this down cuz I'm confused as well. I'm going to ask my DH if he can get me a copy of the OED. If he can I'll post the definition here. What I think is interesting about some of the online definitions is that if "sympahty" means feeling sad (for instance) because another person is sad (AKA taking on another person's feelings). It makes perfect sense that I'm not a big fan of sympathy. I DO NOT like it when people feel sad just because I feel sad - ick!

As far as knowing how I feel - if that is what empathy is...I guess I would like that. I probably wouldn't find it patronizing or presumptuous IF (and here would be a pretty big "if") they were right. :LOL MW I know you like Aldort and that she is a big fan of empathy. Does she define it in her writing?

My DC has an interesting reaction to empathy/sympathy. There are times when I *know* what's really going on with her and she does NOT like for me to tell her that I know. She does generally like for me to know how she is feeling. She likes me to relate an experience I've had with the one she is having. She also seems to be comforted by me being sorry with her. But, kind of like what Savithny was saying, sometimes naming my DC's feelings feels frustrating to her. She's more of a "do you want to sit together and read a book" type when she's upset.

As far as communicating goes - my DC does really well with silence from me or just super subtle nudges to ellaborate. My favorite book on talking to kids was that "Parent Effectivness Training". So many good ideas in that book. Taking from that book I always ask first before giving my DC advice or sharing a story of my own. Another good tip from that book (I think) was the idea of asking about a child's "ups" and "downs". My DC attends school and after school every day I ask her for one up and one down. She loves it (so do guest kids) and it's a great way to hear both the best and the worst of the day.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

I also get confused about sympathy and empathy. I googled "sympathy vs. empathy" and found conflicting definitions and usage all over the place. So I went to the dictionary, and these definitions fit with some ways I see the words used but not others. I'm curious if the OED definitions are different, or include even more definitions of sympathy. I think one of the regular posters here at MDC is a linguist, and I would love to hear her input on sympathy vs. empathy.

Quote:


> sym·pa·thy noun \ˈsim-pə-thē\
> 
> plural sym·pa·thies
> 
> ...


Quote:


> em·pa·thy noun \ˈem-pə-thē\
> 
> Definition of EMPATHY
> 
> ...


Perspective taking (putting yourself in the other's shoes) fits into both sympathy and empathy, I think.

It also seems to me that in some recent parenting books, the term empathy has replaced the older term "active listening."

Quote:


> My DC has an interesting reaction to empathy/sympathy. There are times when I *know* what's really going on with her and she does NOT like for me to tell her that I know. She does generally like for me to know how she is feeling. She likes me to relate an experience I've had with the one she is having. She also seems to be comforted by me being sorry with her. But, kind of like what Savithny was saying, sometimes naming my DC's feelings feels frustrating to her. She's more of a "do you want to sit together and read a book" type when she's upset.


I see this too sometimes. Sometimes my oldest, in particular, doesn't want to explicitly talk about her emotions. I think, sometimes, that maybe it's because those emotions are difficult for her. She'd rather just have a hug and know that I get it. My kids do seem to like when we relate our own similar experiences, how we felt and how we handled them. I don't always ask if they want to hear a story, exactly. I'll usually say "that happened to me once" or something short along those lines (to let them know I've had a similar experience), then they'll usually ask "what happened." I can usually tell when they're definitely *not* interested in hearing my story.

I remember a few years ago we worked really hard with our oldest dd's therapist on finding ways to communicate with her to which she'd be receptive. She'd be upset even with positive feedback sometimes. We had to learn to be very...not subtle exactly. Low-key? Telling our own stories, just sort of floating thoughts or ideas out (rather than telling or asking, maybe like saying "I wonder..."), fist bumps or thumbs-ups instead of verbal positive feedback. One thing I picked up from that How to Talk So Kids Will Listen book (I think) was to say "that's sounds tough, do you need a hug?" when the kids come to me complaining about siblings. A hug or sitting together on the couch seems to be all they need, then they're back to playing together (sometimes).


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magella*
> 
> It also seems to me that in some recent parenting books, the term empathy has replaced the older term "active listening."


That's interesting because that is what I was thinking about when I read a few of the examples of empathy given in this thread. In fact, I almost said something along the lines of "what some people seem to be describing is listening - how is that related to empathy," or something like that.

I think I'll order "How to Talk..." from the library. That book didn't click with me when my DC was young. I think I just didn't care for the style at that time but it sounds like it may feel more useful to me now. I anticipate a few more challenges with communication as DC gets a little older (yes, I know this doesn't exactly fit the bill of "positive expectations" :LOL). It couldn't hurt to brush up on more communication strategies now.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Empathy to me means putting yourself in the other person's shoes and imagining what they're feeling, and yes some people find that to be presumptuous. Sympathy is feeling concern or caring about what someone is going through from a more outside place. IMO.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PeacemongerMom*
> 
> Reading this now and re thinking it, how much can you expect a young child to see a situation from anothers perspective or consider another feelings? I've always known it was a lofty goal but thought it worthwhile. *Now, I'm wondering if it's too unfair to put such expectations on a child, is too abstract, does it put too much pressure on them, which could leave them confused?* Do they need more concrete boundaries? Can a parent create those boundaries and still have the child's motivation be intrinsic?


This is pretty much how I feel about UP, especially the bolded. It clashes with what my gut tells me the truth is about children, which is that they need and crave our guidance and leadership and validation as much as anything else. I read a lot of AK's work and youtube talks a year or two ago. (Knowing from the outset that I could never fully embrace it but I thought I might find a good nugget here or there.) I still don't understand the "you used a lot of purple!" thing completely. On one hand, that kind of feedback is good IMO because it's specific, it shows that you're really looking at the painting/project/whatever instead of just going "oh yes dear, that's beautiful" without really looking or caring. But at the same time, ALL of my experience with children shows me that they also want to hear if you like it. If I just leave it at "Oh, you used a lot of green there!" when my niece shows me a picture she made for me, I guarantee her next question will be "do you like it?"

I don't know, maybe it's better to wait for them to ask? But I hate to put them in a position where they feel the need to "fish" for positive validation for an art project (for example) that they know is good, they know they worked hard on and they KNOW I should like. I haven't found a good argument for how this kind of simple validation could possibly be harmful. But I can see how consciously not doing it might be frustrating for the child. When I was a kid I was very artistic and most of the things I made, I had a small part of me that was doing in simply and 100% for my mom. She was an artist too, she was my biggest fan but she also had a very learned and critical eye to artwork and I wanted to KNOCK her socks off lol. I just can't find it in me to think that that's pathological or bad in any way.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

If they're used to it they do ask. My daughter is not used to it and is quite happy and almost never asks me if I like something, or seems terribly concerned about whether I like something. Most stuff she doesn't make for me and if she's made it for herself, she decides on her own if she likes it. If she makes something as, say, a birthday present, she will ask, and I will tell her I like it. But no, I don't think kids have some internal need to want to know if you like everything, unless they've developed it because they are used to having that information as regular feedback.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *savithny*
> 
> Of course we could have brought dinner. But we didn't, because there was no indication that he'd freak out about leaving hte park for dinner. (We also had to pick up Daddy at work on the way home for dinner. We have one car. If Daddy wants to eat, we still need to leave the park. Other options could include "Okay, daddy doesn't get to eat tonight," but I don't think that's very consensual either).
> 
> ...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> There were options to all of these. You could have brought food with you. Then dinner would be at the park. You could not worry about getting home for dinner at a specific time. You could have empathized with him in the moment like you did after he had calmed down without the "buts" and/or continuing to tell him that you still had to go. I'm not saying you should have done any of those things, but they were/are options.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> Well, the fact is that all of these are options. It doesn't mean you have to or should do any of these but you are choosing not to. That's really hard for a lot of people to grasp. You have the power and your child really has none. Sometimes it's necessary for us parents to use that power but many times it's us really just making a choice that is easier or more convenient or that makes more sense to us. Again, I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that is how it is, especially from the child's POV.
> 
> Maybe part of the problem is that you are searching for a solution to stop your child from having a meltdown. That's not really the objective. The objective is to let the child know his feelings do matter. In the Naomi Aldort book, she addresses the fact that empathizing in the moment may actually cause the child to escalate the meltdown. It works the same way with adults a lot of times. Most adults have never really been purely empathized with so when they are it's like opening the floodgates.


Just because the options are there, though, even if she'd been more aware of those options and/or prepared to pursue any one of them....Would that have been the best thing for the situation? Would that have been the best thing for her or her husband? She's has explained how it wouldn't. It would have been inconvenient, required a level of fore-thought that is really unreasonable to expect a parent to have IMO, AND would have exceeded their budget. And for the child, would it have been the best for the child? I still don't see how it would have benefited the child in any way to, for instance, order take-out and have it delivered to the park and have daddy get a cab to meet them there, etc. I agree 100% (and I'm not even ambivalent about this) that that's too much pressure for the child who doesn't yet grasp cause and effect and the "if-then" reality that his mom is talking about. And then very likely something ELSE would have caused another meltdown, too. Take-out food delivery and cabs both take a long time. There is no way this mom could have snapped her fingers to remove any and all possible frustrations for her child in that situations. And even if she could have, how is that good for the child? The world does not magically revolve around any of us, you know? Might it be better to use it as a time to teach a little bit about timing and logic (how we couldn't stay at the park all night because we had to come home first in order to have dinner), and empathy (daddy wanted dinner, too) and how to handle frustration?


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magella*
> 
> Furthermore, children are developmentally different from adults, and do rely on the guidance of adults. There really are times when having the adult make the decision is actually less stressful for a child than engaging in problem-solving. I think that gets lost in these discussions sometimes. Additionally, I'm aware that sometimes my child's desires conflict with my child's needs. In that case I do think it's my responsibility as the parent to provide boundaries and guidance that will lead to meeting my child's needs, even at the expense of fulfilling their desires. I think this is another area where CL loses me. Sometimes we do understand better than our children do how a decision/action will affect our kids, and I believe that our children do look to us for guidance.


I do agree with this. This is the point that I'm standing on when I'm trying to see where and how and in what form and to what degree GD can help us raising our daughter.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> If they're used to it they do ask. My daughter is not used to it and is quite happy and almost never asks me if I like something, or seems terribly concerned about whether I like something. Most stuff she doesn't make for me and if she's made it for herself, she decides on her own if she likes it. If she makes something as, say, a birthday present, she will ask, and I will tell her I like it. But no, I don't think kids have some internal need to want to know if you like everything, unless they've developed it because they are used to having that information as regular feedback.


Well what I wrote was an example. I don't think it necessarily means that children innately want/need us to "like" every artistic or scholastic, etc. project or achievement that they that make. Here's more what I'm thinking about in this discussion: Do you believe that children have any kind of innate desire to please their parents/caregivers?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> And then very likely something ELSE would have caused another meltdown, too.


This would often be the case for my DC.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> If they're used to it they do ask. My daughter is not used to it and is quite happy and almost never asks me if I like something, or seems terribly concerned about whether I like something. Most stuff she doesn't make for me and if she's made it for herself, she decides on her own if she likes it. If she makes something as, say, a birthday present, she will ask, and I will tell her I like it. But no, I don't think kids have some internal need to want to know if you like everything, unless they've developed it because they are used to having that information as regular feedback.


That is an interesting point. I'm also a big fan of AK - I actually can't think of anything of his that I didn't agree with. My DC doesn't tend to look to me for my opinion on her work. I tend to think of this as a good thing. It's not as if she's given up hope of getting this much desired feedback from her mother - it's that she's doing work for her own pleasure and to her own satisfaction. I often marvel at my DC's inattention to what other's think of her. I LOVE that she still doesn't feel pressure about what her friends think of her artwork, her reading level, her style, her choices. I'm not sure if it's related to AK type of parenting but I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with it.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *coffeegirl* 


> Here's more what I'm thinking about in this discussion: Do you believe that children have any kind of innate desire to please their parents/caregivers?


I believe that children absolutely do have an innate desire to please their parents/caregivers. I think this is part of being a social animal, as humans are. Children rely on parents to teach them how to live within the community, whether that's the community of the family or the larger community outside the family. They look to parents for the approval and disapproval that helps them learn the norms of the family and larger culture. And I think kids instinctively want to live in harmony (in general) with their families and caregivers, as that is not only pleasurable but provides security.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> Well what I wrote was an example. I don't think it necessarily means that children innately want/need us to "like" every artistic or scholastic, etc. project or achievement that they that make. Here's more what I'm thinking about in this discussion: Do you believe that children have any kind of innate desire to please their parents/caregivers?


I think that's a pretty profound question. From a child development perspective I really don't know. Does anyone know? From what I recall infants start out not really even differentiating themselves from the mother. From there is a long time of essentially egocentric thought. We also talked earlier in the thread about young children not really even being able to conceive of the idea that people have different thoughts from them. These things would lead me to say that perhaps it isn't a give-in that children have an innate desire to please.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

ICM, those are good points. There is a long period of egocentrism in childhood. I'm not sure what exactly what the current state of child development knowledge is, other than that lately I've been hearing about exciting new results from studies about infant cognition. It's hard to say what children perceive, especially when they can't communicate it to us. I don't think children necessarily have a conscious desire to please caregivers, and they also have a drive for autonomy that competes with any desire to please caregivers. I do think, though, that there is an instinct or innate drive to "please" one's "in-group" that is part of being a social animal. Whether that desire is there from birth or develops at some later point, and how much of the desire is innate vs. how much is the result of socialization is a really interesting question to which there probably isn't an answer.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Oh...I just had a cool thought. If we're talking about a child's need to know that they please us - should we not also talk about non-verbal or non-praise ways that children come to know that they please us? I'm not saying that I necessarily believe that positive feedback is important to kids but, even if it could be established that it is important, how do we know that verbal feedback is the most effective method?

For instance - if you truly love a piece of art that your child created don't you think they can feel that even if you don't choose to verbally praise them? On the contrary - if you're not that into their work don't you think they can tell no matter what you say?


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

I love the way you think, ICM! I'm so glad you started this thread and keep bringing such great questions. I'm enjoying this thread so much.

I think there's so much more to communication besides words. I don't think verbal communication is always the most important form of communication, or that it's always the most effective.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> For instance - if you truly love a piece of art that your child created don't you think they can feel that even if you don't choose to verbally praise them? On the contrary - if you're not that into their work don't you think they can tell no matter what you say?


I agree. Kids will pick up on how you really feel. They can tell if you're too preoccupied to really pay attention to the drawing they made for you, and when you're genuinely in love with it, or when you're just not bowled-over by it but are trying to be nice. Actually, maybe they might not actually pick up the difference between "mom's too distracted to actually see my art" and "mom doesn't like it." But they definitely pick up on our body language and tone regardless of our words.

Speaking of being preoccupied, I think it's time for me to leave the computer.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magella*
> 
> I love the way you think, ICM! I'm so glad you started this thread and keep bringing such great questions. I'm enjoying this thread so much.










Feeling's mutual! I love a good ol' philosophical thread - it's so fun to just think and hear other peoples ideas.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> > Originally Posted by *PeacemongerMom*
> >
> > Reading this now and re thinking it, how much can you expect a young child to see a situation from anothers perspective or consider another feelings? I've always known it was a lofty goal but thought it worthwhile.* Now, I'm wondering if it's too unfair to put such expectations on a child, is too abstract, does it put too much pressure on them, which could leave them confused? *
> 
> ...


I'm that kid in the back of the lecture hall that keeps interrupting with weird questions. Oh, oh...call on me (hand way up).









Riffing off this idea...How is this for "way out"?

IF we say that we can't developmentally expect young children to see things from another person's perspective or consider another's feelings --- how does that related= to the way they experience our guidance and validation? Very simply, if we don't think it is developmentally appropriate for young children to understand how their actions/desires/needs cause a negative experience for us is it fair/reasonable/rational for us to expect them to understand our feedback when they do something that creates a positive experience for us?

BTW, watch out ya'll I just found where the smiles went to...


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

I know I'm probably annoying. I've been thinking through this stuff so much lately, and this is not only so very interesting but helpful to me.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> Very simply, if we don't think it is developmentally appropriate for young children to understand how their actions/desires/needs cause a negative experience for us is it fair/reasonable/rational for us to expect them to understand our feedback when they do something that creates a positive experience for us?


I think we expect very young children to understand our feedback in terms of how our feedback itself affects them, not in terms of how their actions affected us. I think they look to our body language and tone for information. It feels good when a caregiver is smiling and talking, it feels less good or even bad when a caregiver is frowning and sounding stern--again, because human children are social animals looking to live in harmony with their caregivers. Over time, the words matter more and more, and as they mature kids begin to understand how the other person feels. But initially, it's all about how the feedback affects the child. I don't think that's a negative or bad thing. We naturally change our facial expressions and verbal tone as we interact with and guide even babies. The body language sends a message. Even the most gentle of mothers changes her tone and body language when her child reaches for something dangerous. Does that make any sense?

eta I also think repetition plays a part, as does the whole "get off your butt parenting" idea. As we repeatedly stop younger children from doing something, they learn that it's not something we do/not something mom will let them do. It not that at young ages they understand the effect on us, but they understand the effect on them of our intervention.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> I'm that kid in the back of the lecture hall that keeps interrupting with weird questions. Oh, oh...call on me (hand way up).
> 
> ...


I think it's going to vary a LOT from kid to kid. With the first part:

"...if we don't think it is developmentally appropriate for young children to understand how their actions/desires/needs cause a negative experience for us..."

One of my kids was 5 or 6 before he really seemed to care that what he was doing caused me distress. My other kid was incredibly sensitive and concerned about not causing anyone distress by 12 months.

With the second part:

"...it fair/reasonable/rational for us to expect them to understand our feedback when they do something that creates a positive experience for us?"

Again, I'm going on my two kids, which is not the biggest dataset out there, but even my kid who couldn't have cared less when he had me at my wit's end took great delight in doing sweet things (like, picking flowers and bringing them to me when he was 2, 3 and 4) that clearly made me happy. Actually, he was way more into that than my other kid who at two would tearfully ask/demand "YOU HAPPY????" if I so much as sighed in frustration.

So, I think you just kind of have to work with the little person in front of you.

Which, to bring this full circle and back to the OP...as my oldest gets more rational and better able to understand complex concepts and scenarios, I do find myself able to focus on finding mutually agreeable solutions with him. What was totally unrealistic and counterproductive at three, actually works really well (most of the time) at almost 8. I don't consider myself CL at all, but the idea of talking and coming up with compromises that meet both of our needs seems like a healthy part of growing up and moving towards the teenage years.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

There was a question posed to me, and I'm sorry I didnt' get the quote thing going. But yes, I do think kids have a natural desire to please their parents. I don't think they have a natural desire to hear praise from their parents, especially very frequent manipulative praise of the style Alfie Kohn is talking about. They want us to be pleased IMO in a big picture way - do we cherish them - not do we like the drawing.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magella*
> 
> I know I'm probably annoying.


Not at all!!


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Which, to bring this full circle and back to the OP...as my oldest gets more rational and better able to understand complex concepts and scenarios, I do find myself able to focus on finding mutually agreeable solutions with him. What was totally unrealistic and counterproductive at three, actually works really well (most of the time) at almost 8. I don't consider myself CL at all, but the idea of talking and coming up with compromises that meet both of our needs seems like a healthy part of growing up and moving towards the teenage years.


Yes, I agree. I don't think it's a coincidence that many of us who had younger children back in the "CL heyday" are coming back to the idea now that our kids are older. I also agree that simply having an older child and finding that some of the philosophy works for you does not mean you are a CL family. CL seemed (the way I understood it) to be a very different and encompassing lifestyle.

One thing I do remember from back in the day was that the concept of compromise was considered "negative". I think there was a good explination of that on the TCS website I think.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magella*
> 
> I believe that children absolutely do have an innate desire to please their parents/caregivers. I think this is part of being a social animal, as humans are. Children rely on parents to teach them how to live within the community, whether that's the community of the family or the larger community outside the family. They look to parents for the approval and disapproval that helps them learn the norms of the family and larger culture. And I think kids instinctively want to live in harmony (in general) with their families and caregivers, as that is not only pleasurable but provides security.


This is exactly a point that I often make. A lot of what kids are doing in the early years is figuring out the social world in which they live. What are the norms? What can I do? What can't I do? What kind of thing makes people happy? What kind of thing makes people mad? How do I avoid making peole mad at me? How do I make friends?

And to do that, they take actions and watch what we do, but they also ask questions. We all do it, even as adults. If I'm in charge of making my kid's lunches, when I ask "Did you like your sandwich today?" I don't want to hear "You used a lot of mustard, mom!" To help me in my role in our family group, I need something like "Um, too much mustard, Mom. It was kind of burny." or "It was great! I like that new honey mustard!" (note: both are *constructive*)


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> Yes, I agree. I don't think it's a coincidence that many of us who had younger children back in the "CL heyday" are coming back to the idea now that our kids are older. I also agree that simply having an older child and finding that some of the philosophy works for you does not mean you are a CL family. CL seemed (the way I understood it) to be a very different and encompassing lifestyle.
> 
> One thing I do remember from back in the day was that the concept of compromise was considered "negative". I think there was a good explination of that on the TCS website I think.


The whole "Not compromise! Compromise is bad, too!" thing was TCS, iirc. I think they get confused because CL basically is zombie TCS, which I guess had to be invented (or something) after talk of TCS was banned here. lol.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> There was a question posed to me, and I'm sorry I didnt' get the quote thing going. But yes, I do think kids have a natural desire to please their parents. I don't think they have a natural desire to hear praise from their parents, especially very frequent manipulative praise of the style Alfie Kohn is talking about. They want us to be pleased IMO in a big picture way - do we cherish them - not do we like the drawing.


Ok, understood. I also believe that children do have an innate desire to please their parents. I wouldn't argue that this isn't the case in a "big picture" way as well, but the way I've come to believe this is through interactions with my 10-month old daughter. (Actually, to be honest Fulton Sheen talks a lot children wanting to please their parents, so I was already biased toward the idea.) If small things like praise for the little things they do well aren't something that they desire, then why do they seem to desire it? Or if they desire it, are you saying it's only because we've programmed them to do that? When my daughter was about 4 months old she discovered how to grab onto the rattle and move her arm so it shook the rattle. We'd notice that when she'd start to do it, she'd stop then look around the room to make sure that me, her dad and grandma (if grandma was there) were watching. Then she'd launch into shaking the rattle with all her heart. It was only the three of us she did this with-- not her aunts and uncles or our friends. Anyhow....I'm sure we were smiling and cooing and thinking it was the sweetest and cleverest thing in the world (she's our first child btw), so sure....her desire to please us by showing off could be a learned thing. But I am amazed that a four-month old who can't figure much else out responded so quickly to that kind of stimuli. That's what makes me wonder if it's not maybe more instinctual than AK, and those who embrace the UP philosophy, might think.

And then also, in response to what you wrote above...The kind of approval that you're talking about above (big picture approval; are they cherished, loved, accepted, etc.?)...is that kind of approval automatically exclusive of the maybe-manipulative kind of approval that they get daily for the things they do and say? Sorry if I'm not being clear. I guess I'm saying, for example, that my daughter knows that we are pleased when she stops her attempt to climb on the toilet when we say "no", and she also knows we are pleased when she does something new (like when she learned to crawl, and then to pull herself up, etc., and turns to make sure that we're watching with a big smile on her face), but I'm gonna bet that she also knows that we are pleased simply because she's here and we love her. We show her how we cherish her all the time. Are the two things really at odds?


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

The issue isn't that they're at odds but that the behavioral kind of praise, "Good job", has unintended consequences. I'm going to link to an article by Alfie Kohn that explains what he believes the consequences to be. http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> The issue isn't that they're at odds but that the behavioral kind of praise, "Good job", has unintended consequences. I'm going to link to an article by Alfie Kohn that explains what he believes the consequences to be. http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm


The research Kohn was inspired by wasn't comparing unpraised kids against "averagely praised" kids, tho. It's comparing the average (natural, you could say) amount of praise against "excessive" (unnatural?) praise.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Yes, all he is talking about is the "self esteem movement" of the 70s and 80s where parents and teachers ran a running commentary giving very frequent praise. He isn't talking about everything nice anyone says to their kids, but the "good job!" thing is really a part of the self esteem movement, as is "good walking!", "good coloring!", and all praise of that nature. But occasionally giving praise because it comes from you naturally isn't the problem he's talking about.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

I've missed a lot and don't have time to go back and read. I'm just sort of marking my spot so I can hopefully keep up with whatever comes next.

TCS talk was banned?


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Yes.

http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/69072/polemic


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> Oh...I just had a cool thought. If we're talking about a child's need to know that they please us - should we not also talk about non-verbal or non-praise ways that children come to know that they please us? I'm not saying that I necessarily believe that positive feedback is important to kids but, even if it could be established that it is important, how do we know that verbal feedback is the most effective method?
> 
> For instance - if you truly love a piece of art that your child created don't you think they can feel that even if you don't choose to verbally praise them? On the contrary - if you're not that into their work don't you think they can tell no matter what you say?


Maybe sometimes. Why go out of your way not to say the words, though? Why make them be mind-readers, especially since they aren't mind-readers. I would think it'd be easier to clear up any possible misunderstandings or hurt feelings by simply saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Your point about non-verbal praise is very interesting though. Going back to the example of my 4-month old with her rattle....she obviously doesn't know what words mean but she definitely is picking something up from us that causes her to "put on a show" in front of us when she learns something new. Smiles, tone of voice, touch....I imagine it's a lot like the Love Language thing, just taken to a non-verbal level. For the big picture things, how do they know they are loved and cherished no matter what? Same ways, maybe.....affection, time, responsiveness to their needs and communications, not giving off non-verbal "negative cues" of annoyance when you're around them, etc. (That last one sounds weird but I've seen it with a first time mom I know who was having a real hard time with her baby, and being alone with her baby. And possibly had some PPD as well. The baby absolutely picked up on it, you could tell. And as a pre-schooler, still does.  )

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> The issue isn't that they're at odds but that the behavioral kind of praise, "Good job", has unintended consequences. I'm going to link to an article by Alfie Kohn that explains what he believes the consequences to be. http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm


Thanks.  I read the link...I've actually read "Unconditional Parenting" but it was a couple years ago (before I had a baby) and I read it fast so I didn't absorb some of it. I agree with Kohn about little knee-jerk sayings like "good job!" being annoying-- when they're thrown at kids so often and so carelessly that it becomes totally meaningless. I disagree with his conclusions about praise in general in the link. It doesn't make sense to me and I don't know what exactly he's backing his theories up with. He's trying to make logical points, going from A to B, etc., but I don't understand the premise of A, and what I do understand (the part that seems to be just his opinion, or his observation), I disagree with. And then, maybe not to sound TOO extreme, he says "To be sure, not every use of praise is a calculated tactic to control children's behavior. Sometimes we compliment kids just because we're genuinely pleased by what they've done." Yes, that makes sense. But then....what would be an example of this good, "non-manipulative" praise if all the other possible examples of verbal praise that he gives are bad?


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> Yes, all he is talking about is the "self esteem movement" of the 70s and 80s where parents and teachers ran a running commentary giving very frequent praise. He isn't talking about everything nice anyone says to their kids, but the "good job!" thing is really a part of the self esteem movement, as is "good walking!", "good coloring!", and all praise of that nature. But occasionally giving praise because it comes from you naturally isn't the problem he's talking about.


Yeah, I agree with him, then. I don't know if he ever hypothesized about this, but I remember being on the receiving end of absurd praise, and it made me really skeptical about genuine compliments/positive feedback. I also remember thinking the adults doing it were full of shit. lol. Those two aspects kind of played off each other a lot, too.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> For the big picture things, how do they know they are loved and cherished no matter what?


I think this is really the crutch of the issue for AK. For him, I think that the theory is that kids come to know that they are "cherished no matter what" in a sense by not being evaluated at all. I really don't think the main issue is praise even. I think it's whether we are sure - 100% that we love our kids no matter what. We have to convey to them that we love them no less AND no more when they do something we like. However that is conveyed in our individual household and to our individual kids is irrelevant to the main message.

I think AK is valuable because the issue of shaming kids and making them feel like we love them less when they do something bad has been done - most parents get that this is a bad thing. I do think the idea that it's bad for kids to feel that we love them *more* when they do something good is a fairly new and provocative idea. AK's point is that both are sort of the same -- both imply that our love is conditional.

Yes, kids will know when they do something that pleases us -- even if we are total AK dogmatics our kids can tell. So, in that way, AK's theory has a whole in it - you can "not say it" all you want but the kid's gonna know. Therefore, "not saying it" must not be the key. Parents just need to find a way to show their kids that they love them no matter what. For some praise obviously plays a role. For others it gets in the way.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/69072/polemic


That's crazy because that happened only a month after I joined...and I remember A LOT of TCS talk for several years after I joined. Anyway, given that we haven't gotten a single CL or TCS devotee to advise us on this thread I suspect that the drama has passed.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> The whole "Not compromise! Compromise is bad, too!" thing was TCS, iirc. I think they get confused because CL basically is zombie TCS, which I guess had to be invented (or something) after talk of TCS was banned here. lol.


Somehow I missed this post - what you said makes perfect sense. I think you "iirc" - something I am incapable of while breastfeeding.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

BTW, Coffeegirl -- I knew I recognized your user name. I was in your August DDC but miscarried that baby. I went on to have the sweetest little girl just this past April. Congrats on your babe - it's nice to see you again!


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> That's crazy because that happened only a month after I joined...and I remember A LOT of TCS talk for several years after I joined. Anyway, given that we haven't gotten a single CL or TCS devotee to advise us on this thread I suspect that the drama has passed.
> 
> ...


I suspect that CL and TCS have a pretty high "drop out rate" as kids get older, or more than one kid is thrown into the mix, etc. Especially since there is a certain type of kid temperament (in science literature it's described in terms of "resistance to control") where CL/TCS actually does work out well, and I can see how people think, if that's their only kid, that:

1) the breastfeeding and the cosleeping and the babywearing created the most mellow creature the world has ever seen! And,...

2) my kid never tantrums, etc, because I have this Total Life Philosophy that creates Harmony!

I mean, on the surface, I "practice" CL/TCS with my youngest (3.5 years old) and always have. Then again, her default opinion tends to be "Whatever mommy thinks is a good idea, must be a GREAT idea!"

Which was...umm...not the case with my other kid.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakay*
> 
> I suspect that CL and TCS have a pretty high "drop out rate" as kids get older, or more than one kid is thrown into the mix, etc.


Interesting. I was kind of wondering the opposite. I imagined all these CL/TCS parents were coming from the perspective of a parent of an older child and they had convienantly forgotten what a bear the average 3 year old can be. That age was so hard for me and I see all the posts about 3 year olds in the forum. I just want to add a sticky that says something like:

"Parent of a 3 year old? Post if you like but you're better off just hunkering down and waiting for it to pass."


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> Interesting. I was kind of wondering the opposite. I imagined all these CL/TCS parents were coming from the perspective of a parent of an older child and they had convienantly forgotten what a bear the average 3 year old can be. That age was so hard for me and I see all the posts about 3 year olds in the forum. I just want to add a sticky that says something like:
> 
> "Parent of a 3 year old? Post if you like but you're better off just hunkering down and waiting for it to pass."


No, I think there has been some of that, too. I absolutely know what you're talking about there, and yeah, there's been some of that over the years, as well. It's both, IMO.

I also agree about the "Sometimes nothing 'works' when they're one, two, and three" thing. Actually, being evangelical about that message was one of my main reasons for coming back here. lol.

I felt so gawd-awfully guilty when my kid was three and newly 4 and totally still not responding to ANYTHING positively. I was SO SURE it was my me/my mothering/parenting "making him like that" somehow. Ugh.

My little brother was wild and defiant and eternally tantruming till he was about 4.5, and he was spanked, so I knew it wasn't a lack of spanking "making/allowing" my kid to be a hellion. But damnit. I AP'ed my kid, and he wasn't supposed to be like this! AP was supposed to prevent that shit! But no, that's not how it works, either. Some kids are 4 before they even notice the real cause and effect nature of consequences, and then other kids don't ever need any consequences. And some kids just grow out of stuff eventually, around age 8 (?), even without consequences.

Nobody really knows what the hell is going on with kids and parenting and stuff, but I really do want the moms of crazy three year olds to know that it's almost definitely not their fault, and three year olds are just kind of like that sometimes, no matter what you do or don't do.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> I think this is really the crutch of the issue for AK. For him, I think that the theory is that kids come to know that they are "cherished no matter what" in a sense by not being evaluated at all. I really don't think the main issue is praise even. I think it's whether we are sure - 100% that we love our kids no matter what. We have to convey to them that we love them no less AND no more when they do something we like. However that is conveyed in our individual household and to our individual kids is irrelevant to the main message.
> 
> ...


Well I'm glad his books are helping some parents to be better parents, and helping their kids. But I don't buy the notion that children will pick up on the vibe that our love for them is "conditional" if we evaluate or judge them, either negatively or positively. I know as a child I received praise when I did good things (either morally good, or good in school, or doing something charitable, or achieving something that was impressive, etc.) and I was chastised when I did something bad. The reality of my two primary caregivers' love for me was NEVER something that I questioned. They made it clear they loved me no matter what and would always love me. I always knew this. Their love and acceptance of me was unconditional; their tolerance for my behavior was not. I NEVER associated this with a lack of love. I never associated praise with my parents putting a "condition" on their love for me that hinged on whether or not I continued to merit that praise or not. And I've never known anyone else IRL who's experienced such a thing with their parents. I just don't understand how AK came to his conclusions about this.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> BTW, Coffeegirl -- I knew I recognized your user name. I was in your August DDC but miscarried that baby. I went on to have the sweetest little girl just this past April. Congrats on your babe - it's nice to see you again!


Ohhh....I think I remember your name now, too, come to think of it. I'm so sorry for you loss, mama. But congratulations on your new little one.!


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

I also never felt like disapproval over something I was doing = love withdrawal/conditional love with my "primary attachment figures", either.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

It's good to know there are others out there who understand how difficult 3 and 4yos can be. Mine is a wild man right now and it's causing some major problems in my family. My middle ds was the mellow, pretty much whatever Mom says is ok, kind of guy from the beginning, so easy and cooperative. He has a really hard time with his little bro who doesn't get how his actions affect others and doesn't seem to remember from one moment to the next that he just had a problem with something he did.

He was giving me a fit yesterday at the beach. I talked to him 3 or 4 times about not running ahead of me onto the very steep beach stairs and about how wet and slippery the bathroom floor was. He had already slipped and fallen twice in there. I told him he needed to stay with me on the stairs and hold my hand in the bathroom so he didn't get hurt. Well, of course, as soon as I was finished talking he took off. I can't catch up to him right now, especially on a sandy beach, since I'm 36 weeks pg. It was scaring me to death!

Anyway, I do think that we give off non-verbal cues that our kids pick up on. Just about everything I've read about communication says that non-verbal cues have much more impact that anything we say. I can also see how praise could send the message that a child isn't quite good enough unless he does something we are pleased about or approve of. Feeling loved and feeling good enough are not the same thing. I never questioned my dad's love for me even though he was very critical when I did something he disapproved of and very demonstrative about being proud when I did something he liked. I have always felt that I was never quite good enough for him, though. Yeah, he loves me but I'm still an embarrassment and disappointment. I want my kids to not only feel loved but also feel worthy just because they exist. No one should have to perform in order to feel like they are worth something. KWIM? Not sure how that falls into the AK theories. I haven't read that link yet.

On the topic of expressing approval/disapproval or giving genuine praise, what about when your child asks you if you like something they like and you don't? Are you honest with them? I have heard or read theories that children can't always distinguish between their behavior or their likes and dislikes and themselves as people, if that makes sense. As example is when my oldest, who is 20yo now, was a child the big thing was to criticize the behavior but not the child. Instead of telling the child he was bad for doing something you didn't like, you were supposed to tell the child you love him but you don't like his behavior. Then a few years later the "experts" started coming out and saying that children couldn't really distinguish between the two. To the child, if a parent didn't like the way they behaved, that meant the parent didn't like the child.

As my kids get older they start to like things that I absolutely do not. I don't want to be dishonest with them but I also don't want them to think there's something wrong with the things they like and, therefore, something wrong with them. Movies are a big thing right now. I can't stand most of the children's movies that have been released lately. My boys say they really liked them. Oh, and music. My 7yo is being influenced a lot by a friend who's dad really likes Micheal Jackson. I have never liked Micheal Jackson. I never understood the appeal he had. So, my ds comes home singing Micheal Jackson songs and wants to know what I think. Do I try to focus only on his enjoyment and the joy I get from watching him perform without reacting to what he's performing? Is that being dishonest when I'm squirming inside because I hate Micheal Jackson's music and his apparently freaky lifestyle so much? Do I tell my ds how I honestly feel about Micheal Jackson?


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Double posting. Sorry







.

I just finished reading that AK article. I remember reading that in his UP book. What I get from that is that using praise as a way to manipulate a child's behavior ultimately has a negative effect. I don't think he's saying you shouldn't ever express your delight in something your child has done, just don't offer praise to get him to do something you want.

One thing I do is, rather than telling my children they did a good job when they help me clean, I express my gratitude for the help. I will also point out how them helping me clean frees up my time to do other things. "Cool! We finished that so quickly that now I have time to take you to the park." I will also point out how their behavior appears to affect others, whether good or bad. I want them to notice and understand how their actions affect others and the world.

My 4yo has been on a, "Was that good, Mommy?" kick lately. Not sure where he got that from. Rather than just saying it was good or bad, I try to express why it was appreciated or not. It's hard some times because it's not something I ever experienced, just like empathy. Empathizing is hard for me, too, because I haven't had much experience with it.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> On the topic of expressing approval/disapproval or giving genuine praise, what about when your child asks you if you like something they like and you don't? Are you honest with them?
> 
> As my kids get older they start to like things that I absolutely do not. I don't want to be dishonest with them but I also don't want them to think there's something wrong with the things they like and, therefore, something wrong with them.


If it comes up, I am comfortable telling my kids that i don't like something that they do like. This comes up in life a lot: a sibling or friend doesn't like something my kids do like (or vice versa), and we talk about how people like different things. It's the same when they like a song, food, show, or any number of other things that I do not enjoy. Just at the dinner table we find differences in what we like. You like what you like, I like what I like. Those differences make the world interesting. We also like many of the same things, which is also fun.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magella*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


This is true. I think the reason I am unsure about this is because of the way I was, and am still, treated by my mother. If I had a different like or dislike from her, I was told I was silly or difficult. I was made to feel like there was something wrong with me because I didn't like what my mother liked or liked something she didn't. I think that makes it hard for me to express my opinions about such things in a positive and healthy way. I don't want to do to my children what my mother did to me.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I don't think that any book is for everyone so I don't want to harp on about AK as if I'm trying to making anyone change their mind about his books. In fact, the more I think about AK the more I wonder if I am applying his philosophy in a way that he would agree with. AK would not say we should not give any feedback and when I said children should not be evaluated at all I meant a very specific type of evaluation. I can't think of an example but maybe I can describe it. It would be the type of feedback that would either intentionally or unintentionally make the child feel pressure to change some very core part of themselves. Perhaps that is why art is so often given as an example of when not to give feedback.

Anyway, there are LOTS of great books out there that I didn't jive with so there is no need for everyone to like AK. I hope no one felt like I was trying to convince them otherwise.

I do tell DC that I don't like her work...I guess. I suppose I'd rather not say that so I wouldn't offer up a "Ew...I don't like that". :LOL I may kind of shrug and say something like, "It's not my style but I can see why you like it."

Now, behavior stuff (being "polite", respectful and etc.) is a bit different. While there is room for a difference of opinion there (don't we know it here at MDC!) I don't see any conflict with AK and offering guidance.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I think he would say that evaluative praise is the problem, but encouragement and expressing joy over something is not the problem. I'm going to copy a small bit of the article I linked to earlier where he says the difference can largely be seen in the motives behind it:
Quote:


> This doesn't mean that all compliments, all thank-you's, all expressions of delight are harmful. We need to consider our motives for what we say (a genuine expression of enthusiasm is better than a desire to manipulate the child's future behavior) as well as the actual effects of doing so. Are our reactions helping the child to feel a sense of control over her life -- or to constantly look to us for approval? Are they helping her to become more excited about what she's doing in its own right - or turning it into something she just wants to get through in order to receive a pat on the head
> 
> It's not a matter of memorizing a new script, but of keeping in mind our long-term goals for our children and watching for the effects of what we say. The bad news is that the use of positive reinforcement really isn't so positive. The good news is that you don't have to evaluate in order to encourage.


I'm not evangelistic about it either, and I hope I haven't come off that way, but I think sometimes in discussions about AK it sounds like it's assumed he wants parents to not say anything nice or show appreciation for things our kids have done at all, and I don't read him that way at all.

So he doesn't want you to evaluate - I think it's more like setting yourself up as a judge whose approval or disapproval should be handed down for things your child does to get them to look to you for approval and try to stay away from disapproval. If I say, "Good sitting", how do I even evaluate the sitting as good or not? And what has made me an expert on sitting to be in a position to decide which sitting is good and which isn't? We don't mean that the child sat well. Really we mean, "I will show you appreciation when you sit, but not when you don't sit." And hope that makes our child sit more, because they want to hear that appreciation. But, on the other hand, there are times where we're all naturally delighted by things our children do and tell them so, not because we're hoping saying so will make them do it again, but simply because we can't keep our delight contained. That's still a kind of praise but it isn't manipulative praise being used as positive reinforcement.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
> 
> On the topic of expressing approval/disapproval or giving genuine praise, what about when your child asks you if you like something they like and you don't? Are you honest with them? I have heard or read theories that children can't always distinguish between their behavior or their likes and dislikes and themselves as people, if that makes sense. As example is when my oldest, who is 20yo now, was a child the big thing was to criticize the behavior but not the child. Instead of telling the child he was bad for doing something you didn't like, you were supposed to tell the child you love him but you don't like his behavior. *Then a few years later the "experts" started coming out and saying that children couldn't really distinguish between the two. To the child, if a parent didn't like the way they behaved, that meant the parent didn't like the child.*


Re: you first question: I have struggled with this before. What I do now (dealing mostly with my niece and nephew, with whom I'm close, and occasionally my younger cousins) is if I like the art project (for example) then I tell them right out, sincerely, that I LOVE it and I tell them why. If they show me something that I don't think is all that great, then I tend to go into AK territory....ie: "Well...wow, you sure used a lot of green paint! And it's a pretty color green. Painting is so fun, isn't it?" or something like that. I've wondered if that's dishonest, but I don't think it is. I think it's just a part of having social graces.  As to the bolded part, that is precisely where I part company with UP on the issue of praise and criticism. Simply because I haven't seen any evidence that backs it up and it doesn't make sense to my rational mind (which I know, has been formed in part by my experiences as a child.)

Quote:


> As my kids get older they start to like things that I absolutely do not. I don't want to be dishonest with them but I also don't want them to think there's something wrong with the things they like and, therefore, something wrong with them. Movies are a big thing right now. I can't stand most of the children's movies that have been released lately. My boys say they really liked them. Oh, and music. My 7yo is being influenced a lot by a friend who's dad really likes Micheal Jackson. I have never liked Micheal Jackson. I never understood the appeal he had. So, my ds comes home singing Micheal Jackson songs and wants to know what I think. Do I try to focus only on his enjoyment and the joy I get from watching him perform without reacting to what he's performing? Is that being dishonest when I'm squirming inside because I hate Micheal Jackson's music and his apparently freaky lifestyle so much? Do I tell my ds how I honestly feel about Micheal Jackson?


In that case I'd probably just squirm silently but wouldn't let on that I hated him if my child loved him so much. Kids do respect our opinions and tend to adopt them as their own with alarming speed lol. But if I was asked outright, I'd be honest and tell him.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> Anyway, there are LOTS of great books out there that I didn't jive with so there is no need for everyone to like AK. I hope no one felt like I was trying to convince them otherwise.


You never came across to me as trying to do that. Nobody on this thread has. It's been a good discussion I think.


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> As to the bolded part, that is precisely where I part company with UP on the issue of praise and criticism. Simply because I haven't seen any evidence that backs it up and it doesn't make sense to my rational mind (which I know, has been formed in part by my experiences as a child.)


I don't know if the thinking that a child can't distinguish between themselves and their behavior comes from UP or AK. I heard and read that sort of thing long before I ever heard of AK. I'm talking about the things I read and how ideas changed over the 13 years before I had ever even heard of AP. That was from 1991 to 2004.
Quote:


> In that case I'd probably just squirm silently but wouldn't let on that I hated him if my child loved him so much. Kids do respect our opinions and tend to adopt them as their own with alarming speed lol. But if I was asked outright, I'd be honest and tell him.


But then do you think the child will pick up on nonverbal cues that you are squirming and then think you are being dishonest?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Somehow I missed the thing about Michael Jackson. I tell my DC what kind of music I like. Live music is pretty important to me and DH is a big fan of electronic music. We have very different tastes in music so the subject of not liking some types of music comes up for our family a lot. I think it's important that our kids develop their own musical tastes and parents should look to their kids to see how they can best foster that. For children who tend to want to "like what mama likes" maybe it's good for mom to keep her opinions to herself.

I'm loving this thread too - I'm off on vacation tomorrow. I'll look forward to catching up when I get back.

ETA: I meant to add one little plug for AK from a personal perspective. My DC's school uses a lot of AK's philosophy, especially his theory on homework. The school, however, used "recess minutes" as a form of punishment when DC first began attending the school. I was really upset by this and wrote to AK. He wrote me back within the day and was so, so sweet. He just kind of empathized with me about how unfortunate it is that progressive schools don't always move all their theories along at the same speed. He gave me a little guidance on how to speak with the school and I'm happy to say that they revised their policy on punishment. He just seemed like such a nice "regular guy" and I was surprised and impressed with how approachable and helpful he was.


----------



## 122320 (Oct 13, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zoebird*
> 
> I suppose that we are closer to unconditional parenting, but I haven't been in a situation where punishment/etc is necessary. He's only 3, too, and so not in a logical place where we are talking out solutions. I do try to think about what is going on from his perspective, though, and work from there.
> 
> ...


Zoebird, I love what you've described here - pretty much what I've done all along, and now my boys are teens. I'm big on NVC, although I learned it just a few years ago, but it would have been a disaster for me if I didn't set limits on the things most important to me when they are young. I'm so glad that I taught them respectful manners because it has already served them well, although ds 14 still needs much reminding since he is so often in his own world.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

We have started a *Parenting with Joy, Trust and Love* Facebook page to share Consensual Living info and discussions.

Pat Robinson


----------



## PeaceMongerMama (Aug 3, 2011)

Let me explain a situation that happened in my house tonight and I'd really like to hear how others would have dealt with it, especially how the fans of CL would have dealt with it. I'm not at all being snarky or snide. I'd really like to know.

My son has developed (IMO) the bad habit of wanting to dip everything in ranch dressing. Tonight he wanted to dip his chicken, so I have these little packets that a friend who works in food service gave me. I take out the packet, he says I want it in a bowl, I put it in a bowl, he says I want it all, I say that is enough, he says there is more I want it all. I tell him he doesn't need it all, he starts screaming and reaching for the packet.

My position is that he does not need the enitre packet of ranch dressing, we're not talking about the size of something that would come with a fast food meal, this is much bigger. I'm not giving him the whole amount. It's not healthy and it's non negotiable. Where does a parent go from there? I want to be understanding and I don't want to be a dictator but some things are out of the question, sometimes these are the very things he really wants. Then what?


----------



## NellieKatz (Jun 19, 2009)

Keep in mind that I haven't read this whole thread. I'm answering your question directly.

My first thought was, in this situation of the ranch dressing, why not just give it to him? I try and picture if it were me & my son. If he said he wanted a huge gross amount of dressing, I might say, but then all these packets our friend gave us will be gone. You'll have no more for later. (how old is your son by the way?) If he insisted, I might say OK, if you insist, but I'm not buying dressing to replace these. Now, keep in mind it sounds disgusting. And would he eat the whole amount? If he did, what would happen? Would he get sick? Would he just feel yucky? Or would he enjoy it? The packets were free, right? In THIS case I probably would have first warned him how they'll be all gone & is he sure. And if he is, I'd say OK. Here ya go. I mean, it's not what *I* would choose, but I'm not him. And you did say they were given to you so it's not about wasting something you spent money on.

However, if there were a serious down side to something (i.e. as opposed to it just being "it's not what I would do" or "he doesn't NEED it"), and the answer had to be no, it would be no. That's it. Because in that situation, I, being the mom, would have access to the bigger picture (i.e. say he wanted to eat all of something that was designed to be shared with the whole family. Or he wanted to do something that would harm himself or some object you valued). Screaming and reaching for things, or to get our way, is not how we as a family want to deal with each other. So if the answer is no and he wants to scream, I would just be firm about the thing (i.e. not give in to the screaming) and later when he's calmer, I'd explain that when I say no about something, that's the answer. I will answer his questions as to WHY I said no, and I will certainly listen to his views, but if even after that, the answer is No, then he needs to accept it. Screaming isn't how we are going to relate to one another.

Wow. It's late. I would like to think further about my answer but I need to go to bed. I will check in tomorrow.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PeaceMongerMama*
> 
> Let me explain a situation that happened in my house tonight and I'd really like to hear how others would have dealt with it, especially how the fans of CL would have dealt with it. I'm not at all being snarky or snide. I'd really like to know.
> 
> ...


----------



## 122320 (Oct 13, 2008)

Hi, PeaceMongerMom,

I've been thinking about your post today, and wondering whether I can articulate a response that would be consistent with what I've been learning in my NVC/Compassionate Communication practice group. In NVC, the main thing is to connect and understand one another, honoring each persons needs as equally important. The main tool for connecting and understanding is guessing which of the universal human needs underlying peoples' feelings and actions might be in play. In this case, I think what your son wants is control over his own life, including what he eats. It also sounds like you want good health for him, and also that you value respect both for people and for the work that it takes to put food on the table (i.e. not wasting).

Although I respect what NellieKatz wrote, I wouldn't want to give in, because if I were you and gave in I would feel that I was honoring his needs over my own. I also would want to show more understanding for his needs than just saying "no" although Nellie was also saying to show respect for his needs by hearing out his views. (I do agree, Nellie, that there are times when you just have to say "no" as a parent.)

So here's what I would try:

Son: I want it all! Gimme!

Mom: Wait a minute. Let's see if we can both get what we want here. (Maybe putting the packet in a pocket or something? I honestly don't know.)

Mom: It sounds like you really want the choice of what you are going to eat, and that having the whole packet would give you control over exactly how much dressing you have with your chicken, is that right?

Son: Yes. I want it all.

Mom: So you really want to be able to put lots of dressing on your chicken, just as much as you want, even the whole packet?

Son: Right.

Mom: I really want you to have choice about what you eat and for you to enjoy your food.

Son: Good. Could I have the packet now, please?

Mom: Would you be willing to listen to what I need also?

Son: O.k.

Mom: I really want you to grow strong and healthy, because I love you so much, kiddo. Giving you that much ranch dressing does not make for a balanced meal and balanced meals help you to grow strong and healthy. Could you tell me what you just heard me say?

Son: You want me to eat less ranch dressing.

Mom: Thank you. It's not so much about the dressing and just that I want you to eat the kind of balance that will help you grow. Can you tell me what you just heard me say?

Son: You want me to eat good stuff.

Mom: Yes! A good balance. So is there a way that you can control your amount and also I get to see that you won't use so much that it's not healthy?

Son: [I'm really reaching here - I have no idea if he would say this:] O.k., let Daddy put half of it in the bowl, and I'll use as much of that as I want, o.k.?

Mom: O.k. Son. I'm glad we can both have what we want.

I know this sounds awfully involved. NVC does take time. What do you think? Do you think it might go this way? Really getting to the underlying needs can help so much.

-Dancy


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dancianna*
> 
> I know this sounds awfully involved. NVC does take time. What do you think? Do you think it might go this way? Really getting to the underlying needs can help so much.


I loved your post. IME, things can really go the way you described. Even when I was banging my head against the wall with some of this stuff I would rally and try suggestions like yours and be shocked to find that they worked...sometimes. ;-)

In our house (depending on the child's age) we often tried something like what Dancianna suggested, albeit a more condensed, blunt version, followed by some creative problem solving. I may suggest that we find a small bowl for DC's dressing that she can have filled all the way up. I may suggest that if DC is willing to consider healthy moderation that he gets to pour his own ranch or have seconds. Maybe we consider making our own ranch from scratch so it's healthier (I'm loving this idea!) .

Another way it sometimes went down in our house is that I would just say "no" and drop the conversation. Or, sometimes I would just say yes - "give in" if you will. I did not/do not always have the energy or inclination...or compassion to work it out. Also, sometimes my DC could not get to a good place to talk in that moment. When this would happen we would often talk it out later. When DC was young, before bed was a good time to talk about the bumpy patches in the day. As she got older the car was a good place to talk.

Good luck!


----------



## 122320 (Oct 13, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
> 
> I loved your post. IME, things can really go the way you described. Even when I was banging my head against the wall with some of this stuff I would rally and try suggestions like yours and be shocked to find that they worked...sometimes. ;-)
> 
> ...


Boy do I get the part about not always having the energy, inclination, or compassion - or even the time - to do the work of empathizing with everyone. Especially when raising kids.

-Dancy


----------

