# "do" instead of "don't"--dh's response in post 5



## rainymorning (Jan 5, 2007)

I've been so deeply entrenched in this principle, it is very difficult for me to see why someone would disagree. It is not that I never slip, but it is so obvious to me that this works, both short-term and long-term, that it is very difficult for me to see the opposite perspective.

This is what I e-mailed to DH this morning, from a newsletter that I get. I forwarded it to him, because he asked me to, because he read he previous newletter which stated that saying "don't" doesn't work. He wanted to see what would work.

THE DAILY GROOVE ~ by Scott Noelle

If "don't" statements don't work, what *does* work?

Of course it helps to get clear about what you DO
want and focus on that. So instead of "Please don't
staple the dog," you might say, "Let's play fetch with
Spot," or "Let's staple some paper chains."

Also, ask yourself if there's really a problem. For
example, instead of saying "Don't make a mess," you
could just decide that messes are okay -- a normal
part of life... especially with children. 

When intervention is clearly appropriate (e.g., the
dog-stapling scenario), shifting to positive *words*
is not enough, because children pay more attention to
emotions than words. So a good rule of thumb is...

** Open your HEART before you open your MOUTH! **

With practice, you can get so skilled at centering,
emanating good vibes, and conveying positive
expectations, that it won't matter what you say...
even if what you say includes the word "don't"!
(Feel free to forward this message to your friends!
(Please include this paragraph and everything above.)
Copyright (c) 2008 by Scott Noelle)

So DH disagrees vehemently. I wonder if there's a GD way that I can direct him to, as he is theoretically very supportive of GD. But then he gets stuck in his way of thinking, the way he was raised, and he can't identify with the above. I'd like to find out something that would be GD, and yet somewhat different from the above approach.

An example from yesterday. DD (3) took DH's eye dropper. DD is very good at listening and complying. If he were to tell her, "DD, you can hold it, but you can't walk away with it, as it might break. When you are done, give it back to me"--we woudn't have any problems what so ever.

DH, however, yelled NO, right away. then before DD had a chance to even respond, he kept on yelling, NO NO NO, this is not a toy, this is not a toy.

i was in the other room, and was wondering what the heck DD was holding.

DD started yelling back at DH, saying, "it IS a toy." she can be very oppositional, of course.

DH kept arguing, it is NOT a toy. finally he wrestled it away from her, she ended up crying.

when i realised it was over an EYE DROPPER, i almost laughed. it is not even that breakable. there aren't any danger in DD holding it. i thought DH totally overreacted, but he doesn't think so. he expected total obedience, total and immediate, and then was pissed that it didn't happen, and was willing to fight all the way.

i just can't see why *he* can't see that what he does is ineffective, and that with one simple sentence the whole drama can be easily avoided. AND dd would learn conflict resolution. i see this in DS (5), who is using the same approach with DD, which is both effective and super sweet


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

You could point out to him that most adults respond better to do than don't. That "don't" leaves the image in your head of what you're NOT supposed to do. It's very hard to picture simply NOT doing something.
Like the pink elephant joke. "Don't think of a pink elephant" and of course, you are likely to be thinking of a pink elephant. But if you are told "Think of a blue giraffe" then you are likely not thinking of a pink elephant.

Kids, especially, need to know where to put their energy and intentions. If the only thing in their head is "don't hold the eyedropper" that's not really going to HELP her put it down as much as "oh, let's keep it safe. Maybe we can find something else to hold."

Why couldn't your dh expect compliance, WHILE making it easier for your dd to comply? She's still doing what he's asking. The only difference is that she'd be doing it happily, instead of it escalating into a fight.


----------



## nd_deadhead (Sep 22, 2005)

Time for my worm story again! This is a perfect example of why Do statements are better than Don't.

My twin boys were not quite 3. We were visiting my parents in the spring, and the boys were "helping" my Mom plant flowers in the garden. When she dug up some earthworms, she gave them to the boys to play with.

B brought his worm into the house to show me and my Dad: "My got a worm!". Grandpa exclaimed over what a nice worm it was, and B beamed with pleasure. Then my Dad said "Don't eat the worm!"

We could just watch the wheels turn in B's head! First he got a look of disgust and horror on his face (he had never thought of eating the worm), then we could see him pondering. "Grandpa said eat the worm... eat the worm".

B left the room, and J came in with HIS worm. It was a perfect instant replay of the entire scene (twins are such a treat!), right down to the horrified look, followed by the thoughtful consideration: "Grandpa said eat the worm..."

He left the room, and soon we heard my Mom laughing int he garden. We went outside to find B's mouth covered with dirt, and no worm. My Mom had seen J put his worm in his mouth and spit it back out. We asked B what happened to his worm, and he told us "My ate it!"

Obviously the "don't" meant absolutely nothing to them, and they focused very strongly on what came after the "don't". This is why I don't believe kids are being willfully disobedient if they continue to jump on the bed if you tell them "Don't jump on the bed". They simply can't think of an alternative. If we offer an alternative, such as "jump on the floor" or "Sit on your bottom", we are much more likely to get the results we desire.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

If the worm story doesn't work on your dh, try this.

You're sitting in a restaurant with a friend. They say "Don't look over your shoulder, but..." What do you? It's almost impossible to not look over your shoulder. You're intensely interested to know what over there, right? (exactly as the pp described as what's happening in the worm story - not that the kids didn't get the 'don't' part, but that the thought of eating the worm was really intriguing!)

Replay that same scene. Your friend says "Say, look up there!" What do you do? You look up there. Do you think about looking over your shoulder? Nope.

Two more thoughts for your dh:
1. Saying what they should do teaches them what you want. When dd wants to ride in the basket part of the grocery cart, our rule is "sit on your bottom or your knees." That teaches her what's safe. "Don't stand" doesn't tell her anything about what's safe.

2. Focusing on what they should do doesn't mean that the word "don't" never leaves my mouth! I still say don't. I don't lose sleep over it. But if I get too focused on don't and don't remember what to do, I do find things not working as well. For example, I'm trying to get dd to quit picking her nose and eating her buggers (at least in front of me!) I realized this morning that I need to stop saying "don't pick your nose" and start using "please use a tissue".


----------



## rainymorning (Jan 5, 2007)

dh's response, with his permission, as he wants to see what GD moms are saying...

>Although I understand the emotional appeal and the "immediate" success in routing a child towards acceptable behaviour, it bothers me that it leaves the unacceptable behaviour unresolved. Distracting the child may achieve the immediate stop of the bad behaviour, but no deterrence from returning later to "stapling the dog".

Coloroso goes a little further and says that you should address the bad behaviour but later, after diversion and when all parties are in a balanced emotional state..

The problem with that is lack of context ("why do you bring this up now") and smacks of holding a grudge. It gives me this unpleasant feeling of artificialness in relationships where spontaneity (be it an expression or anger or atherwise) is repressed, and a cold and calculated "correction procedure" shows its head in the midst of unrelated context. I do not know if I manage to explain what I feel.

Perhaps the solution is to have a once a week discussion about unacceptable behaviour, and also to express anger (or any other sentiment) spontaneously, but also in moderation. Something like that....

It takes a h*ll out of someone to abstain from saying "Do NOT staple the dog". It's almost hard to imagine as being a realistic proposition.

i just so don't agree with the last sentence! to me it is not so difficult not to say it, because i've practiced "lets staple something else" for a long time, and i see that it is more efficient and feels better.

i've been through the above arguments with dh, the ones that pps are suggesting. i can't comprehend why dh doesn't see it. it is as though he is refusing to take child development into account. ironically, he is one of these adults who do not respond well at all to "don't" statements. his frist response is to rebel.


----------



## purple_kangaroo (Feb 20, 2006)

I can see his point, in that it is important, for example, to actively teach a child to be KIND to the dog rather than just distracting the child and never dealing with the issue of how the dog is being treated. I do think there is definitely a place to explain to the child that stapling the dog will hurt it, and therefore it's not ok to do. Saying something like, "We pet the dog only with our hands. Hands are for petting. Staplers are for paper," would address the issue in a positive way while still teaching the child not to staple the dog.

We recently dealt with my 2yo going through a hitting spell, and here's what I realized: Just telling the child what NOT to do does not help her to know how to respond appropriately to the situation. What the child really needs is to know what she CAN do. For instance, we actively worked with my 2yo to teach her to say "no, I don't like that" instead of hitting when a sibling is hugging her and she doesn't want to be hugged. To hand someone a book and say "book, please" instead of hitting them with the book to communicate that she wants them to read to her.

Telling a kid "don't hit" does not help them to know what to do next time they are in a situation where they have strong feelings. Telling them that hitting hurts does, IMHO, give them useful information. But the thing that is MOST helpful is giving them the tools that they can use to resolve the situation without hitting next time they're angry or want something.

I feel that the majority of parenting is helping and teaching children how to interact and get their needs met in appropriate ways. Punishing them and telling them what not to do does not help them to know what they should/could do differently next time.

To put another slant on it, when my baby had severe food allergies and we were going through an elimination diet (I was doing it because I was breastfeeding her), I had a huge list of things I could not eat. For a few days I was so overwhelmed and afraid I would eat the wrong thing that I just didn't really eat. What I had to do in order to cope was to make a list of the things I _could_ eat, and focus on that. Otherwise, "don't eat this or this or this" ended up being just, "don't eat."

You can't just tell a child not to eat, or not to interact, or not to be. And that's essentially what you're doing when you tell them what *not* to do without helping them to know what they CAN do.

What the child needs is to know how to treat the dog gently, how to communicate displeasure without hitting, how to communicate a desire or need without hurting anyone, etc. Your job as a parent is to give them the tools they need so they have other solutions besides negative behavior to use in their lives.


----------



## purple_kangaroo (Feb 20, 2006)

Another thought, perhaps, is that your husband is hearing "don't say no" from you without having a clear idea of what he can do instead. LOL.

It also might help for you to have some empathy. I hear you saying that it's not that hard to not say no. But for him it IS hard. And it sounds like he doesn't really yet have the tools or clear udnerstanding of what to do instead. So maybe it would help for you to acknowledge that it *is* hard for him to stifle the impulse to say no.

Maybe, instead of focusing on him NOT saying no, it would be better to focus on what he CAN do instead.







In fact, what I would suggest is asking him to consider that when he finds himself saying no or telling your DD what not to do, he then make an effort to follow it up with telling her what she CAN do and helping her learn the skills she needs to deal with the situation.

In other words, maybe right now he needs NOT to focus on not saying no, but instead to focus on developing the skills he needs to learn so that, eventually, he will not have so much of a need to say no.

I think saying "No, don't do this" and then following it up with "here's what you can do" can be a reasonable approach, and is much easier than leaping directly from having few tools besides saying no to not using no at all.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

What about "Stop! That stapler could hurt the dog. It's important to be gentle with the dog. If you want to use the stapler, use it on paper." I see this as both positive and addressing the immediate behavioral (stapler) issue. This is the kind of thing we say a lot, so it's not just distraction and it does address why doing something is not safe/appropriate. It's just that we try to put the focus on what *to* do instead-keep the dog safe, staplers are for paper.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rainymorning* 
Coloroso goes a little further and says that you should address the bad behaviour but later, after diversion and when all parties are in a balanced emotional state..

The problem with that is lack of context ("why do you bring this up now") and smacks of holding a grudge. It gives me this unpleasant feeling of artificialness in relationships where spontaneity (be it an expression or anger or atherwise) is repressed, and a cold and calculated "correction procedure" shows its head in the midst of unrelated context.

In our family, we've found that we can address an issue later without it feeling like anyone's holding a grudge and without it feeling artificial. In our home this would sound like this: "can we talk? I've noticed that lately it's been pretty tough for you to play with your brother without hitting him. What's up?....." or "I've noticed lately that getting out of bed in the morning and getting ready for school has been tough for you, what's up?...." And then we can express our adult concerns "thing is, I want everyone to be safe, and hitting isn't safe..." Then we can move on to solving the problem together.

And I have found that much of the time, the moment of conflict is not a good time for learning (even if the "moment of conflict" is a dog-stapling moment). Once emotions are running high, it's not really a learning moment. So, particularly for very important issues, it is helpful to wait until everyone is calm, and able to think and communicate well.


----------



## Mpenny1001 (May 21, 2005)

Well, I think both you and your DH have a point. We try to have a "do" household and we give DD options as often as we can, but we also feel it is important for her to know that some things really are off-limits and (most importantly) *why* they are off limits. So, in the eye dropper example you gave we would say, "Oh DD, that isn't a toy. Dad uses that to put medicine in his eye and it's important that we don't play with it so it stays clean and doesn't get broken. Here, let's go get the turkey baster and we can see how that works!"

That way DD still gets to "do", but she also knows why she can't do the "don't" (did that make any sense, lol?).


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mpenny1001* 
We try to have a "do" household and we give DD options as often as we can, but we also feel it is important for her to know that some things really are off-limits and (most importantly) *why* they are off limits. So, in the eye dropper example you gave we would say, "Oh DD, that isn't a toy. Dad uses that to put medicine in his eye and it's important that we don't play with it so it stays clean and doesn't get broken. Here, let's go get the turkey baster and we can see how that works!"









:

For us, the goal isn't the complete elimination of "don't," but an overall positive tone/atmosphere, clear communication, and connection. The occasional "don't" is no big deal, I just wouldn't want that to be the prevailing pattern.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Did dd actually try to staple the dog? I've found that most things were not so life threatening as to feel the urgency to say NO!! So, I've taken the opportunity to use my advanced age and experience to consider alternatives to suggest, which meet the impulse AND address my concerns. I also provide information about the *impact* of the prior alternative, not in a corrective manner, as there is no context of "getting in trouble" or being told something is "unacceptable". I share information, not unlike 'when the clouds are really dark, it might rain'. 'Let's find some paper to staple. If we staple the dog, it would hurt'. Do you sense the difference in the energy behind the interaction?

Mostly with little people, they want what they want!







So, saying "no" just *creates* the power struggle, ime.

HTH, Pat


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

I can see what you dh is saying. I think that at a certain age it's about redirection...taking their attention away from the undesirable behaviour and at a very young age, bringing it up later will not make any sense to the child.

I try to phrase things in a positive, here is what you can do instead way with all my children and my oldest is 17 and my youngest is 2. The difference being I can explain why not to the oldest and she will understand my reasoning(not always agreeing but that's fine) The 2 year old doesn't understand.

The way you teach a child evolves as the child gets older. For the very young you can redirect with a simple "we use the stapler on paper" and as they get older add more information. The ages are different for every child, some children understand at younger ages than others.

I think giving the child directions on what to do without explaining what "not" to do does leave something to be desired so there are two parts to the teaching(discipline)

I know that when someone tells me not to do something I immediately get my back up..heck I was even like it in labour...midwife said not to push and immediately the thought and impulse was "shut up, I'll push if I want" and I did. LOL. Tell me not to do something and I immediately get a feeling of "what right do you have to tell me..." with righteous indignation...I think children have the same feelings which is what leads to power struggles.

Darned counterwill.









This is an interesting thread. Your Dh has pointed out something I hadn't considered before. While I think he's a little off base he does make some good points and it does sound like he's given it some thought.

I hope you reach a workable solution for your family.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

OK Dad (tel your dh to join MDC - we need more dads!)

>Although I understand the emotional appeal and the "immediate" success in routing a child towards acceptable behaviour, it bothers me that it leaves the unacceptable behaviour unresolved. Distracting the child may achieve the immediate stop of the bad behaviour, but no deterrence from returning later to "stapling the dog".

I think you're missing a key point.

In the stapling the dog example (







) this is what would happen in our house (thankfully we don't have a dog that could get stapled, but still).

Dd (3 1/2) takes the stapler over to the dog and tries to staple it.
I say somewhat forcefully "STOP! Don't staple the dog. Staples will hurt the dog. We need to be gentle. You can pet her. You can rub her ears. Staples are only for paper.)

Part of telling a child what to do is to tell the child what can and cannot be stapled and the ramifications of their actions. (Staples will hurt the dog.) That WILL over time, provide a deterrence for the later returning to stapling the dog.

If the child continues to staple the dog. The stapler gets put up, because it's clear that she can't control her impulses enough to be near it. Our ds (6 1/2) would (a) get RIGHT AWAY that the staples would hurt and (b) never need this later step. He's 3 years older and that development, along with our teaching have taught him not to do things that will hurt people/animals.

Coloroso goes a little further and says that you should address the bad behaviour but later, after diversion and when all parties are in a balanced emotional state..

The problem with that is lack of context ("why do you bring this up now") and smacks of holding a grudge. It gives me this unpleasant feeling of artificialness in relationships where spontaneity (be it an expression or anger or atherwise) is repressed, and a cold and calculated "correction procedure" shows its head in the midst of unrelated context. I do not know if I manage to explain what I feel.

I kind of agree. I think it depends on the situation. In my experience, once a child has reached meltdown stage (NO NO NO), any sort of discussion is futile. BUT, my experience has also shown me that much of the time, further discussion is NOT necessary.

Example of the other way around: We went rollerskating on Sunday afternoon. We were there for 2+ hours. At the end, I coudl tell the kids were getting tired. I got the kids a snack. I took off their skates and returned them. After her snack, dd wanted to rollerskate again. The skates were back, I was tired, ds was tired, it was time to go home. Dd threw herself on the floor screaming because she wanted to skate again.

Rationale discussion was out of the question. At the same time, I knew that the real problem was exhaustion, not 'bad behavior'. There is no need for me to go back afterwards and discuss this. I carried her to the car. She rested on the way home and was fine.

When discussion is necessary, it's more problem solving -- e.g., ds was not eating his lunch at school and coming home really grumpy. The problem solving (which took about a dozen tries, by the way) centered around "how can we get you to eat lunch". Finally last week he was able to articulate that (a) he didn't like the bread his dad was using (white mush!) and (b) he wanted the meat separate from the bread. Turns out he doesn't like sandwiches. This week has been much better. But I wouldn't ever bring up 'bad behavior' unless there was a bigger problem to be solved.

Maybe that's something for your dh to think about -- what does bad behavior stem from? 80% of the time in our house it's being tired or hungry. 20% it's not having enough attention from mom and/or dad.

It takes a h*ll out of someone to abstain from saying "Do NOT staple the dog". It's almost hard to imagine as being a realistic proposition.

I actually agree with your dh on this one. My first reaction would be to say "Don't staple the dog!" I think it's OK to say don't for things that need to stop ASAP. If, on the whole, most of your interactions are positive, this actually has more effect. And it's also important that your children see and experience the full range of emotions from their parents so some emotions aren't taboo.

Yes, it does become more practiced over time, but I wouldn't put an all out ban on "don't". It is unrealistic. *I'd focus instead on following it up with an instruction on what she can do.*


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg* 
What about "Stop! That stapler could hurt the dog. It's important to be gentle with the dog. If you want to use the stapler, use it on paper." I see this as both positive and addressing the immediate behavioral (stapler) issue. This is the kind of thing we say a lot, so it's not just distraction and it does address why doing something is not safe/appropriate. It's just that we try to put the focus on what *to* do instead-keep the dog safe, staplers are for paper.











This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. In general, I don't use "stop" that often, either, but in the dog-stapling example (which is a silly one, IMO) I would, because it would cause harm to the dog and needs to be stopped immediately. After the action stopped, I would explain to dd why not to do that and what she could do instead, as done in the quote above.

My dd is 3 as well, and I agree with your dh that it's silly not to address the behavior when it happens - the "let's play fetch with Spot!" example doesn't work for me at all for a 3 year old; it doesn't give any information to the child about why what they were doing isn't okay, which is certainly important in a situation when their actions could cause harm.

However, most interactions aren't that dire - the eye dropper scenario is much more representative of day to day things. For us, that interaction would have gone more like this:
Me: What do you have?
DD (looking at eye dropper): I don't know.
Me: That's an eye dropper. Could you hand it to me, please, and I'll show you what it does?

And at that point, DD would hand it to me, I would show her what it does, and then I would tell her that it is breakable and needs to be handled carefully (or, it needs to be left alone). And she would.

I rarely use "No!" and "Stop!" because I want to reserve them for real danger. If I used them all the time, it wouldn't have the power it does. When I say, "No!" dd stops what she's doing immediately, because she knows that something is dangerous and could hurt her.

Also, I don't grab things away from her, because I don't want to set an example that grabbing things from people is okay.


----------



## laoxinat (Sep 17, 2007)

Although I understand the emotional appeal and the "immediate" success in routing a child towards acceptable behaviour, it bothers me that it leaves the unacceptable behaviour unresolved. Distracting the child may achieve the immediate stop of the bad behaviour, but no deterrence from returning later to "stapling the dog".

You know, I *used* to think this, too. I believe it is a product of a 'crime and punishment' orientation in our parenting culture. My internal belief system just didn't allow for enough faith in people to believe they would 'get it' without being punished or shamed. It was really only after I internalized a gentler approach to _myself_ that I could let go of this. For very small children, I don't believe deterrence in and of itself is a productive goal, because they simply don't have the wherewithal to project into the future and extrapolate consequences. And some kiddos just really are NOT interested in being deterred heh heh. Ironically, I think your DHs approach would have _guaranteed_ that my DS would have persisted ad nauseam. My little Zen Master (If you say I can, WRONG! If you say I can't, WRONG!)







that crazy wisdom!!!


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rainymorning* 
ironically, he is one of these adults who do not respond well at all to "don't" statements. his frist response is to rebel.









And you're trying to convince him not to use don't, eh?









I think maybe it would be easiest for him to start adding on to his statements. If he doesn't want to avoid "no" and "don't" entirely, maybe he'd be willing to start saying "No, but...." and "Don't do ___, do ____".

I agree with your husband about it seeming silly and artificial to bring things up later (especially with a three year old!). But avoiding "don't" doesn't mean that kids think they can do everything. If every time they pinch, you respond by grabbing their hand and saying "gentle touch!", they absolutely learn that pinching isn't okay. The fact that you stop them is what tells them it's not appropriate. But I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "No pinching! Use gentle touch." either.

Just stopping at "No pinching!" sort of leaves the kid hanging, though. Little children can't really brainstorm alternatives. When my son tries to climb on table next to our couch, saying "don't climb on the table" doesn't do a darn thing. Saying "Feet On The Couch!" works like a charm. If every time he tries to climb on the table he's thwarted by "Feet on the couch" there's no chance of him thinking that climbing on the table is okay.

_"It takes a h*ll out of someone to abstain from saying "Do NOT staple the dog". It's almost hard to imagine as being a realistic proposition."_

After practicing saying "do" instead of "don't", my reaction in that situation would be to say "STOP! Give mama the stapler.", and when I got the stapler that would be followed by "Staples can hurt the dog very badly. Staples are only for paper." But again, if his immediate reaction is "Do NOT staple the dog!" tacking something on the end of that like "Put the stapler down!" still leaves the baby knowing what she's supposed to do.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

One thing I haven't seen discussed in this thread is age, too.

There is a world of difference between a 3 year old and a 7 year old. Coloroso doesn't always navigate that issue well (even though I love her stuff).

A 3 year old really will often still drop the "don't" or get oppositional just by virtue of being 3. Although 3 year olds have very open moments where you can explain things to them, they really _don't_ have those moments _when they are focused on exploring or doing something else_. They just can't multi task all that well.

And as they get tired and it gets closer to bedtime that gets even worse.

So at this age, it probably is best to do it quickly and shortly and turn the focus to what they can do asap. "The eyedropper is not a toy, but let's go get the turkey baster. Are you coming with me to GET the TURKEY BASTER" (note emphasis).

If the child digs in her heels at that point I really like the technique of reflecting feelings: "You WANT to hold onto the eyedropper. You WANT it. You are sad it is not a toy. But it is not a toy." And then redirect.

At 7, though, you might be ready for a simple "DD, that's not yours," or a longer discussion around things, or to come back to it later. Again it depends on the thing, the child, how tiring the day was, etc.

To dad I would say - obviously you want your child to grow up into a capable and moral human being. But remember you still have 12-15 years to get there. You don't have to teach all the "don'ts" of life in the first 3 years! Remember that EVERY DAY your daughter does a LOT that she doesn't want to do. Try counting up the things she does respect in a day - carseat, getting dressed, not eating the change you left on the counter, not colouring on the walls, etc. etc. etc. Trust your daughter and time a little.


----------



## hubris (Mar 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rainymorning* 
it bothers me that it leaves the unacceptable behaviour unresolved.

...It takes a h*ll out of someone to abstain from saying "Do NOT staple the dog". It's almost hard to imagine as being a realistic proposition.

I agree with your DH that it's HARD to change your behavior. It is. That does not, however, mean that it's impossible, or not worth doing. Often DH and I get bummed about some parenting choice we made that was somewhat less than ideal. We sometimes have to take a step back and say "but look at who we were and what we would have done 5 years ago...we do so much that is GREAT! We have changed a lot, and we will continue to change in positive ways!"

I also agree with your DH that addressing a behavior later is often out of context, too abstract for the child, and too far removed to be productive. That is true for many small issues. The thing is, an issue that small probably doesn't need to be discussed at length with the child. The big things (like my son screaming "I'm going to kill daddy!" at his father last night, fun times, eh?) are absolutely something that can be discussed once everybody has cooled down.

With respect to not addressing the problem behavior - this feeling of needing to "nip it in the bud" comes from being taught that every single "bad" behavior must absolutely be squelched by the parents, who must take every single "bad" behavior as an opportunity to teach a huge life lesson. Most of these behaviors are little stuff! We really don't need to stress out that our child will become an ax murderer every time he attempts to staple the dog. For the most part, they will get older and grow out of the dog-stapling impulse without any explicit instruction from us. Our job for this "little stuff" is simply to avert disaster and redirect to acceptable activities until they outgrow these urges.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hubris* 
With respect to not addressing the problem behavior - this feeling of needing to "nip it in the bud" comes from being taught that every single "bad" behavior must absolutely be squelched by the parents, who must take every single "bad" behavior as an opportunity to teach a huge life lesson. Most of these behaviors are little stuff! We really don't need to stress out that our child will become an ax murderer every time he attempts to staple the dog. For the most part, they will get older and grow out of the dog-stapling impulse without any explicit instruction from us. Our job for this "little stuff" is simply to avert disaster and redirect to acceptable activities until they outgrow these urges.

This is really well put. Most "bad behavior" is pretty little stuff. And we can't expect perfect behavior from a 3-year-old (or 5-year-old, or 7-year-old). They're just kids. We should expect occasional bad behavior and use those opportunities to teach good behavior rather than responding to some urge to punish. We shouldn't expect perfection and then get upset when a 3-year-old doesn't behave perfectly. And I know it's hard. Lord knows there have been times I've wanted to do some serious punishing, and even over pretty small stuff - but I have my "push-button" issues just like everyone. It really just takes practice to step back for a second and to try to think objectively first how big of a deal it really is, and second how to use it as a positive teaching experience with us on the same team rather than responding to that urge to punish. I truly think punishment is more about how we feel we need to respond to something than how a child really learns right from wrong.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *purple_kangaroo* 
I can see his point, in that it is important, for example, to actively teach a child to be KIND to the dog rather than just distracting the child and never dealing with the issue of how the dog is being treated. I do think there is definitely a place to explain to the child that stapling the dog will hurt it, and therefore it's not ok to do. Saying something like, "We pet the dog only with our hands. Hands are for petting. Staplers are for paper," would address the issue in a positive way while still teaching the child not to staple the dog.

Every toddler I know has been taught about "gentle hands" and just need a reminded of "use gentle hands" to stop 90% of the stuff where you'd otherwise have to dive across the room and separate them from the cat's tail or what have you.

(Incidentally, ask your dh if he does see that there could be a middle ground between never saying no and instantly yelling nonono? I'm sure he didn't see the eyedropper incident in quite the same way as you presented it, but in the presented form it seemed like one 3 year old being miffed at another one, although I'm certain the actual tone was more adult.)


----------



## Heffernhyphen (May 3, 2005)

Dear Rain,

Please post a picture of your husband. I'm afraid you may be my sister-wife.

susan


----------



## MtBikeLover (Jun 30, 2005)

I have to agree with your husband in that it is really hard to stop using "don't". I've been trying to minimize my usage of it and it is not that easy when it is part of your vocabulary.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heffernhyphen* 
Dear Rain,

Please post a picture of your husband. I'm afraid you may be my sister-wife.

susan

























Pat


----------



## becoming (Apr 11, 2003)

Wow, I just wanted to say that this thread is so helpful to me. It really made me rethink how I've been saying things. Thanks to everyone who posted here.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rainymorning* 
Although I understand the emotional appeal and the "immediate" success in routing a child towards acceptable behaviour, it bothers me that it leaves the unacceptable behaviour unresolved. Distracting the child may achieve the immediate stop of the bad behaviour, but no deterrence from returning later to "stapling the dog".

I actually agree very much with your dh. I honestly do not see how saying ONLY "Keep the juice in the glass" is helpful, when what you really are trying to say is "don't pour the juice out."
That's why I would say "Don't pour out the juice. (explanation as appropriate). Drink it, or if you're done we can put it on the counter."
I think that sometimes the "don't" is much more direct and honest. Because, really, in that case, I don't care exactly what he DOES. I just want him to NOT dump the juice out. He can drink it. He can keep the juice in the cup. He could offer it to me. So I tell him exactly what I don't want, then give him some *positive* suggestions as to how to accomplish that.

I would absolutely tell ds "Do NOT staple the dog!!!" but I would definitely follow that with an acceptable/mutually agreeable alternative. Something to focus on, something that gets his wheels moving in the right direction.

It's proven very helpful. Now that he's 3.5, often times he'll redirect himself, or he'll use the same type of ideas when we disagree on something. Sometimes he comes up with very agreeable solutions that I wouldn't have thought of myself!

I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between "distracting" and "redirecting." When you distract, you are, in essense, telling the child that what they are interested in isn't worthwhile.
Distraction
Child: wants to staple dog's head
Parent: "ooh Look! There's an airplane outside!" while sneaking the stapler away.

Redirection
Child: wants to staple dog's head
Parent: "It looks like you want to use the stapler. You may not staple the dog's head, it would hurt her. Let's find something that would be ok to staple."

With redirecting, you acknowledge that there is a legitimate impulse behind the behavior, and that the child just needs to find a socially acceptable way to express that impulse.

eta:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
*I'd focus instead on following it up with an instruction on what she can do.*

yeah, that


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

I agree with your dh about situations in which someone might be hurt. Trying to staple anything alive is a very serious issue just as hitting a person or biting them is and distracting or giving a gentle answer takes away from that seriousness especially for a child who's attention span is not long enough to pay attention to a talk about any subject other than the ones in their head. I think there should be a balance though. Playing with an eye dropper should not be on the same level as trying to staple a dog. Strong don't statements should be for situations where there is danger to another living being.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Oh, and I just wanted to add that following "don't" statements with positive instructions does NOT make a child any less likely to respect "don't" statements in the future. I generally follow it up with something ds CAN do. But on the occasions where I just say "don't" he generally respects that. I think because he knows that there's a reason, and I don't just go around saying no unless I have a reason.
As he gets older, he doesn't always need to hear the positive instruction to be able to comply with "no." (though I offer one the majority of the time).


----------



## lerlerler (Mar 31, 2004)

One thing that I think is being missed is that the "DON'Ts" are often WAY more specifiv than the "DO"s. SO if you go the "DON'T" route, it's more work...

here's my fav example....

A 2 year old had a bucket of plastic animals. His Dad is a "mostly-GD-but-has-some-hot-button-issues" kind of guy (which leads to REALLY inconsistant discipline... but that's another story. THe Dad is a good guy, albeit a bit confuzzled and I consider him a friend

Said 2yo randomly hits a kid over the head with a plastic cow. Dad swoops in grabs the kid and yells "WE Don't hit children with plastic cows.. TIME OUT" and gave his son a TimeOut in the stroller facing the fence. NO further explanation, no "gentle hands" chat, no conversation about the little boy who was hurt....

THe year old gets out of TO, runs to the sandbox , sits down and proceeds to HIT A CHILD OVER THE HEAD WITH A DINOSAUR! Dad swoops in grabs the 2 year old and yells "I TOLD YOU THAT WE DON"T HIT OTHER CHILDREN WITH OUR TOYS" AND DRAGS HIM OUT OF THE PARK.

Hmmm, reread the story.. did Dad REALY tell the child not to hit with animals. NOPE! The 2 year old heard "No hitting with cows" so he hit with a dino!!!

A more "do" oriented approach would have tod the child to be GENTLE with other children... dino, cow.. no difference.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lerlerler* 
One thing that I think is being missed is that the "DON'Ts" are often WAY more specifiv than the "DO"s. SO if you go the "DON'T" route, it's more work.









:
And another thing that people haven't mentioned, using "don't" or "do" is all a matter of habit. Yes, changing from saying "No! Don't do that!" to a more constructive response is difficult, but it isn't that hard if you start with the times when you don't need an urgent response. And when you do need to respond instantly because there's a danger, you can do the first panicked "Ack! No! Stop!!" response and then, once everyone's out of danger, calmly explain further.

As stated earlier, if you save the over-the-top responses for important stuff they'll have more effect.


----------



## nd_deadhead (Sep 22, 2005)

Yep, the REST of the story is to redirect, THEN offer explanations.

Sit on your bottom! Thank you, if you stand on the chair it might fall over, and you could get hurt.

Pet gently! The dog doesn't like it when you pull his ears - pet him gently like this. See how much he likes that?

For times when I didn't want my sons to touch something, I used "That's just to look at", or, if he was reaching for something dangerous, I called "Clap your hands!" or "Put your hands on your head!"

I was sometimes even able to prevent one of my twins from biting the other by saying "Give kisses!"

Yes, it IS more difficult to give positive directions, to think of something else for the child to do. But we are the grownups - how much MORE difficult is it for a young child to stop thinking about the words you just said ("...jump on the bed"), and think of an alternative?

Once you start thinking in terms of giving positive directions - followed by an explanation - it becomes easier and easier. I don't recall anyone telling me that being a parent was going to be EASY!


----------



## angelcat (Feb 23, 2006)

I've been having some problems with my daughter, and this thread will be VERY helpful!


----------



## EdnaMarie (Sep 9, 2006)

One thing that hasn't been addressed here, in my opinion, is the fact that making every little thing into a battle over "don't" and "no" can actually be dangerous, because when it comes to important things like "STOP! DON'T GO ANY FURTHER TOWARDS THE STREET!" or "DON'T TOUCH THE OVEN!" your child will already be used to you using a very serious tone and "stop" and "don't" and "no".

My child always stops at the word "no" because it is always and only accompanied by me jumping out of my seat because she is doing something dangerous. If I used "no" for, "NO! Don't touch dinner yet!" or "No, don't muss gravy in your hair", I am not sure it would have that effect.

I would also like to point out that many children stop being interested in stapling dogs' ears and sticking spoons in their own eyes and so on. I don't recall ever having been told not to touch a space heater (we didn't have them when I was a baby) but when I was nine and we got our first one, you didn't see me running up to stick my finger on the coils, you know?

For me, it's the futility of fighting over every little thing when, in the long run, it's not going to make a bit of difference, that has attracted me to gentle discipline. I mean... you can wait until your kid learns not to play with the light switch, at the age of seven, or you can fight over it every single day until she is seven.
Ugh. I ended this post in a snarky and self-congratulatory way last time. Sorry.


----------



## caspian's mama (Mar 15, 2004)

so many kind, wise words here. thanks, all. like others have said, it's definitely helping me to examine and restructure my own parenting language.


----------



## LovinLiviLou (Aug 8, 2004)

I haven't had time to read every response, so I hope this isn't too repetitive. My husband also reasons along the same lines as the OP's DH, and here is what works for us.

We start with a redirect statement, and then (if it is deemed really important and necessary) we use a statement about unacceptable behavior.

so, if DD is hitting her little sister over the head with a doll, we might say "Hey, seems like that doll wants to move a lot - let's bounce her around on the bed." Then we say "It is unacceptable to hit or otherwise hurt another person or animal."

The thing that got my DH to move off of "don't" statements is that our daughter is a master at doing everything but the forbidden event. So, if you tell her not to put money in her mouth, she'll go put it in her sister's mouth or try to feed it to the dog or some other equally crazy proposition.


----------



## caspian's mama (Mar 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LovinLiviLou* 
...our daughter is a master at doing everything but the forbidden event. So, if you tell her not to put money in her mouth, she'll go put it in her sister's mouth or try to feed it to the dog or some other equally crazy proposition.

i love this. i hope you realize that you've got a very clever child there.


----------



## saturnfire16 (Jan 8, 2008)

Putting this concept into "don't vs. do" words is new for me and I'm just trying to work through it in my head. It might help to write it down. I do use redirection, but I think I usually procede the redirection with "don't." I love the idea of using more positive words, and kids definitely need an alternative of something else to do. But don't they need to know the reason behind why their being told to do something else? Like with the dog stapling thing, the kid needs to understand that they aren't being redirected because mom just got a random idea in her head to play fetch instead. They are being redirected because it is not ok to staple the dog. So, how can that be worded positively. Maybe redirect first, then explain. Let's play fetch with the dog, because we don't want to hurt the dog by stapling it.??? But there's that don't word. I guess the point of the whole thing is not to eliminate the word don't from our vocabularies, right? Just to find more positive ways of saying things rather than yelling "don't do this, don't do that!" all the time. Sorry, just rambling and still working through the practical application of the concept.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saturnfire16* 
Putting this concept into "don't vs. do" words is new for me and I'm just trying to work through it in my head. It might help to write it down. I do use redirection, but I think I usually procede the redirection with "don't." I love the idea of using more positive words, and kids definitely need an alternative of something else to do. But don't they need to know the reason behind why their being told to do something else? Like with the dog stapling thing, the kid needs to understand that they aren't being redirected because mom just got a random idea in her head to play fetch instead. They are being redirected because it is not ok to staple the dog. So, how can that be worded positively. Maybe redirect first, then explain. Let's play fetch with the dog, because we don't want to hurt the dog by stapling it.??? But there's that don't word. I guess the point of the whole thing is not to eliminate the word don't from our vocabularies, right? Just to find more positive ways of saying things rather than yelling "don't do this, don't do that!" all the time. Sorry, just rambling and still working through the practical application of the concept.

That's where the "staplers are for paper" concept comes in. You start by taking away the stapler, telling the child what they can do with the stapler, and then suggest an activity that they can do with the dog. If they really wanted to play with the stapler, they'll try to get it back and you can offer them some paper, if they wanted to play with the dog they'll do the new activity, and if they really really wanted to staple the dog you do the "staplers can hurt, we don't use staplers on living creatures."

It does take a lot of practice, I've been working on my speech habits with dh for a few years and I know I'm still going to be using "don't" statements with our child from time to time.


----------

