# what to do about willful defiance in 2 1/2 year old?



## pranava (Aug 11, 2007)

My 2.5 year old is clearly testing me. I'm not sure how to pass this test! Here's a specific example. He is fiddling around with the burner knob on the stove. I say "DS, don't touch that honey. It's very dangerous! You could turn the fire on and burn yourself." He then grabs two burner knobs firmly with both hands and looks at me and doesn't move. His face reads "Oh this, what are you going to do about it."

What should I do about it? How have you successfully dealt with this type of showdown?


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Isn't that fun? You'll never get bored with a 2 or 3 y/o around!

What works / worked with my kids at that age is distracting them: wow, dd, come see what I'm doing here! (even if what I'm currently doing is washing the dishes, they find everything fascinating at that age). Or if I'm in a not-so-patient mood, I'll just physically remove her and explain: it's dangerous. This may or may not result in a tantrum.

You'll probably have to repeat this over and over... at some point I can assure you it will sink in.


----------



## caenach (Jun 21, 2008)

Yep--redirect, distraction, silliness, saying "yes" whenever possible, hey-let's-run-around-the-room-with-our-hands-on-our-head instead of saying "don't touch the knobs" for the eleventieththousand time. If it's a for-real "no" situation, I give a warning and then remove them physically/help them move onto another activity.

I just really, really try to stay out of the power struggle situation. For me, phrases like "willful defiance" can be really charged with negativity from my own past/childhood. I try to empathize with how DD must feel. How random the "rules" must seem, how strong the impulses/feelings she's just learning to process, how hard it must be to hear a litany of no/don't/stop all day long. Pushing at boundaries is one way that DD learns about the world and I WANT her to ask questions and re-examine the status quo. I'm not saying that I exactly love the "no, I won't do what you say."  I just don't think, that at this age/phase, it's really productive to read too much into it.


----------



## HeliMom (Jan 14, 2010)

If it's a danger thing like knob turning, I realize my 2.5 year old can't be trusted by the knobs. So I baby proof with stove top covers, I redirect her to her play kitchen which is set up in our kitchen, and if that doesn't work I tell her flat out "if you can't follow safety instructions you can't be in he kitchen with me. I need you to be safe so I'm kicking you out of the kitchen for now." Then I kick her out of the kitchen. It's not meant to punish her, so if she asks for something from the kitchen I'll hand it to her from over the safety gate.

Non- safety stuff, I reevaluate if I really need to say no, looking for reasons to say yes. If the answer is still a no, I try to phrase it as a yes. "Yes we will go to the library tomorrow" (when asked to go now) I try to distract and try involve her in choosing the next activity.

If we have meltdown I offer myself to her, first by empathizing, if that doesn't help or inflames the situation I let her cry and be upset (as long as she's not being destructive) and in a little bit I let her know if she wants a hug I'm there for her, but I do remain firm in saying no.

2 1/2 years will push boundaries, it's nothing personal. For me and my family it works best to stop worrying about winning and focus on keeping everyone safe and modeling how to show respect even when feeling really tested. All while chanting to myself in my head "this too shall pass" because it really will.


----------



## wytchywoman (Nov 14, 2006)

Welcome to the "2's". I agree with trying to prevent as much as you can. Do some major baby proofing because that will reduce the number of opportunities he has to call your bluff. For the things that can't be prevented....distraction, or ignoring it all together, is preferable to butting heads all day long. What he's doing is engaging in attention seeking behavior. Don't give him attention for it, and help him understand that there are plenty of positive ways to gain your love and attention.


----------



## TheHusband (Mar 17, 2011)

Wow. I am absolutely astonished by the fact that no one has stated the obvious here: be the parent! So many parents are so worried about being their little darling's friend that they forget to be the parent. It's OK to say no. It is necessary to say no. Let me take that one step further: you will probably ruin your child's life if you DON'T say no!

Let me remind everyone of some things that seem to have fallen out of the common understanding. Children are born looking for their limitations. As their mobility increases, this looking will often place them in situations where it is necessary to make some very clear limitations for their own safety, and sometimes just for our own sanity as parents. How we deal with these limitations will make a tremendous impact on their lives as they grow up. Too many children never receive non-negotiable limitations from their parents, and hence they grow up thinking that nothing happens to rule-breakers, and then they end up in jail because the police do what their parents wouldn't do: enforce the rules.

Here's some basic things you need to do with your son.

1. Be clear and non-negotiable on your rules. Consistency is very important. If something is a rule, it needs to always apply. Work with your spouse/significant other to make sure that the rules are being applied as consistently as possible. It is hard enough for a kid to deal with rules in the first place, without having to wonder if it's still a rule today.

2. Act consistently with your words. NEVER make idle threats. If you can't legitimately keep the threat, for example "don't do that or I'll break your fingers," just don't say it. It will severely damage your credibility with your child. They need to know that their parents mean what they say.

3. Don't EVER let them whine or fuss you into bending, even if it's something little like "no, you can't have another cookie right now." If you do, you establish that you are weak and easily manipulated, and set yourself up for perpetual power struggles.

4. Don't be afraid to deal swift and meaningful punishment. In the case of the stove knob grab, he needed to have his fingers slapped. He knew full well that he was asking for trouble, and you MUST give it to him. As unpleasant as it seems, the most loving thing you can do for your children is to establish at an early age that disobedience has consequences, and a 2 1/2 year old isn't going to really grasp any other kind of punishment. They won't feel abused; they'll feel punished. Sure, they'll fuss and pout sometimes, but unless you do it angrily, they won't doubt your love for a split second. They will simply learn that you are an authority in their life.

By setting the precedent early on that you mean what you say, and that disobedience has consequences, you can avoid a lot of struggle down the road. My son is now 3 1/2 and I rarely have to dish out more than a warning. When I give an instruction with no threat attached, it's generally enough. When I give an instruction with a threat attached, for example a spanking or loss of a privilege, he almost never tests me on it, because he knows I don't make any idle threats.

Parenting is not complicated. It's one of the hardest things any of us ever attempt, but really, it's pretty simple if you know how to do it.


----------



## Callimom (Sep 14, 2004)

TheHusband - children don't need to be hit to be taught. Ever. They don't need to be threatened with being hit. I suggest reading the forum guidelines which I am pretty sure you are violating.

OP your son needs you to show him the limits and boundaries that apply in your family. He's literally looking at you to learn if he is at the limit.

In our family, issues of safety get one warning and then my physical presence which may mean removing them from the situation, or just supervising (depending on what's going on). I personally disagree with the approach of making discipline around safety issues "fun". I don't joke or laugh or make it in any way rewarding for them to attempt to either try that again, or take my comments about "No that's not safe" less seriously than they should be.

For young kids, and especially boys, I always kept explanations to a minimum, lowered my voice and sounded very serious. In your specific example I would issue the direction and then the explanation: "Get down now. That's not safe." and I would be moving toward him to get him away from the stove.

hth

Karen


----------



## Mittsy (Dec 29, 2009)

Can someone else keep him busy while you cook? Or can you direct him to his own kitchen while you cook? Other than keeping him out while you cook I would either get those knob covers, or take them off altogether and only put them on when you need to cook.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

TheHusband - welcome to Mothering.









Please read our guidelines for posting to the Gentle Discipline forum and our Web Statement of Purpose. That should give you a better idea of what sort of community this is and what Mothering's parenting philosophies are. We don't host discussions that advocate punishment of children. So please - if you wish to post to this discussion and in general here at Mothering, become familiar with attachment parenting and our rules and guidelines.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

If you scare your kids by hitting them when they do something wrong, they might get scared enough to not do things they think you might not want them to do when they're still very young. It will not teach them to not do things because they're wrong or dangerous, only to not do things because they're afraid of you, and being afraid of you can cause other problems. It also completely loses effectiveness when they get older and bigger, and on top of that it can lead to other behavior prolbems - like them hitting other children or other people, them hiding things from you out of a fear of punishment, etc.

Some things kids simply outgrow, and a lot of safety issues fall into that realm. All toddlers play with things they shouldn't play with because they're little scientists and are experimenting with everything, but you can reason with all older kids not to do that kind of thing. For things like stoves, baby proofing can give you time until they have some sense.

Older toddlers do go into a quest for autonomy, because they're at an age where it's developmentally appropriate for them to separate from you a bit. They will look for areas where they can control themselves, and won't like to be controlled by you. It only gets worse - it usually peaks at 3.5 based on all the threads we have here about 3.5-year-olds, but giving them some areas where they are in control sometimes helps them feel better about the many areas where they are not in control. Can he dress himself? Does he have cups and plates and bowls where he can reach them so he can help get his own snacks together? Try finding some areas where he can take on a bit of responsibility and he might not fight back so often in non-negotiable areas. Also, if you let him some autonomy and let him have his way where it isn't harmful, dangerous, etc., you will have an easier time gently holding firm on those areas that are harmful, dangerous, or otherwise forbidden. It gets very frustrating to deal with power struggle after power struggle after power struggle all day, so only getting into the ones that are very important makes for fewer frustrations, and if you aren't as frustrated when one of these power struggles come up, you might stay more relaxed and not get as upset.


----------



## TheHusband (Mar 17, 2011)

"It will not teach them to not do things because they're wrong or dangerous, only to not do things because they're afraid of you,"

If that is true, then you didn't do it correctly; in fact, for that to be true, you would have to either brutalize your child, or "punish" them for nothing at all. This punishment doesn't always have to be physical, as in many cases other means might be more effective, and in some cases, as with older children, corporal punishment really doesn't work at all. Properly disciplined, children understand that when they do wrong, they get punished. They don't fear their parents; they fear the consequences of disobedience. This is something that is sorely lacking in our society. Young people do whatever they feel like because they have no fear of consequences. If you don't set that precedent early on, they won't expect it later, and then they will end up in jail, or perhaps just looting London. Check this out, and see if something doesn't ring true: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html

If this is not a forum where all ideas may be discussed based on their merit, then it is not a forum at all. I have been respectful and helpful. If I am incorrect, please point out where, rather than simply say "you can't say that here." Unless something is defamatory, obscene, or degrading, it ought not be banned from a public forum. Simple saying that it is unacceptable to post something because you disagree with it is absurd.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

Then I think the Mothering forums are not the place to present your thoughts. We do require that you adhere to our guidelines so if you are not inclined to do so I think you will find a number of forums on the web that have no specific web purpose and will let you post whatever you like.


----------



## nisojon (May 3, 2011)

Our DD was/is impressively strong-willed, or as Dr. Sears (I think) nicely puts it - "spirited." Even a child psychologist remarked that she was EXTREMELY strong-willed. That said, I empathize with you and want to encourage you in consistency and saying what you mean/meaning what you say over 100s and even 1000s of times - it really does finally sink in. I remember thinking before I had kids that surely after you address some issue consistently that by the 5th, 6th maybe even 10th time they would get it. Then I had DD and have been humbled and amazed ever since 

Something that's been helpful for me with both my kids (DD now 4 1/2 and DS almost 2 1/2) is the "5 steps" forwarded in Crystal Lutton's book, "Biblical Parenting." If the title of that book is a put-off please know that it's not a spanking book but a "grace-based parenting" book.

They go something like this:

First, ask for the behavior to stop with a simple rationale, ie: "You need to stop yourself from walking with the scissors, it's not safe." or "You need to stop walking with the scissors, it's not safe."

If behavior continues, get the child's attention whether that means being inches from their face, tapping them on the shoulder, etc and again tell them, "You need to stop yourself from walking with the scissors. Either sit down with them or put them on the table."

Third, give the choice, "Can you stop yourself with the scissors or do you need me to help you stop?"

Fourth, if child continues, "It looks like you're having trouble stopping yourself, here let me help you" and take the scissors away.

If a fit happens move to number Five the "from the back bear hug" where you come behind the child, bear hug their arms so they can't hurt anyone or his/herselfand speak calmly into their ear - identify what you're seeing if applicable, "You look really frustrated that you had to have the scissors taken away" and hold them until they calm down.

This has been really helpful for us the last four months or so. That said, I'm not forwarding that this is a cure-all. I began to realize that anyone who told me to "just do this..." probably had a more compliant child than I did  Also praying for your kid regularly helps too. However you feel inclined to. I made a prayer card for my kids and wrote on it the characteristics that I see as specially them, the things that I hope for them and a scripture that I felt was meaningful and particular for each of them and I pray over them using that card almost every day. You could adapt that for your own belief system - I think it helps me remember the things that are really remarkable about them and view them through that lens a little more readily. Again, no panacea here but just a few things that have been helpful from a mom who has definitely thought at times that I wouldn't make it to the teenage years because the toddler/preschooler years were going to kill me 

You're doing a good job, keep it up!!


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHusband*
> 
> If this is not a forum where all ideas may be discussed based on their merit, then it is not a forum at all. I have been respectful and helpful. If I am incorrect, please point out where, rather than simply say "you can't say that here." Unless something is defamatory, obscene, or degrading, it ought not be banned from a public forum. Simple saying that it is unacceptable to post something because you disagree with it is absurd.


what you are saying is defamatory, obscene and degrading to children, TheHusband. They are people too.


----------



## TheHusband (Mar 17, 2011)

"what you are saying is defamatory, obscene and degrading to children, TheHusband. They are people too."

I can't think of a more ridiculous thing to say. Of course children are people too. They simply must be trained so that they don't grow up as "feral children," as the article I linked discussed. You almost certainly didn't bother to read it. If you had, it might have been a real eye-opener.

What I posted was not defamatory, obscene, or degrading. It is a form of child-rearing that has worked, and worked well, for millennia. Western society was very civil until people decided that it was unacceptable to punish children. Since that notion has become widespread, juvenile delinquence has skyrocketed, as has crime in general. I posted what I did because I believed that it would help the OP. If the forum refuses to accept an answer that history has proven to be the correct one, I am wasting my time.

One further comment to the "afraid of you" parent. If you discipline your child angrily, with or without a physical punishment, that can lead them to fear you. You must always discipline your child in such a way that it isn't venting or out of spite. They need to know that you love them, and that you are helping them. They won't like it, but you will not create fear, distrust, or any of the other negative emotions that would certainly be unhelpful.


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

A) That's wasn't an article. It's an editorial. And yes, I read the whole thing.

B) Not physically punishing children is not the same as not disciplining them/teaching them appropriate behavior/guiding them. It definitely doesn't mean that they will grow up to be bullies and vandalize property.

C) It's definitely possible to help toddlers learn appropriate behavior without hitting them. Thousands of toddler teachers do it every day.


----------



## TheHusband (Mar 17, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Polliwog*
> 
> A) That's wasn't an article. It's an editorial. And yes, I read the whole thing.
> B) Not physically punishing children is not the same as not disciplining them/teaching them appropriate behavior/guiding them. It definitely doesn't mean that they will grow up to be bullies and vandalize property.
> C) It's definitely possible to help toddlers learn appropriate behavior without hitting them. Thousands of toddler teachers do it every day.


Thank you for being willing to engage in a rational discussion. I appreciate it a lot. I also appreciate that you were willing to read the editorial (yes, it is, but most people don't deal in those kind of specificities.) Too many people aren't willing to even discuss a viewpoint different from their own.

It is certainly true that there are means to train children without the use of corporal punishment. It is my belief that in many cases these means are inferior in their effectiveness to corporal punishment, but in others they are more effective. For example, yesterday my son was not playing nicely. Putting him on a bench in a corner where he was not allowed to play at all was quite effective at removing his incentive to brutalize his sister. It was a much more unpleasant experience than any reasonable corporal punishment could have been. On the other hand, he's much older. He's over 3 1/2, and very verbal. That might be completely ineffective on a rebellious 2 1/2 year old who probably wouldn't even sit for it without being strapped down, and wouldn't necessarily associate the actions anyway. Simply taking his hand off the knobs will likely lead to a game of touch-and-remove that could go on for hours and might actually make disobedience fun. Slapping the fingers that grabbed the knob you JUST told him not to touch establishes clear cause-and-effect, which is crucial at that age. It also establishes that touching those knobs will be unpleasant, something you definitely want him to know, since it is a safety issue.

I really fail to understand how practices that were standard in child-rearing for millennia with good results have become so taboo. You'd think people would stick with what worked in the past, though it seems that increasingly that is something people deliberately avoid.....


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

I think that most people are able to distinguish between an editorial (i.e. someone's opinion) and a news article which is made up of facts that can be backed up.

Redirecting a young child to another activity when he wasn't playing nicely, would likely solve the problem as well. Without resorting to holding him down or hitting. I'm a foster parent and I have been a teacher of children from toddler years to elementary school. I've never been allowed to hit, or restrain, children in those situations and I'm perfectly able to teach children appropriate behavior.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I question whether these techniques worked so well. So many people are in counselling or on medication for some problem or another, lots of people don't have good relationships with their parents, and as the OP said lots of people are in prison, and I'm sure I've read studies have shown that most of the people in prison were in families where there was physical discipline used. Where did I read that? Maybe someone else here read it as well and will remember.


----------



## reezley (May 27, 2006)

To the OP - in your situation I would pick up the child and seriously-but-good-naturedly move him to the other room, while explaining "that's dangerous, only Mommy touches the stove." This is a safety issue (the stove theoretically could be hot, too), so I think physically removing him is necessary if he doesn't back away himself. Then keep child in other room with a distraction. Repeat if necessary. Get a cover for the stove knobs, if possible, too. Yes, he is testing the rule. And he will see you are serious about the rule.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHusband*
> 
> Slapping the fingers that grabbed the knob you JUST told him not to touch establishes clear cause-and-effect, which is crucial at that age. It also establishes that touching those knobs will be unpleasant, something you definitely want him to know, since it is a safety issue.


That is not "gentle discipline". And, what, then, if your 3.5 year old slaps then next 2.5 year old he is playing with when he is not happy with what the toddler is doing? Do you consider that the right thing for the child to do? Will you proudly say, "yes, wow, thank you for slapping that toddler and handling that like such a grown-up kid!" Really??


----------



## TheHusband (Mar 17, 2011)

"most of the people in prison were in families where there was physical discipline used." Well, I think that depends on how you define it. If you define it as dad beating you black and blue because you looked at him funny, then yes, that might be true.

You see, the knife does cut both ways. I fully understand that it is possible to be highly abusive to a child and call it "discipline," when it is nothing of the sort. Discipline has at its heart the well-being of the child, not the selfish revenge of the parent. It looks to make the child more aware of how it should behave, and motivate the child to do so. I do believe that in certain situations, corporal punishment can be an important part of that. It is also essential that the child receive expressions of your sincere love and devotion to them, that when they are disciplined, they know that it is because you care about them, and not because you're taking out your frustrations on their seat.

I think you'll find that in at least most situations where "physical discipline" was used with an undesirable outcome it was either practiced in an abusive manner, either through physical severity or an emotionally abusive (screamy) home context, or done in an environment where the parent was emotionally detached. In either case, the child didn't feel loved in the first place, and that led them to resent the "discipline" that they often correctly perceived was being motivated by base emotions. The actual means of discipline likely had nothing to do with it. It would be possible to never strike a child in any way and achieve the exact same result by simply emotionally neglecting or abusing them.


----------



## wytchywoman (Nov 14, 2006)

There is a difference, Husband, between punishment and discipline. One is effective, the other is not, and discipline does not have to involve physical punishment at all in order to work. As for saying the word "no", I don't think anyone advised her not to use that word. What we did all recommend is to structure her environment and the child's schedule as to minimize the frequency of rebellious opportunities. Butting heads with a child consumes time and energy. Sometimes it is necessary, many times it is not. Every parent has to pick their battles, and it's not particularly appropriate to chastise parents who choose to not fight battles that are preventable.
Like it or not, Mothering.com is a website that promotes natural parenting options, including gentle parenting. As one of our moderators already pointed out, there is no shortage of websites that will gladly host the debate you are seeking. So why here?


----------



## dovey (May 23, 2005)

Yes, it would be possible to never strike a child and still abuse him/her. But that does not imply that striking a child is a good form of discipline.

There is a large body of research showing that children who were spanked are more likely to be violent, have sexual issues, be abusive to their own children, and be in prison, than their peers who were not spanked. Read the evidence. I challenge you to find credible research which shows that corporal punishment is not harmful.

As you said, TheHusband, it is possible to discipline effectively without hitting. Why not do it this way, even if it is different than the way our parents did it? Why not pay attention to the research that shows gentle discipline to be better for our children, both now and when they are adults? As far as I can see, there is no good reason for corporal punishment.


----------



## HeliMom (Jan 14, 2010)

The Husband, I'm confused as to why you believe that no one advocated for discipline or saying "no". My post which was posted before your first one in this thread, clearly stated that I don't budge on safety issues and when I have to say "no" on non safety issues I mean it and stick to it. I do not hit my kids and I expect a great deal from them. I am determined to help my children learn self restraint, and how to respect others. I want my children to do the right thing because it's right, not because something bad might happen to them if they don't. I also want them to have the strength of character to stand up for what's right even if they will be punished. This is why I do not believe in "the carrot and the stick" style of parenting.

I can tell from your posts you are interested in being a good parent and dedicated to raising good members of society. I am too. If you believe you can discipline a child while respecting and loving that child, with or without hitting them, why would you choose to hit them? You also acknowledge that physical discipline doesn't work on older children. Why do you think that is? I know why I think it doesn't work.

I also encourage you to reconsider the history of the western society. Children were disciplined with corporal punishment in much of industrialized society, and there were still genocides, wars, murders, rapes, lawlessness.

I believe hitting those weaker than yourself is abusive. I also believe there are lots of parents who hit their kids, who love them and who really just want what is best for their kids. I believe if those parents could learn how to be effective without resorting to abusive actions, they would stop.

I can tell from your posts you realize that hitting a child in and of itself does nothing for help a child learn. You know that you have to get more involved if you want them to learn right from wrong. I hope that if you read more on gentle discipline you can learn that the same is true for not hitting a child. The key, here, is getting more involved. I hope that if you do learn that, you will choose not to hit children.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

The Husband: There are decades of research showing that corporal punishment is associated with higher levels of immediate compliance, higher levels of aggression, lower levels of moral internalization and worse mental health. In other words, they learn to stop, but only because they don't want to get caught, not because they understand why it's wrong. In addition, spanking can lead to anti-social behavior, and it teaches children it's acceptable to inflict pain on others, including a selection of articles in peer-reviewed journals that I give below.

To this I will add: our children were not spanked. They received firm boundaries. They are well-behaved, polite children (according to their teachers and the parents of their friends) and they do what I ask of them about 95-98% of the time. And they do what I ask not because they are afraid, but because they understand what the right thing to do is. (And the times of disobedience are usually due to hunger, tiredness or stress.) They're also highly empathetic and caring children. I have no idea if your method of discipline achieves the same thing, but I do know that great kids can be raised without hitting them.

Gershoff, Elizabeth Thompson (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin. Vol 128(4) Jul 2002, 539-579.
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child's internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4-19.
McCord, J. (1991). Questioning the value of punishment. Social Problems, 38, 167-179.
Straus, A., Sugarman, D., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761-767.
Patterson, G. R., & Narrett, C. M. (1990). The development of a reliable and valid treatment program for aggressive young children. International Journal of Mental Health, 19, 19-26.
Strassberg, Z., Dogde, K. A, Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Spanking in the home and children's subsequent aggression toward kindergarten peers. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 445-46 l.
Graziano, A. M., & Namaste, K. A., (1990). Parental use of physical force in child discipline. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 449-463.
Rodriquez, C. M., & Sutherland, D. (1999). Predictors of parents' physical disciplinary practices. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 651-657.
Straus, M. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment by parents and its effects on children. Boston: Lexington/Macmillian.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

OP:
One thing that strikes me in your post is that you're phrasing things in the negative: "Don't touch that". That phrasing is (a) an invitation to a power struggle and (b) doesn't tell him what he should do. Much more effective would be: "Put your hands at your sides" or "come sit on this chair." By age 2, I'd 'trained' my kids to go sit on the bottom step of the staircase right next to the kitchen whenever I opened the oven. We have a small, galley kitchen and there's no way that they'd have been safe when I opened the oven. From that vantage point, they could see what I was doing, but be safe. I repeatedly said "hot" when I opened it, so they got it.

So instead of touching the stove buttons, what do you want him to do?

Something else that worked with my kids was the 'one finger touch'. If they wanted to touch something that was breakable, I'd hold them and let them touch with one finger. That allowed them to explore it physically like they needed to, but they weren't in danger of breaking it. They also got the curiosity out because they'd touched, so I didn't have to worry as much about them going back repeatedly. They were both able to learn the one finger touch by 18-20 months, if I remember.

In terms of general tips, here's my short list of good ways to deal with a toddler:
1. Create a positive environment -- make it possible for your child to explore (or as others have said: block off the stove until he's old enough to understand).
2. Fill your child's need for attention in positive ways -- the more they get positive attention, the less they need to act out to get attention. Easy concept, not always so easy to implement.
3. Tell them what to do, not what not to do. (see above)
4. Remember where they are in development -- 2 1/2 year olds don't have impulse control -- once they've started it's nearly impossible for them to stop. They're physical learners. He's not being willfully defiant, he's being 2.
5. Decide if the behavior needs correction/stopping -- sometimes you can let things go (I've let rollerblading in the house and riding down the stairs on an air mattress go). Clearly playing with the stove must be stopped.
6. Find a safe way for them to do what they're trying to do ('honor the impulse') -- get him a toy stove with buttons that move? Hold him and let him do the one finger touch on the buttons?
7. Gently help them comply/physically show them what you mean -- give him one chance to follow your verbal directions: Stop, put your hands down. But don't be surprised if that doesn't work, because he's still a physical learning. So, gently take his hands and lead him somewhere else "it looks like you couldn't stop, let's go over here and see the potatoes." (don't give him 3 chances or he'll learn that he doesn't have to listen to the first 2!)
8. Explain/warn of the consequences (keep them logically related) -- "oh it looks like you can't stop. You're going to have to stay out of the kitchen until you can be safe."
9. Calmly enforce the consequences -- this is the hard one. When teaching my kids to stay on the sidewalk (i.e. not go in the street), we had to come in once or twice for each child. It's heart rending to have your child scream that they want to go outside while you're hauling them in. But safety needed to prevail. And they learned quickly because they wanted to be outside. Your son wants to be near you. He'll learn quickly that to stay with you in the kitchen, he's got to be safe.


----------



## pranava (Aug 11, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHusband*
> 
> 4. Don't be afraid to deal swift and meaningful punishment. In the case of the stove knob grab, he needed to have his fingers slapped. He knew full well that he was asking for trouble, and you MUST give it to him.


Most of your post I agree with. Kids need limits and as a parent, you should mean what you say and follow through. But I will not slap him. I think that posters in the gentle discipline forum are looking for more gentle and creative ways to enforce these limits.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHusband*
> 
> 4. Don't be afraid to deal swift and meaningful punishment. In the case of the stove knob grab, *he needed to have his fingers slapped.* He knew full well that he was asking for trouble, and you MUST give it to him. As unpleasant as it seems, the most loving thing you can do for your children is to establish at an early age that disobedience has consequences, and a 2 1/2 year old isn't going to really grasp any other kind of punishment. They won't feel abused; they'll feel punished. Sure, they'll fuss and pout sometimes, but unless you do it angrily, they won't doubt your love for a split second. They will simply learn that you are an authority in their life.


this is extremely stupid advice and it's against MDC policy. please go away.


----------



## Friday13th (Jun 13, 2006)

In the example the OP gave, I would say "the stove is dangerous, you can touch the tupperware, fridge magnets, a pot, etc, whatever distracting alternative you'd like" If he went for the stove again I'd remove him from the kitchen and shut the gate. "You're not being safe, you need to wait out here while I finish up"
I do believe it's important to set consistant, age-appropriate and logical boundaries. I wouldn't expect a 2.5 year old to be able to resist the temptation of stove knobs and in a situation like that where the natural consequence would be unacceptable (fire? burns?) I'd impose a reasonable one, being removed from the space. I do not think slapping hands teaches anything except Mommy hurts me.


----------



## Xerxella (Feb 6, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> this is extremely stupid advice and it's against MDC policy. please go away.


Thanks Hildare. I was looking for a way to say this, but you said it best.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

To answer the OP's original question...

we've never had an issue (at this point) with our dd testing boundaries for things that are "hot," as I tried really hard to teach her what that means.

so if we say something is dangerous, we don't tend to get the staredown showdown. we don't say that often.

i've gotten advice-- here!-- to keep the sentences short and to the point for that kind of stuff. as in.. "that's danger. don't touch that please."

and then in the face of a showdown, i would do like pp's suggested, and say.. if you cannot listen, you have to leave until you can be safe.

then i would follow up, immediately, and remove or distract the kid into another room.

not to say this is you, OP, but i do find that about things that aren't necessarily dangerous (added to the fact that i'm kind of largely pg and don't like to get up off the couch when i get home to run across the room to reinforce everything i say or reinforce boundaries) and about which i don't CONSISTENTLY reinforce (like jumping off the couch) then that's where i get the challenges... the things about which i immediately stop or remind or reinforce don't seem to get challenged as much.

perhaps they sense how truly weary we are...

but that's easier said than done. playful responses work pretty well...

but i, too, am not always in the mood. i guess i am a crankypants.

oh... and... do you happen to have the kind of stove where the knobs pop off for cleaning? if it's truly an issue, that might work.

LynnS6 has better ideas than what i can usually manage. i like the 1 finger touch idea there.


----------



## TheHusband (Mar 17, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeliMom*
> 
> I want my children to do the right thing because it's right, not because something bad might happen to them if they don't.


Yes, that is the goal, but unfortunately, that is not possible with very small children. They don't understand beyond the basic cause and effect relationship, hence if you rule out some mild corporal punishment you will end up with some major tug of war situations. There is no reason to fight over things constantly. Just get it over with. The 2s are only as terrible as you allow them to be.

Also, LynnS6 said, "In other words, they learn to stop, but only because they don't want to get caught, not because they understand why it's wrong." That's true, but at certain stages of development it's the best you can do. Once they get a little older, if they don't understand that and why it's wrong, you haven't done your job as a parent. However, no 2 1/2 year old is capable of that. It has always been understood that there are two types of obedience: obedience from fear of consequences, and obedience from desire to do right. As a child develops, they will progress from the one to the other naturally if their parents are teaching them properly.

HeliMom I think made the most thoughtful analysis of my OP, and indeed made me scratch my head a bit. "If you believe you can discipline a child while respecting and loving that child, with or without hitting them, why would you choose to hit them?" It's a question that certainly does beg an answer. First of all, I think that it is silly and disingenuous to keep using the word "hit" and other variants. "Hit" is something that is done with a fist or weapon so as to maximize injury. Corporal punishment is something that is done to cause discomfort without any possibility of actual injury. I refuse to take it off the table because I believe that there are certain situations with certain children wherein nothing else will work to establish the necessity of obedience. Certain very young children do not understand or do not care if your rules have good reasons; they are going to break them until you give them sufficient reason not to break them. I furthermore reject utterly the notion that corporal punishment, properly executed, is in any way damaging to a child's psyche or abusive. I never felt abused by my parents when I received corporal punishment (but boy did I go out of my way to avoid it!)

It is true that crime has always existed, but is it not also true that it is certainly more abundant now than it has ever been before? I blame many things for this, but the lack of good homes in which children are trained and disciplined to be good citizens is certainly one of the ones I consider most blamable.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

It's absolutely incorrect that crime levels are higher today than in the past.

Have you looked at any of the studies linked by Lynn? Those aren't opinion pieces. You might also look at the article linked below, which addresses each of your assertions.

http://www.nospank.net/johnson2.htm

This is a gentle discipline burg on the interwebz. I can think of other, less polite comparisons, but advocating physical discipline here is like going to a forum devoted to dogs as pets and wanting to discuss the superior benefits of cat ownership.

http://www.mothering.com/community/a/gentle-discipline-forum-guidelines


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

Again, I have gently guided many, many, young children (both foster children, children in my own classroom, and those in classrooms that I've supervised/mentored/etc. I've never needed to hit anyone. And yes, hit is the right term. Redirection works really well with young children.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

We have all managed to parent our toddlers without hitting them, and most of us are further down the parenting road than you are, so you telling us it is "necessary" to use physical punishment to force obedience is condescending. I wish you'd stop with the tone of misplaced authority.


----------



## TheHusband (Mar 17, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joensally*
> 
> It's absolutely incorrect that crime levels are higher today than in the past.


I am wasting my time with people who refuse to see the obvious. Crime may be lower today than it was 3 years ago, but it is certainly MUCH higher than it was 50-100 years ago. The entire attitude of society is different, but the truth is, most people don't think about or study how things were outside of their lifetimes. Your nospank.net article is incredibly biased (as I would expect it to be on a site with a preconceived notion in its domain name) and rather logically dubious as well. It sounds like someone grasping at straws to try to avoid accepting something they are emotionally unable to accept.

Lynn did not "link" any studies that I can find. She made a list of books, and how would I have bought them on Sunday night? If I had ordered them when she posted I might receive them tomorrow. I couldn't possibly have read them all by now anyway.

I have tried to point out the truth in a polite and respectful way, and I have received little but rude remarks for suggesting an option that is time-tested and effective in most cases, but which has recently become unpopular because of a few shrieking "Chicken Little" psychologists, most of whom have no children, I'd wager. A few of you have politely engaged me, and I appreciate that. I wish you all the best.

I am going away. I will not reply to this topic any more. I have better things to do than argue with ideologues.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHusband*
> 
> I am wasting my time with people who refuse to see the obvious. Crime may be lower today than it was 3 years ago, but it is certainly MUCH higher than it was 50-100 years ago. The entire attitude of society is different, but the truth is, most people don't think about or study how things were outside of their lifetimes. Your nospank.net article is incredibly biased (as I would expect it to be on a site with a preconceived notion in its domain name) and rather logically dubious as well. It sounds like someone grasping at straws to try to avoid accepting something they are emotionally unable to accept.
> 
> ...


It's interesting how insulting you've become.

Lynn linked journal articles. Crime rates can easily be found, like journal articles, through google. They are the same as they were 40 years ago, and historically western socieities have been very violent. You linked one editorial, opinion piece and made various "common sense" assertions and believe that your conclusions should trump those of others here. I was lazy and simply linked a site where someone broke down some of the research rather than take this on point by point myself, and you're right, my link was roughly equivalent to an editorial in a newspaper in terms of argumentative weight. If you did some research, you would find that it's not a "few shrieking Chicken Little psychologists" that are asserting the harm of spanking. The jury is still out in terms of a definitive, widely adopted standard. The Academy of Pediatrics comes down against spanking, although there is internal debate there. And on this website, people have felt compelled to adopt non-spanking/slapping discipline approaches because of a moral POV or out of their reading of the ample, but often convoluted research on the topic, or their own "common sense."

I totally get that kids today seem lost and out of control, and I understand drawing the conclusion that a lack of spanking is the cause. But lots of parents spank, and it appears to be the norm - so how certain can one be that it's the kids who weren't spanked that are getting into trouble?


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

don't feed the trolllllllll..........


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Yeah, I know. Too bad impulse control wasn't smacked into me.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

TheHusband, you have been asked twice to refrain from posting regarding physical punishment, and to refer to our Web Statement of Purpose. You have refused to do either, and have blatantly ignored the request of the administrator. This forum does not seem to be a good fit for you. I am closing your account.


----------



## GoodFather (Oct 5, 2011)

Children learn by moving away from pressure. This means some form of pressure or discipline needs to be applied when bad actions that put anyone in danger occurs. The purpose of discipline is to help the child develop coping skills. The most effective and widely used (also on the Nanny show) is a time out, and use a space or spot dedicated for this purpose (not their room). The time for time out is about 1 minute per years in age, so a 1 year old is 1 minute, a 2 year old is 2 minutes, etc. If in a store, you can simply tell the child to stop, and if they don't they won't be able to come next time. If they still do not follow directions, don't lose your cool, I have never had that fail. But I was told if that didn't work, to make up a time I leave the house and discipline by saying, you can not go this time because you didn't follow the directions last time. This will cause the child to learn coping skills on how to follow directions. If a child throws a tantrum I ignore it, let them cry, but I give no attention to it, because this causes them to then learn to seek negative attention. Which is really what you need to be cautious about. Children that seek negative attention, suffer much in this life, and it's all because the parents enabled them, it's called codependence. Good luck to you.


----------



## AbbaBabba (Oct 5, 2011)

Quite easy.

Quickly and forcefully take both his hands away from the burners. You don't have to slap his hands (probably) at this stage, I think, but when you take his hands away, do it in such a way that he does not like it. Do NOT be "nice". This is danger, this is life and death here. This is not a game, and it is not time to be "nice". He has done a double "sin" - touching the burners and defying your instruction.

Repeat and say very clearly and in an unpleasant tone "Do NOT touch the burners, Mister!" You might add a threat to that, but if you have taken his hands away forcefully enough and made your displeasure emminently clear (kids do NOT like disapproval), then that should be enough.

One of the tasks of parents is to teach kids right from wrong, and to protect them, even from themselves sometimes.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

As much as vehemently oppose corporal punishment, I very much agree with the below quote. When parents don't say No to their children, or at least set firm boundaries that when crossed will have consequences, the children do NOT benefit, and learn that the world exists to make them happy (my ex is one of those people - he is the WORST co-parent, its horrible and very difficult for my son to go back and forth between a home where there are boundaries, and one where the adults would quite literally stand on their head or do jumping jacks if it would only make the tantrum stop)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHusband*
> 
> Wow. I am absolutely astonished by the fact that no one has stated the obvious here: be the parent! So many parents are so worried about being their little darling's friend that they forget to be the parent. It's OK to say no. It is necessary to say no. Let me take that one step further: you will probably ruin your child's life if you DON'T say no!


As for dangerous stuff, like the stove nobs, I used babyproofing. There are nob covers that I purchased at either BRU, or Target, and those were lifesavers early on. Then, whenever I was cooking and didn't have anyone to help me keep the munchkin out of the kitchen, he had one chance - the second he started trying to touch knobs, the stove, the oven door, he went in his pack n play until I was done cooking. That may seem harsh, but I'm a single mom, and if I can't cook so that we can eat, then he needs to be somewhere safe. I always gave him some of his favorite toys and books so that he could entertain himself, and we lived in a tiny one bedroom apartment so he could see me from where the pack n play was. It kept him safe, and saved my sanity.

Even now, even though he's pretty good at following directions, I won't open the oven unless he's in another room or being watched by someone. It makes me incredibly nervous (I know someone whose son put his hands on the oven door when it was hot and open - he's OK, but he easily could have lost use of both his hands), and I'm not willing to take the chance.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I've had to put a little one in a pack-and-play or high chair for a bit while cooking before too. Safety is more important than free movement, and I can't use the broiler while a toddler is wandering around.

I agree parents need to set boundaries, but I completely disagree with the need for obedience at the level he was talking about or the need to get physical to achieve it. Punishment often seems like an add-on to me, and particularly with safety issues. Kid tries to run into the road? You'll have to keep the kid inside when you can't keep really close track of them and make them hold your hand by the road regardless. To spank them in addition to that doesn't really seem to accomplish anything, because it doesn't mean you can then let them wander by the road. Slapping the hand by the stove is the same. You still have to either baby proof better, put them in the pack and play when cooking, or otherwise supervise better. You can't smack their hand and then let them wander around a hot cooktop. All kids get to an age where they understand the concept of heat and stoves and streets and cars and safety regardless of whether they're hit over it. It really seems like an unnecessary additional step that does nothing but make the parent feel like they're doing something.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> I've had to put a little one in a pack-and-play or high chair for a bit while cooking before too. Safety is more important than free movement, and I can't use the broiler while a toddler is wandering around.
> I agree parents need to set boundaries, but I completely disagree with the need for obedience at the level he was talking about or the need to get physical to achieve it. Punishment often seems like an add-on to me, and particularly with safety issues. Kid tries to run into the road? You'll have to keep the kid inside when you can't keep really close track of them and make them hold your hand by the road regardless. To spank them in addition to that doesn't really seem to accomplish anything, because it doesn't mean you can then let them wander by the road. Slapping the hand by the stove is the same. You still have to either baby proof better, put them in the pack and play when cooking, or otherwise supervise better. You can't smack their hand and then let them wander around a hot cooktop. All kids get to an age where they understand the concept of heat and stoves and streets and cars and safety regardless of whether they're hit over it. It really seems like an unnecessary additional step that does nothing but make the parent feel like they're doing something.


I couldn't agree more. We have rules that deal with safety issues (hand holding on the sidewalk is absolutely 100% necessary and required, baby needs to be in another room while the oven is open, carseat is required in the car, etc), and my son knows the rules, and I think mostly understands them. He may not fully understand why they are there, but I think most children of different ages don't understand their parents rules. Corporal punishment has no place in a parent/child dispute, or misunderstanding, at any age. I will admit though that I am far from perfect, and when my ds was about to reach up and touch the hot pot on the stove I panicked and smacked his hands so that he wouldn't succeed in touching it. It's an unfortunate reality that I just wasn't thinking super clearly b/c I didn't want him to touch the pot full of boiling water (my pots are low quality, he would have been seriously burned).

For example, I'm currently living with my aunt and uncle, and my cousin just turned 16. She's furious with her parents for not letting her drive to school when she gets her license (she'll get it once she finished drivers ed). Now, as a parent myself I can see and understand the very good reasons they have (don't want her driving in the dark, in the winter when roads are icy, she's inexperienced, where will she park, etc), but she see's her friends driving to school and wants to have the same privileges. They have explained their reasoning, but she doesn't like it. Thats OK, she doesn't have to like it, she just has to understand that those are the rules. It's not like they make her walk the 5 miles to school, she gets a ride every morning from my aunt, or she could take the bus. Corporal punishment obviously has no place in this dispute between parent and child, than it does in any other situation.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> When parents don't say No to their children, or at least set firm boundaries that when crossed will have consequences, the children do NOT benefit, and learn that the world exists to make them happy


No one said we must teach children that the world exists to make them happy.

EVERYONE mentioned setting and /or imposing boundaries.

I just see the word No as being quite meaningless to a 2 y/o. I never said give in. Just redirect, distract, until they are able to understand. I would never let my 2 y/o play with the stove knobs, but why would I complicate my life by engaging in a power struggle with her, instead of redirecting? She will end up by understanding that the stove is not a toy when she is older. My 6 y/o gets it, no problem. He just started learning to cook and is very careful around the stove. I never had to slap his fingers, put him in time out, I just had to be creative and patient.

I chose discipline over punishment.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *transylvania_mom*
> 
> No one said we must teach children that the world exists to make them happy.
> 
> ...


The whole re-directing thing doesn't work for my 2yo. He's stubborn as can be, and when he sets his mind to wanting to do something, he does it or its as though the sky is falling. He's also incredibly verbal (he talks better than most 4yo's I know), and does understand the word No. I've tried re-directing, I've tried being creative - but I don't have tons of time to make dinner. I work full time, and I'm a single mom. So when we get home I have to start dinner right away, and if I'm chopping veggies while he's playing with the stove nobs, yes, sometimes I have to tell him NO and kick him out of the kitchen, b/c dinner has to get done and there isn't tons of time to be creative and patient with a 2yo who's hungry from a long day.

And like I said, the word No is not meaningless to all 2yo's - sometimes they understand what it means, but don't have the impulse control to follow directions.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Putting a child in a pack-and-play or high chair so they don't get burned isn't punishment. If I'm cooking in the broiler, I simply can't keep close enough track of my 2-year-old to keep her from getting burned. I don't punish her over it, but I do put her in her high chair so she can't run around the kitchen and get burned.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Welcome to MDC GoodFather and AbbaBabba! I hope you will take the time to read the forum guidelines, as well as our Web Statement of Purpose. Enjoy your time here!


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> Putting a child in a pack-and-play or high chair so they don't get burned isn't punishment. If I'm cooking in the broiler, I simply can't keep close enough track of my 2-year-old to keep her from getting burned. I don't punish her over it, but I do put her in her high chair so she can't run around the kitchen and get burned.


Seriously, there isn't enough re-direction in the world to ensure that a 2yo would be safe when the broiler is in use (unless there can be another adult with the toddler outside the kitchen, with the kitchen completely blocked off).


----------



## pranava (Aug 11, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> The whole re-directing thing doesn't work for my 2yo. He's stubborn as can be, and when he sets his mind to wanting to do something, he does it or its as though the sky is falling. He's also incredibly verbal (he talks better than most 4yo's I know), and does understand the word No. I've tried re-directing, I've tried being creative - but I don't have tons of time to make dinner. I work full time, and I'm a single mom. So when we get home I have to start dinner right away, and if I'm chopping veggies while he's playing with the stove nobs, yes, sometimes I have to tell him NO and kick him out of the kitchen, b/c dinner has to get done and there isn't tons of time to be creative and patient with a 2yo who's hungry from a long day.
> 
> And like I said, the word No is not meaningless to all 2yo's - sometimes they understand what it means, but don't have the impulse control to follow directions.


OP here! Ditto this above exactly for my DS. Clearly understands no, talks like a 4 year old, re-direction is futile, can follow complicated directions, but still lacks impulse control. This is the kid who if I give him option A or option B will choose option 3 for the fun of it. The example I used of the stove was just one example, and I wasn't even cooking at the time. He was playing with the knobs because he was interested and they are fun to play with. When I told him "No", he grabbed hold with all of his might with a look that said "Don't tell me what to do!" If I had told him the stove was hot he would have said, "But it's not on right now Mommy" He's already an expert arguer. What I'm dealing with is Mr. INDEPENDENT!!! This trait will serve him well in adulthood, but it is exhausting to deal with in a toddler. I feel sorry for my poor Mom, because I was the same way.

Thanks for all the advice! It seems the common thread is - remain calm, repeat the rules, remove the child from the object, or remove the privilege from the child (as in, no playing outside if you can't stay out of the road)


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pranava*
> 
> OP here! Ditto this above exactly for my DS. Clearly understands no, talks like a 4 year old, re-direction is futile, can follow complicated directions, but still lacks impulse control. This is the kid who if I give him option A or option B will choose option 3 for the fun of it. The example I used of the stove was just one example, and I wasn't even cooking at the time. He was playing with the knobs because he was interested and they are fun to play with. When I told him "No", he grabbed hold with all of his might with a look that said "Don't tell me what to do!" If I had told him the stove was hot he would have said, "But it's not on right now Mommy" He's already an expert arguer. What I'm dealing with is Mr. INDEPENDENT!!! This trait will serve him well in adulthood, but it is exhausting to deal with in a toddler. I feel sorry for my poor Mom, because I was the same way.
> 
> Thanks for all the advice! It seems the common thread is - remain calm, repeat the rules, remove the child from the object, or remove the privilege from the child (as in, no playing outside if you can't stay out of the road)


WOW! I think we have the same child! There was one time a few weeks ago when ds was jumping on the bed. I told him that jumping on the bed was against the rules, and took him off the bed. He said, "I'm not jumping, I'm hopping!" Umm....All I could do was laugh - it appears that I'm raising a lawyer! (I was also exactly the same as a small child - apparently having children comes with payback!)

As for choices, I have stopped giving choices to my ds. It just doesn't work, as he does the EXACT same thing your ds does. My ds also would have said the same thing about the stove not being on (although after LOTS of practice, and LOTS of being very firm on the rules he no longer touches the oven/stove or goes near it - that is my hill to die on though, and I have never allowed him near it).


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> The whole re-directing thing doesn't work for my 2yo. He's stubborn as can be, and when he sets his mind to wanting to do something, he does it or its as though the sky is falling. He's also incredibly verbal (he talks better than most 4yo's I know), and does understand the word No. I've tried re-directing, I've tried being creative - but I don't have tons of time to make dinner. I work full time, and I'm a single mom. So when we get home I have to start dinner right away, and if I'm chopping veggies while he's playing with the stove nobs, yes, sometimes I have to tell him NO and kick him out of the kitchen, b/c dinner has to get done and there isn't tons of time to be creative and *patient with a 2yo who's hungry from a long day.*
> 
> And like I said, the word No is not meaningless to all 2yo's - sometimes they understand what it means, but don't have the impulse control to follow directions.


When my kids were little, I would always bring a snack (usually fruit, maybe something with protein) for the trip home. That spared us a lot of meltdowns.

That being said, you're right, re-direction doesn't always with some kids. It worked great with one of ours, not at all with the other. And by age 3, they were both able to spot redirection a mile off. They quit responding to contrived choices by 2 1/2 -- "do you want your water in the red cup or blue one?" "I want JUICE and I don't care what cup!"

Just remember that (a) it takes 2 to argue (i.e. if you don't, there's no argument), (b) no matter how verbal they are, they're still 2. They're still very phyiscal learners. Gently helping them comply and physically moving them might be what's needed. I know that some parents on MDC are very concerned about letting their children have autonomy over their bodies. While I agree, I disagree for safety issues. At 2, they just can't see the consequences.

Quote:


> When I told him "No", he grabbed hold with all of his might with a look that said "Don't tell me what to do!" If I had told him the stove was hot he would have said, "But it's not on right now Mommy" He's already an expert arguer. What I'm dealing with is Mr. INDEPENDENT!!! This trait will serve him well in adulthood, but it is exhausting to deal with in a toddler.


Two thoughts here, one is that if he's got this personality, you really need to try as hard as you can to phrase things positively. "No, put your hands down" (if you can't help the 'no' because it's dangerous). The other thing my stubborn kids respond well to is me asking them what the rule was. If they could tell me, they were happy.


----------



## pranava (Aug 11, 2007)

> The other thing my stubborn kids respond well to is me asking them what the rule was. If they could tell me, they were happy.


Great idea!! This sounds like it could work very well with my kid's personality. Almost like, stating the rule makes it his idea.

Oh, and about not seeing the consequences - so true! He has touched a hot pot on the stove and slightly burned his finger tip. My mistake, I shouldn't have let him get that close. From this experience, he did not learn to stay away from the stove.

ETA: In the context of the previous spanking/smaking debate, if burning didn't teach him, neither would spanking/smaking. It should be obvious from this what a useless teaching tool spanking/smaking is.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LynnS6*
> 
> When my kids were little, I would always bring a snack (usually fruit, maybe something with protein) for the trip home. That spared us a lot of meltdowns.
> 
> ...


Yes, snacks are great, but unless I feed an entire meal on the way home, he's a mess while I make dinner. There's not much that can be done, and part of it is that he wants my full attention (which he gets during and after dinner until bedtime - but I can't focus 100% on him until after dinner is made).

As for physically moving him, that doesn't work either. Unless we go to an entirely different environment - from the kitchen to the park for example. Moving him doesn't work, b/c unless we are in a different environment, b/c he just goes right back to the kitchen. Or throws a huge fit (which are unavoidable at times, and I sympathize and then wait for it to pass).


----------



## pranava (Aug 11, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Yes, snacks are great, but unless I feed an entire meal on the way home, he's a mess while I make dinner. There's not much that can be done, and part of it is that he wants my full attention (which he gets during and after dinner until bedtime - but I can't focus 100% on him until after dinner is made).
> 
> As for physically moving him, that doesn't work either. Unless we go to an entirely different environment - from the kitchen to the park for example. Moving him doesn't work, b/c unless we are in a different environment, b/c he just goes right back to the kitchen. Or throws a huge fit (which are unavoidable at times, and I sympathize and then wait for it to pass).


Making dinner is such a hard one - I haven't got a handle on it yet either. sometimes he's cool with standing on a chair next to me with his own mixing bowl. but that also means I have to be super careful he doesn't grab a knife, crack the eggs, squish butter through his fingers. Sometimes it seems there is not enough time or attention in the world - they just NEED you! Especially when they need to eat, they need you more. But at the same time they don't realize you have to cook in order to solve the problem. Hunger and low blood sugar just send my guy off the deep end. Can't say I haven't been tempted to give up cooking entirely and just eat finger foods all day long.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

The Husband....with the exception of the slapping the child's hands, I think I understand where you're coming from and I agree with your main theme here. Consistency and discipline, namely. Gentle discipline doesn't mean no discipline. I just think we cross the line when we strike the child, as a rule. But otherwise, I do get what you're saying. Really.


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cynthia Mosher*
> 
> TheHusband - welcome to Mothering.
> 
> ...


So any kind of punishment is out? I re-read the forum guidelines just now (and I've read them before), and I thought that the one area where the rules are black and white is re: NOT hosting discussions about physical/corrporal punishments; not punishment in general. Am I wrong?


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> The whole re-directing thing doesn't work for my 2yo. He's stubborn as can be, and when he sets his mind to wanting to do something, he does it or its as though the sky is falling. He's also incredibly verbal (he talks better than most 4yo's I know), and does understand the word No. I've tried re-directing, I've tried being creative - but I don't have tons of time to make dinner. I work full time, and I'm a single mom. So when we get home I have to start dinner right away, and if I'm chopping veggies while he's playing with the stove nobs, yes, sometimes I have to tell him NO and kick him out of the kitchen, b/c dinner has to get done and there isn't tons of time to be creative and patient with a 2yo who's hungry from a long day.
> 
> And like I said, the word No is not meaningless to all 2yo's - sometimes they understand what it means, but don't have the impulse control to follow directions.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> Putting a child in a pack-and-play or high chair so they don't get burned isn't punishment. If I'm cooking in the broiler, I simply can't keep close enough track of my 2-year-old to keep her from getting burned. I don't punish her over it, but I do put her in her high chair so she can't run around the kitchen and get burned.


SSM and mamazee, don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I should have added prevention and removing the child from the situation to my list of what I used. I also used the high chair and the playpen when they were little, to keep them safe. I tell my kids NO. But I still find that with a 2 y/o saying NO gets you nowhere most of the time.

OP, I'm glad you're back. When you mentioned giving 2 choices to your ds, and him choosing a third one, it reminded me so much of my now 6 y/o.


----------



## PatioGardener (Aug 11, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pranava*
> 
> Can't say I haven't been tempted to give up cooking entirely and just eat finger foods all day long.


So glad to hear I am not the only one!


----------



## Honey693 (May 5, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> So any kind of punishment is out? I re-read the forum guidelines just now (and I've read them before), and I thought that the one area where the rules are black and white is re: NOT hosting discussions about physical/corrporal punishments; not punishment in general. Am I wrong?


I was confused about that too. I think banning discussions of non physical punishments is bad idea.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Yes, snacks are great, but unless I feed an entire meal on the way home, he's a mess while I make dinner. There's not much that can be done, and part of it is that he wants my full attention (which he gets during and after dinner until bedtime - but I can't focus 100% on him until after dinner is made).
> 
> As for physically moving him, that doesn't work either. Unless we go to an entirely different environment - from the kitchen to the park for example. Moving him doesn't work, b/c unless we are in a different environment, b/c he just goes right back to the kitchen. Or throws a huge fit (which are unavoidable at times, and I sympathize and then wait for it to pass).


Sigh -- yeah, sometimes they're aren't any easy answers. Crockpots? A trained monkey to entertain him? Duct-taping him to the floor outside the kitchen? (Somehow I don't think that one will not pass the Gentle Discipline standards!)


----------



## Callimom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pranava*
> 
> OP here! Ditto this above exactly for my DS. Clearly understands no, talks like a 4 year old, re-direction is futile, can follow complicated directions, but still lacks impulse control. This is the kid who if I give him option A or option B will choose option 3 for the fun of it. The example I used of the stove was just one example, and I wasn't even cooking at the time. He was playing with the knobs because he was interested and they are fun to play with. When I told him "No", he grabbed hold with all of his might with a look that said "Don't tell me what to do!" If I had told him the stove was hot he would have said, "But it's not on right now Mommy" He's already an expert arguer. What I'm dealing with is Mr. INDEPENDENT!!! This trait will serve him well in adulthood, but it is exhausting to deal with in a toddler. I feel sorry for my poor Mom, because I was the same way.
> 
> Thanks for all the advice! It seems the common thread is - remain calm, repeat the rules, remove the child from the object, or remove the privilege from the child (as in, no playing outside if you can't stay out of the road)


When I had toddlers (twins) I really had to shift from reactive to proactive parenting. It is absolutely exhausting - no doubt especially when you have one who is so adept at finding the limits. So if the kitchen is an issue, can you change the environment to help deal with the situation? A play kitchen for him? A wall painted in chalkboard paint so he can create? A learning tower so he can help you and be somewhat safely contained, locks or different knobs on the stove, a line taped down in the kitchen that show the no-go zone? Can you shift your life a bit and do more meal prep work at night or on the weekend so that time isn't so harried, use your crockpot etc.

If he's very verbal, can you talk to him more? Thank him for following the kitchen rules, talk about being safe, have mom jobs (touching the stove) and kid jobs (working the salad spinner?). In your kitchen example (and I know that is just one of likely many) perhaps he's trying to connect with you and have your full attention at a very challenging time in your day.

The more proactive things you can do avoid the power struggles, the easier in the long run it will be on you.

hth

Karen


----------



## Callimom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Honey693*
> 
> I was confused about that too. I think banning discussions of non physical punishments is bad idea.


There is a difference between discipline which helps the child learn to do better and punishment which often serves the parents needs, versus the childrens.


----------



## Honey693 (May 5, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Karenwith4*
> 
> There is a difference between discipline which helps the child learn to do better and punishment which often serves the parents needs, versus the childrens.


But sometimes punishment (go to your room/timeout) is going to help mommy not lose her shit when special snowflake has dumped a bag of flour on the floor in the middle of dinner prep. I firmly believe punishment can have a place in raising a child.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Karenwith4*
> 
> There is a difference between discipline which helps the child learn to do better and punishment which often serves the parents needs, versus the childrens.


Yes, I would also say there's a difference between 'consequences' and 'punishment'. Punishment is meant to "make a child pay" or as my Merriam Webster describes it: "suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution". Punishment isn't intended to teach, it's intended to get back for something done.

Consequences can help a child learn, even if they're unpleasant. Forget to empty out your lunch bag on the Friday before spring break? Guess who's cleaning up the moldy 1/2 sandwich, 1/2 apple and stale water from the lunch bag. (Hint, it's not mom.) Can't stop touching the oven? Then mom may have to put up a gate to keep you safe (and out of the kitchen), even if you tantrum.


----------



## wytchywoman (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Honey693*
> 
> But sometimes punishment (go to your room/timeout) is going to help mommy not lose her shit when special snowflake has dumped a bag of flour on the floor in the middle of dinner prep. I firmly believe punishment can have a place in raising a child.


You made me chuckle with your example. Someone else mentioned this as well. You can most certainly consequence that behavior, as all behaviors come with consequences. I know that time out is not necessarily considered gentle discipline by some place, but I think in this case it is way more gentle than me blowing my stack. I think we are getting hung up on semantics though. You use the word punishment and what i really hear you saying is consequence. Even gentle parenting acknowledges that consequences are a big part of learning how to control your own behavior.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Honey693*
> 
> But sometimes punishment (go to your room/timeout) is going to help mommy not lose her shit when special snowflake has dumped a bag of flour on the floor in the middle of dinner prep. I firmly believe punishment can have a place in raising a child.


I agree that I think we're talking semantics here. There's a difference between "go to your room before mom's completely loses it on you!" and "making the child pay" (punishment). Punishment would be saying "Ok that's it. No TV for 2 days because you dumped the flour on the floor." It's not related to the 'crime' and it's not teaching the child a skills.

When my kids were toddlers I plopped them in their rooms more than once to keep me sane and them safe. I've gone to my room in a huff to cool off. I've gone for a walk around the block to cool off (only when dh was home). Enforcing separation so one party can cool off is a good skill to learn, IMO. Our son now goes off to his room in a huff when he's angry. (Yes, he slams the door. No, I don't make a big deal of it.) The last time he did this, he also threw all the blankets and stuffed animals off the bed, and knocked over his laundry bag. Consequence? He got to clean up the mess. Punishment would have been telling him he couldn't play on the Wii because he had a tantrum. (He's 10, it was still a tantrum.)


----------



## coffeegirl (Jan 1, 2008)

I understand the semantics of discipline vs. punishment.

I think that banning discussion of any kind of punishment as a part of discipline, period, is limiting, nit-picky, and pointless (because people are just going to keep saying the same things; just defining them differently b/c of the rules). It was brought up because when the mod intervened in this thread, she said that talk of punishment wasn't allowed here. Which is contrary to how MDC has defined the Gentle Discipline forum for years now. Hence the questions about it.

I'm hoping it was a typo or something like that.


----------



## Callimom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeegirl*
> 
> I understand the semantics of discipline vs. punishment.
> 
> ...


I think that the distinction between punishment and discipline is a valuable in exactly these sorts of conversation where posters like TheHusband (I wonder if he calls his wife TheWife) need a clear line drawn about what sorts of approaches are viewed as respectful and beneficial by this community and which ones aren't.

Sending a child to their room for hours and missing meals so the parent doesn't have to deal is punishment. Providing a bit of breathing room for everyone to get a grip and some perspective is a completely different ball of wax and is a good strategy for helping kids learn to manage their own emotions and reactions. Yes it is a spectrum but no where on that spectrum is spanking acceptable. TheHusband couldn't comprehend that without that semantic distinction.


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

ignoring the punishment discussion as we have all hashed that out a few times before already... the same folks, too, (me included).

i know this isn't an option for everybody, of course, but i am STRONGLY of the opinion that if there are two adults in a household, there need to be two adults involved in preparing supper, one to entertain the kid and one to cook the food. i think that perhaps more parents need to discipline their partners. 

kidding about that part, but i personally have NEVER had a successful food-preparation experience if the kid is left to her own devices. attention seeking behavior begins almost immediately.


----------



## angomama (Feb 9, 2011)

Thank you for this idea! This is not my spiritual practice, and I really appreciate how well you phrased it. I LOVE the idea of making a card with the special traits of my kids and what I see in them and my intention of us to be together and an inspiring piece of writing! Thank you so much!

I am struggling with an aggressive 2.9 yr old and want to nip it in the bud! (my younger son is 4.5 months)

Thanks again!


----------

