# What's TCS?



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

I glanced at the gentle discipline archives and found something called TCS. What is that?

~Nay


----------



## canadiyank (Mar 16, 2002)

It's short for a philosophy called "Taking Children Seriously." It is completely non-coercive and involves finding common ground between two viewpoints...you can suggest to a child why they may/may not want to do something but do not force them to comply. Google "taking children seriously" and you'll find lots of info. HTH!


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *canadiyank*
you can suggest to a child why they may/may not want to do something but do not force them to comply.

This seems something worth discussing. It's something I think about a lot. IMO it is central to GD, not just TCS - which I think is an unfortunate name for the movement, as it implies that parents who do not embrace it are not taking their children seriously.

I would love to be able to talk about its precepts but there seems to be a ban on the subject. There probably aren't any "TCS" mamas here, as a result of that, to offer any info...


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

TCS'er here







I differ from TCS in a few ways I imagine (one being that I don't have any problem with compromise), but most of it makes sense to me. I did not know there was a ban on TCS talk here.


----------



## SagMom (Jan 15, 2002)

Here's one thread: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...&highlight=tcs

If you search this site for "tcs" you'll come up with some other threads on the subject.


----------



## quidditchmom (Jun 18, 2005)

UnschoolnMa - I'm curious about this, but if you don't want to answer, I understand. How do you handle situations where it's imperetive that you force your child to comply? Like dangerous situations.

Or any other TCSers could answer this


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

If it's a situation where time is of the essence, you just do it, of course. According to TCS theory, children are rational beings who only act rational out of coercion. It's irrational to want to be run over by a big truck, so the parent assumes that a child would not really want that, even if he's standing in the street screaming, "I want to stand here forever!" as a truck bears down upon him, and that the reason he's standing there is either that he's not aware of the danger or that he's been coerced previously and thus is acting irrationally as a result, but since he truly does not want to be hit by a truck, allowing this to happen would be allowing further coercion.

OTOH, this rarely comes up, in real life. First, children who have been raised non-coercively do generally act rationally, so if you're able to explain the danger so that they understand it, they're willing to take steps to avoid it. Secondly, usually there is time to explain what's going on and work out a mutually agreeable solution.

Dar


----------



## frog (Jun 1, 2005)

Can you tell me about things like doctors' appointments and getting to school on time? The last time I had an online discussion about NCP, I bowed out when someone said that if a child didn't want to quit what they were doing to go to a scheduled appointment, the parent just rescheduled it.

Is there any possibility for NCP/TCS to work for those of us who will parent as well as work outside of the home? And send our kids to school?


----------



## SagMom (Jan 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frog*
Is there any possibility for NCP/TCS to work for those of us who will parent as well as work outside of the home? And send our kids to school?


I think anyone can do this if they want to--they just need to be open to working things out and looking for alternatives. Parents working outside of the home wouldn't necessitate coersion of the children. The school thing doesn't have to be coercive, (although, if one is starting from the point that "the kids will go to school whether they like it or not," then that's a different story.)


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd*
This seems something worth discussing. It's something I think about a lot. IMO it is central to GD, not just TCS - which I think is an unfortunate name for the movement, as it implies that parents who do not embrace it are not taking their children seriously.

Yes but calling it central to GD implies that parents who do not embrace it are not practicing gentle discipline.
I think that the GD heading is much broader than that. I think that TCS is one way of looking at GD, like Unconditional Parenting etc. . .
But it falls within the range of GD, rather than defining it.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Yes but calling it central to GD implies that parents who do not embrace it are not practicing gentle discipline.
I think that the GD heading is much broader than that. I think that TCS is one way of looking at GD, like Unconditional Parenting etc. . .
But it falls within the range of GD, rather than defining it.


I TOTALYL AGREE.

Its not fair to say that parents who don't do things the TCS way are not practing GD.

There is a range of GD. IMO,what is central to GD is not punishing, shaming etc...

I think TCS is one choice, but not the only GD choice.

For us we do make demands on our kids and we don't try to "reach a middle ground" like TCS, at least not on a lot of issues. This does not make us non-GD, at least not for me.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Ok, I have to ask- the last time tcs came up, I did a search for it, and I came across a tcs website. On the site, I came across an article about making children use carseats in emergencies (I'm guessing in tcs if it's not an emergency and they don't want in the carseat, you just don't go?). The article (maybe it was a q and a and the answer was from a tcs parent) said- specifically- that it was not necessary to put a child in a carseat ever if they didn't want to be in it. So you should drive with them NOT in the carseat. It said that if you happened to get pulled over for a child not in the carseat, the police would see the emergency, and would make sure you got to the hospital faster (for example).
I'm all for respecting children's opinions. And there have been many times that I haven't gone somewhere because ds didn't want in his carseat. But....well, I'm sure you all know the rest lol.
I have to admit, that's as far as I got on that site. But now I'm thinking that that's probably an extreme view, and not everyone who practices tcs would go that far.
I should add that I really like the whole idea behind tcs. I like the idea that you give children suggestions and information and THEY get to choose what to do with that advice (is that right?).
I know a similar situation was explained in a pp, but I'm curious about this specifically. If you want to know what the site was, I'll try to find it again.
Anyone who practices tcs care to comment? If not, I understand


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

I don't know the "rules" of TCS, but I *am* Taking my Children Seriously.

Having said that, I ALSO take many other things and people seriously.

I take Safety seriously

I take Myself seriously

I take My Husband seriously

So in my mind if the TCS idea was about taking ONLY the children seriously, it should be renamed to TOCS or something :LOL


----------



## quidditchmom (Jun 18, 2005)

Ahhh, then I gues I TCS.

I am (slowly) making my way through the old thread.

I was just wondering cause some people take things to extreme. "Oh, you don't want to climb down from the computer monitory? Ok, that's your choice..."


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *irinam*
I don't know the "rules" of TCS, but I *am* Taking my Children Seriously.

Having said that, I ALSO take many other things and people seriously.

I take Safety seriously

I take Myself seriously

I take My Husband seriously

So in my mind if the TCS idea was about taking ONLY the children seriously, it should be renamed to TOCS or something :LOL









:


----------



## SagMom (Jan 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
The article (maybe it was a q and a and the answer was from a tcs parent) said- specifically- that it was not necessary to put a child in a carseat ever if they didn't want to be in it.

So, that was ONE parent's opinion of what SHE would do in that situation. TCS is not a listing of do's and don'ts. As someone else said, it's a philosophy. You have to make your own decisions about what you're comfortable with. Sure, some people drive without their kids in carseats, but, as you know, there are other solutions to a child not wanting to ride in a seat.

People still need to think for themselves. There aren't specific rules for specific situations--that's the whole idea. One of the key things that I've taken away from my readings on tcs is that all assumptions should be questioned. So, starting from, "We must go to the store, therefore dc must go in the car seat." one parent might physically force the child into the seat, another might threaten, another might bribe. Using a tcs philosophy, one might question whether going to the store that instant is imperative--maybe they postpone the trip, maybe they walk to the store instead, maybe dp picks up whatever is needed at the store, maybe etc. etc. But critical to this is that the child's wishes are taken as seriously as the adult's.

Quote:

I like the idea that you give children suggestions and information and THEY get to choose what to do with that advice (is that right?).
I think that's part of it. That's what we do, anyway. But it's also finding solutions that everyone is happy with rather than the adults in the family getting their way simply because they're the adults.

It's been a long time since I was on a tcs list, and I'm not professing in any way to be an expert on the subject, just relating what I've gotten out of the philosophy myself.


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Yes but calling it central to GD implies that parents who do not embrace it are not practicing gentle discipline.
I think that the GD heading is much broader than that. I think that TCS is one way of looking at GD, like Unconditional Parenting etc. . .
But it falls within the range of GD, rather than defining it.

Yeah - I worded it poorly. What I meant to say is that the *issue* of forcing children to do something is central to GD, in other words it's a discussion worth having, a question that needs to be considered when talking about GD.

I have postponed trips to the store, etc. I have also forced a screaming toddler into his car seat. It's easier to postpone making a trip than it is to postpone going home from it. So if we are standing in a parking lot in the pouring rain and DS refuses to get into the car, in my mind there is not a lot of room for negotiation there. That's just me, and my approach to it - if someone else has a different approach, that is fine and dandy and actually I would be interested in hearing about it.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frog*
Can you tell me about things like doctors' appointments and getting to school on time? The last time I had an online discussion about NCP, I bowed out when someone said that if a child didn't want to quit what they were doing to go to a scheduled appointment, the parent just rescheduled it.

Is there any possibility for NCP/TCS to work for those of us who will parent as well as work outside of the home? And send our kids to school?


Sending your children to school when they'd rather not be there is not compatible with TCS. You're already coercing them for 8 hours a day. OTOH, if you can find a school that your child wants to go to, then it could work.

To me, the core of TCS isn't not coercing, but the focus on finding mutually agreeable solutions. Honestly, the schedulecd appointments thing just has never come up. I don't make appointments for my daughter without her input, and I tend to plan lots of extra time for things like that (well, I did when she was younger; now it's not an issue), and she was usually fairly eager to go. If she wasn't - like we had a bad experience with a dentist once - we didn't go back.

If we had an appointment to go somewhere and my daughter decided she didn't want to go because she would rather keep doing what she was doing, I would not say, "Okay, I'll cancel it" and move on. We would talk about why she didn't want to go, discuss alternative suggestions, and come up with a solution that we both liked. That's how it's supposed to work, and 99% of the time, with kids raised this way, it does. You have to be open to unconventional solutions sometimes, but I think that's a good thing...

Dar


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

I was talking to a friend today about this and she brought up the good point that TCS sounds like it would work much better with older children than with younger kids. I just can't see having the exchange Dar describes with a two year old. How do you use TCS with preschoolers?


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd*
I was talking to a friend today about this and she brought up the good point that TCS sounds like it would work much better with older children than with younger kids. I just can't see having the exchange Dar describes with a two year old. How do you use TCS with preschoolers?

Yeah, there is that whole irrational "I am a flying octopus named Superman, I defy gravity..." stage, isn't there.

It was not a turn-on for me because the main proponents (Sarah Fitz-Claridge and David Deutsch) appear to be heavily tied to Ayn Rand, objectivism, pro-capitalist/anti-left-wing politics...and many of those philosophies sorta rub me the wrong way. Ayn Rand for Preschoolers is just not for me. I think Alfie Kohn is a more OK alternative in definitely the same vein (I reread his book last night - and he even uses the phrase Taking Children Seriously). To be honest, in my experience, frequently TCS comes across as a little aggressive, shaming and name-calling, on the main website at least. I would not feel included, being a vegetarian ("eco-fascist?") pacifist who doesn't watch many soap operas or enjoy a lot of candy while marvelling on the beauties of capitalism. While I'm all about individual rights - the tone of the main website (the above article on carseats was written by David Deutsch) is sort of um...not for me.

But I am much more an "adbusters" girl...


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Sending your children to school when they'd rather not be there is not compatible with TCS. You're already coercing them for 8 hours a day. OTOH, if you can find a school that your child wants to go to, then it could work.

Okay, say they like it four of five days of the week. Do you let them stay home? What if you have to go to work, and so they can't stay home alone? Isn't it dp's responsibility to help your child develop self-control, a very important skill that takes lots and lots of practice to master.

Also, like the pp said, how does it work for little kids? For example, today my dd was pouring water out of the bathtub onto the floor. I assume she wanted to see what would happen, but I didn't want her to. I coerced her into stopping, I guess, because I asked her not to. When she continued to do it, I took away the cup. What would a TCS parent have done in this situation?


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Before I go on let me just say that much of my experiences with this would match Dar's posts here. I will just say that now rather than quote her followed by excessive







:tup LOL. Her Dd is just a bit older than mine if memory serves too.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
Okay, say they like it four of five days of the week. Do you let them stay home?

Yes I would. Of course the school may take issue with that, and there would be that to discuss.

Quote:

What if you have to go to work, and so they can't stay home alone?
 Then you discuss that with the child. I assume since we are talking about school we are talking about a child who is around 6 at least right? I think even young children can take part in these kinds of conversations. Perhaps you could find a sitter for that day? (I realize this is not always easy) Or a few sitters that would trade off. Maybe the child would enjoy going somewhere else instead of school that day...like a child care center or some other program. A parent might work from home that day, or see if bringing the child along was an option. There is no one right answer here obviously.

Quote:

Isn't it dp's responsibility to help your child develop self-control, a very important skill that takes lots and lots of practice to master.
 Sure parents are there to help children learn things. TCS isn't at odds with that as far as I know. I might have missed what you were responding to with this statement though.

Quote:

For example, today my dd was pouring water out of the bathtub onto the floor. I assume she wanted to see what would happen, but I didn't want her to. I coerced her into stopping, I guess, because I asked her not to. When she continued to do it, I took away the cup. What would a TCS parent have done in this situation?
I would probably have said " Wow the floor is getting really wet. Do you like pouring the water?" If the floor being wet was a problem for me I might have asked about other ways we could play with and pour the water. I might offer some suggestions, or just start playing myself.

Things like measuring cups, a plastic bowl or a funnel, turkey baster or squirt gun could be interesting. I might put two big bowls or pots on the floor for her to pour into. Then when we were all done I would just say that some water got on the floor and would she like to wipe it up (not sure of your Dd's age?) with me. The key would be to work together to find the things that work.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Yeah, or throw a big towel onto the floor and let her pour... it's just water, really.

When my daughter was little (and I was most active on the TCS list when she was 3-5; I haven't been on it now for years) her wants were simpler. It was more about offering alternatives that were more acceptable to me, and than she would chose one that she liked better than what she was doing that I didn't like. I also did a lot of creative problem solving... I think there was a 6 month period when I didn't change her diapers when she was lying down, because she hated that. I got good at changing her while she was standing, and for poopy diapers I'd stand her in the bathtub and swish her off while she played with the water.

Communication with a young child is generally not about words as much, but about actions...

Quote:

Isn't it dp's responsibility to help your child develop self-control, a very important skill that takes lots and lots of practice to master.
I don't think controlling a child is the most effective way to help her learn self-control... I mean, feeding a child isn't the best way to help them learn self-feeding, right?

TCS children learn what is modeled. They see their parents working to find non-coercive, mutually-agreeable solutions, and they pick up these values. The youngest TCS kids are often amazing problem-solvers, because they're so used to this as a way to resolve issues.

TCS children have control over their own actions, unlike most children, and therefore they always have self-control. Because they're controlling their own actions, they can see directly the effects these actions have on others and the world.

Dar


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

I would probably have said " Wow the floor is getting really wet. Do you like pouring the water?" If the floor being wet was a problem for me I might have asked about other ways we could play with and pour the water. I might offer some suggestions, or just start playing myself.

Things like measuring cups, a plastic bowl or a funnel, turkey baster or squirt gun could be interesting. I might put two big bowls or pots on the floor for her to pour into. Then when we were all done I would just say that some water got on the floor and would she like to wipe it up (not sure of your Dd's age?) with me. The key would be to work together to find the things that work. [/QUOTE]

Okay, I see what you're saying. And probably 95% of the time I would do something like that. But last night dh was working late and I was trying to get ds ready for bed, and just didn't feel willing to take the time to come up with an alternative for her. So I guess I can see how you could do it, and how it would really work well for some families, but I'm just not willing to give up the power of veto.

I think what I originally thought this meant was that you would never try to dissuade dc or offer alternatives. Like if your four-year-old said, "I'm going to 'insert destructive behavior here'", you'd just have to grin and bear it. That was why I made the comment about self-control.


----------



## octobermom (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:

Yeah, or throw a big towel onto the floor and let her pour... it's just water, really.
Yea untill you realize that the excess water you childs spilling (in this case from splashing in the bath) is warping the foor and the landloard comes and hands you the bill for the damage. (not us happended to my brother)
There are points to TCS I really like but its just not an overall parenting style I personally care to embrace.







I tend to fall more into a child led parent dirrected way, but thats us.

Deanna


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
So I guess I can see how you could do it, and how it would really work well for some families, but I'm just not willing to give up the power of veto.


Most parents aren't







, and that's fine too.

Quote:

I think what I originally thought this meant was that you would never try to dissuade dc or offer alternatives. Like if your four-year-old said, "I'm going to 'insert destructive behavior here'", you'd just have to grin and bear it.
Sometimes my kids have done destructive things, and I have not stopped them. I have discussed what would happen as a result of the behavior though. (item would be ruined or broken resulting in it no longer being functional or fun, a mess, a possible safety hazard, anger from someone if they are bieng destructive to someone elses things, etc) and I have offered alternatives.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
Okay, I see what you're saying. And probably 95% of the time I would do something like that. But last night dh was working late and I was trying to get ds ready for bed, and just didn't feel willing to take the time to come up with an alternative for her. So I guess I can see how you could do it, and how it would really work well for some families, but I'm just not willing to give up the power of veto.

It *is* hard work. With young children especially, I think it's one of the hardest ways to parent. It's must easier to just say, "No" or move the child or whatever. In the long term, though, I think it's easier. I know Unschoolnma's kids and mine are all about the same age, like from 11-14, and that's just not an age range most parents enjoy... but I truly find it to be a true pleasure 99.9% of the time... we rarely argue over stuff. We just don't, because we have 12+ years of working towards mutually agreeable solutions.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *octobermom*
Yea untill you realize that the excess water you childs spilling (in this case from splashing in the bath) is warping the foor and the landloard comes and hands you the bill for the damage. (not us happended to my brother)

The point isn't whether or not that particular solution would work for any particular person (it was a great solution for us when Rain was little, because we lived in Arizona where everything was dry as a bone, so nothing warped). The point is that there *are* other "outside the box" solutions, if you look for them.

Dar


----------



## octobermom (Aug 31, 2005)

T

Quote:

he point isn't whether or not that particular solution would work for any particular person (it was a great solution for us when Rain was little, because we lived in Arizona where everything was dry as a bone, so nothing warped). The point is that there *are* other "outside the box" solutions, if you look for them.

Dar
Oh don't worry I know







we do a lot of out of the box solutions I'm huge on playfull parenting.. I was just pointing out for some things like "its only water" is a big deal for others its not. We make around $14,000 a year so moneys very tight and we rent so we for us we find we do need to set more limits I'm completlely not willing to allow our dd to destroy toys or risk damage to our home and risk fines we cannot afford. However if I found my DD pouring wate on the floor I also wouldn't be yelling or ranting that she was a bad child. I probably would have just redirrected her to dump into the bath tub probably making a game out of it and brought in diffrent containers sponges etc to experment with and stayed with her to make sure water did stay inside.
One thing that I think is at the core of being a GD parent (TCS or Parent dirrected) is respect and grace. We just approach this from slightly diffrent POV.








Oh and kinda OT but I live in Yuma AZ so quite familier with the dry weather :LOL It was 104 this afternoon

Deanna


----------



## Aurora88 (Aug 8, 2005)

i think one thing about tcs that isn't being addressed here is that it is supposed to be about (briefly) finding a "common preference". if the parent is opposed, it is not a common preference! tcs theorists operate under the assumption that there is always a common preference (perhaps a third alternative that both parties want more) and we are just not swift enough to think of one. failing to reach a common pref and just doing nothing (not coercing) is bad too. the deal-breakers for me with tcs are the idea that if no common pref can be found, then defer to the child; and the idea that children are rational beings (rational being defined in their own tcs way - lots of words are being defined in a different-than-conventional way in tcs theory). overall though i find that being Less Coercive is something that feels right to us while being Non Coercive is a beautiful thing when one can achieve it, but it is not always achievable nor even always desirable in our family structure...OTOH,TCS definitely helps in exercising the creative solution part of ourselves and our children! Children can come up with the most amazing alteratives - even really little , irrational ;-) ones.
Aurora


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Yeah,
I find that to be a sticker for me too.
I do respect children and value their experience, opinion and feelings etc. . . but I do not beleive them to be fully rational (or even biologically capable of being so most of the time due to incomplete brain development), nor have the life experience necessary to guide their decision making.
I think the process where parents guide decision making while gradually passing on the responsibility as children mature makes most sense for me.
I dont knock TCS and other styles like it, but after serious consideration, they are not for me.
joline


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Hi everyone,

Thanks for posting and trying to answer me. I went to the TCS main website and from reading it I've come to the conclusion that it's a philosophy about relating to children. From what I gathered they are proponents of treating children with the exact same respect and courtesy you'd show an adult. For example, you'd let an adult completely finish his thought (sentence), or you'd allow her the right to refuse something unwanted. It makes sense to me, and truth be told, I was planning to raise my son like that anyhow :LOL I didn't realize it had a fancy name. Now I can look impressive and tell people, "Why yes, we're raising our son TCS, AP, and probably even UP."









~Nay


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
It *is* hard work. With young children especially, I think it's one of the hardest ways to parent. It's must easier to just say, "No" or move the child or whatever.

 Oh definately. I'd never make the case that TCS is easy, particularly with the wee ones. It takes time and all that jazz.

Quote:

In the long term, though, I think it's easier. I know Unschoolnma's kids and mine are all about the same age, like from 11-14, and that's just not an age range most parents enjoy... but I truly find it to be a true pleasure 99.9% of the time... we rarely argue over stuff. We just don't, because we have 12+ years of working towards mutually agreeable solutions.
 Exactly. Our kids are right smack in that age range most parents totally dread, and yet we have none of the behaviors associated with that dread happening. TCS does pay off (though that's not my sole reason for parenting that way) It creates an environment and relatonships that have trust and respect.


----------



## obiandelismom (May 31, 2005)

One thing I worry about, with younger kids, anyway, is that TCS is asking kids to control themselves TOO much. Say ds wants to jump off the roof. In his mind, it's rational - he's jumped off things before, and had lots of fun. Higher place = more fun, right? So I tell him all the reasons why that's not a good idea, and all the ways he might get hurt, and maybe I drop a pumpkin off the roof as an illustration, and he decides to not pursue the roof-jumping. But he knows, in his 4yo heart, that *I* didn't stop him. Wouldn't that be anxiety-producing? Isn't it too much to lay on 4yo shoulders? Sometimes I think about how safe and secure and CONTAINED I felt as a kid - how great it was to know that I *wasn't* completely in charge of myself. As an adult, sure, it would drive me nuts if my dh (or anyone else) told me what to do. But as a kid I loved knowing that my mom and dad would protect me from myself when necessary.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *obiandelismom*
One thing I worry about, with younger kids, anyway, is that TCS is asking kids to control themselves TOO much. Say ds wants to jump off the roof. In his mind, it's rational - he's jumped off things before, and had lots of fun. Higher place = more fun, right? So I tell him all the reasons why that's not a good idea, and all the ways he might get hurt, and maybe I drop a pumpkin off the roof as an illustration, and he decides to not pursue the roof-jumping. But he knows, in his 4yo heart, that *I* didn't stop him. Wouldn't that be anxiety-producing? Isn't it too much to lay on 4yo shoulders? Sometimes I think about how safe and secure and CONTAINED I felt as a kid - how great it was to know that I *wasn't* completely in charge of myself. As an adult, sure, it would drive me nuts if my dh (or anyone else) told me what to do. But as a kid I loved knowing that my mom and dad would protect me from myself when necessary.

Beautifully put. I also grew up feeling comforted and safe with the knowledge that there were boundaries beyond I could not go but within I had a great deal of freedom. I seek to give the same to my children.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

See to me it isn't so much that he knows in his 4 year old heart that you didn't stop him, but that you value him enough to share with him why it wouldn't be a good idea as opposed to just forbidding something flat out. You gave honest and clear reasons as to why jumping off a roof would be a problem and he, even at 4, can see why the reasons behind "because it's not safe" instead of just hearing it. Of course this comes from someone who helped her Ds find a way to safely jump off a counter once so ...


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UnschoolnMa*
You gave honest and clear reasons as to why jumping off a roof would be a problem and he, even at 4, can see why the reasons behind "because it's not safe" instead of just hearing it.

But, if he still wanted to jump off the roof even after hearing the reasons why he shouldn't, you'd step in and prevent him from doing it, right?


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *obiandelismom*
One thing I worry about, with younger kids, anyway, is that TCS is asking kids to control themselves TOO much. .

I feel a bit that way too. There is so much research showing that children's brains are different from adult brains, in terms of impulse control and much more. So treating them exactly like adults in terms of expecting them to make the same sorts of informed choices doesn't make total sense to me. Not that that means kids shouldn't be respected (and not that all adults are great at impulse control!







) but I always wondered how TCS addressed the issue of developmental abilities and brain development....


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flyingspaghettimama*
To be honest, in my experience, frequently TCS comes across as a little aggressive, shaming and name-calling, on the main website at least. [...]While I'm all about individual rights - the tone of the main website (the above article on carseats was written by David Deutsch) is sort of um...not for me.

Yeah, somehow I don't want to learn all about how to be more respectful and consensus-seeking from people who are that abusively sarcastic.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I haven't been part of the official TCS group since 1997 or 1998, so I can't really help with that part...

The thing is, kids don't want to experience death or painful injuries. No rational person does, and kids are rational. So if a kid really wants to jump off the room, either he's behaving very irrationally (either due to coercion or serious mental or neurological illness) or else he doesn't really understand the danger. If he's behaving irrationally due to past coercion, then you may need to continue using some coercive tactics while transitioning to TCS, but I would keep them to a minimum and use them only is extreme situations like this. If the child is ill, then he needs medical care. And if he doesn't understand, the parent's job is to help him to understand. When my daughter was 4, one of the things she and her TCSed friends loved to do was jump from the top bunk of a bunk bed to the floor, which they covered with pillows and foam pads. They had great fun, and they all figured out how to jump safely (kids were 4, 4, 7, 9, and 11). I think after that experience, they would have all been reluctant to jump off the roof, because they had that first-hand experience with jumping from a high place.

So, if my young child wanted to jump off the roof, I wouldn't simply give her a bunch of reasons why it wasn't a good idea. With young children, experiences are much more effective than words. If bunk beds weren't available, perhaps a rock-climbing wall, or a high diving board at a pool. The process of finding a mutually agreeable solution isn't over until there is a solution found.

I do think children's brains and adults' brains work differently, but I don't think that means TCS can't work (well, I know it can, because I've seen it). Little kids usually want little things. They aren't old enough to understand the ins and outs of, say, moving out on their own and living in New York City, but they don't want to do that, either. They want juice to drink, or to be carried. They aren't generally in dangerous situations, so their impules aren't potentially dangerous. A parent's job is to keep a child's environment safe for that child, and rational children - most children - are fine with that.

Dar


----------



## momsgotmilk4two (Sep 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *famousmockngbrd*
I was talking to a friend today about this and she brought up the good point that TCS sounds like it would work much better with older children than with younger kids. I just can't see having the exchange Dar describes with a two year old. How do you use TCS with preschoolers?


It also seems to me from posts on the topic here and at another site, that it works better with only children and with fairly easy going children. I can see that. I can see how this would work really well with an only child. We don't have a lot of situations here where I absolutely have to put my foot down and say "we're going now" because my kids are generally happy to go do whatever it is we've got planned, sometimes with a little discussion first. There are certain things that I just don't allow though. Like namecalling and hitting. The only hitting we've had any issues with are between the siblings.

As far as dangerous situations go, for some reason I got kids that aren't real big risk takers. I've never had one try to jump out in front of a car. If we're riding bikes out in the carport and a car comes and I see it, they don't, I say, "car!" and they move out of the way right away. I agree with the person who said that most kids aren't out trying to kill themselves :LOL With a pre verbal toddler, I'd just pick them up and move them out of harm's way. I'm not TCS so I'm not sure if that's the TCS way or not though. I try to practice GD and am learning more about it, but with my oldest I am still using puntitive punishments like removing priveledges.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*

So, if my young child wanted to jump off the roof, I wouldn't simply give her a bunch of reasons why it wasn't a good idea. With young children, experiences are much more effective than words.











Quote:

I do think children's brains and adults' brains work differently, but I don't think that means TCS can't work (well, I know it can, because I've seen it).
Same here, without a doubt.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I LOVE learning about this subject. I grant that my kids are "easy" so implementing TCS ways of doing things may be easier for me. Though, I have been told that my kids might be "easier" b/c I have always had a bit of TCS in me, not sure on that.

I do know that the things I have never tried to control, sleep, eating, grooming, have always been things my kids were ok with, the things I have undoubtedly tried to control too much (certain types of play for example) have become "issues" and I have found that when I "let go" of control there and allow my kids equal say, things get better.

I have also noticed that TCS does seem much easier with only one child, but I don't think that makes it impossible with more than one. I have 3- ages 5, 4, and almost 2. I am hoping that if I work harder now at teaching my kids how to find common preferences, that the years to come will be easier, b/c they will know how to live in peace as a family where everyone respects everyone else's opinion. I also think it would lessen (if not end completely) that issue where teens are trying to feel out their "power" in the family, if they have always had equal say in things, hopefully they won't have such burning needs to exercise that "power".

I think overall, all families could benefit from the practice of finding common preferences and questioning things that you take for granted are "bad" for kids. Even if you never identify as TCS, or desire to take it on completely as a way of doing things, it seems the more you work on the common preferences, the more your children would learn to respect others, and themselves.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peppermint*
I think overall, all families could benefit from the practice of finding common preferences and questioning things that you take for granted are "bad" for kids. Even if you never identify as TCS, or desire to take it on completely as a way of doing things, it seems the more you work on the common preferences, the more your children would learn to respect others, and themselves.

Peppermint, this is a great point. After reading this thread, I have to say that I think parents who can do TCS full time are exceptional people. I couldn't do it, I'm just too impatient. But I am definitely going to keep trying to give my children as much say as I possibly can, and when I think I can't, I'm going to be inspired by these TCS moms to think even more creatively of a way I can.


----------



## obiandelismom (May 31, 2005)

I don't think I'm arguing that TCS doesn't "work" (in the sense of helping kids live safely, or become cooperative, or whatever else). I can see that it could, and in some ways (without the official title) it's the philosophy I've used with my own kids. I've always called it "the REAL REASON" philosophy, however. :LOL If I want my kids to do or not do some specific thing, I try to always give them the REAL REASON why I feel the way I do, and if they counter with a better REAL REASON why I should jump in the lake, that's fine too.

But what I'm saying is that I worry it might not actually be emotionally healthy for kids to be in charge of their own limits, no matter how rational they are. Again, I'm talking preschoolers here, since that's my world at the moment. With my own kids, I worry sometimes that giving them too much responsibility for their actions makes them FEEL less safe than a kid whose mom throws a "Because I said so" at them from time to time. I'm not saying they ARE less safe - after all, if you have to drive over a bridge with no guardrails, you are going to drive about as carefully as you have ever driven, and probably won't go over the side. But how much will you enjoy the ride, or the view?


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *obiandelismom*
But what I'm saying is that I worry it might not actually be emotionally healthy for kids to be in charge of their own limits, no matter how rational they are. Again, I'm talking preschoolers here, since that's my world at the moment. With my own kids, I worry sometimes that giving them too much responsibility for their actions makes them FEEL less safe than a kid whose mom throws a "Because I said so" at them from time to time. I'm not saying they ARE less safe - after all, if you have to drive over a bridge with no guardrails, you are going to drive about as carefully as you have ever driven, and probably won't go over the side. But how much will you enjoy the ride, or the view?

I understand what you're saying... I guess I just don't think small children experience it this way. With TCS, parents try very hard to help their children avoid coercion, and the children know this. Whereas a traditional parent might see a child doing something potentially painful and let the child do it, because then he'll learn (like maybe a child who has been warned repeatedly not to run on a slippery surface because he might fall and hurt himself), the TCS parent would always endeavor to help the child avoid the painful experience. Children learn that their parents will always be helping them out.

I also think that most preschoolers have the power to do all sorts of dangerous things and the parents really have no power to stop them, and yet they don't, except for the emotionally disturbed preschoolers I've worked with... but I'm sure the average preschooler is at least as intelligent and could figure it out. They really choose to obey "because I said so", but they could choose to do whatever is forbidden. TCS kids are making the same choice, except that they're choosing to defer to a parent's recommendation than their command.

dar


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Whereas a traditional parent might see a child doing something potentially painful and let the child do it, because then he'll learn (like maybe a child who has been warned repeatedly not to run on a slippery surface because he might fall and hurt himself), the TCS parent would always endeavor to help the child avoid the painful experience. Children learn that their parents will always be helping them out.

This has been something I have found myself trying to explain time and time again in my parenting life to people who only have experience with the "let them learn the hard way" route. I really like the way you put it here Dar.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Yes, yes, yes. Dar wrote a post one time that has stuck with me about "letting" kids watch movies and such with violence, or otherwise "inappropriate" content. I know some parents who allow this type of thing, one couple in particular, and when I first learned of TCS, I thought of them. They are SO not TCS, it's more like they are just uninvolved. Dar talked about all she would do to try to prepare her dd for such a video, all of the talking she would do to let her daughter know how disturbing this might be to her, showing her small clips, etc. for Dar it was all about doing what was best for her dd and teaching her, guiding her, sharing with her and he dd may or may not have chosen to watch the video after all that they talked about and all of the "leg work" Dar had done. The other parents I know would've said, "oh geez, my 6 yo asked to watch CSI Miami, why not?" and then he'd watch it, no prep, no follow up, no caring.

I think TCS often gets confused with parents who just don't care or are lazy/ neglectful. Frankly, the TCS way takes a ton more work than just saying "no, b/c I said so" to the movie, and the child *really* learns that the parent cares for them and respects them in the process and that, with input from others, they *are* capable of making good decisions. As an adult, I do this all of the time, I come here for ideas and suggestions, I value the opinions here the way a TCS child might value their parents opinions, I take them into account and run them through *my* mind and *my* reasoning before I use the ideas posted here. I want my children to have *that* kind of security.

And just to be clear, I am a TCS wanna-be :LOL, I so respect the mamas here who have done this from the start, b/c it is surely harder to impliment it later, but I think it can be done, and it is what I strive for.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

OK, I'm intrigued by this thread. I appreciate the idea of treating my child as I would like to be treated.

But... I'm having a tough time with some of the specifics. To the pp who said she would be fine with keeping her child home from school for the day if s/he didn't feel like going... I don't get that.

How does that benefit the child in the long run?

In the short run, child gets immediate gratification -- avoidance of something s/he finds unappealling. It's highly likely that once the child learns that s/he doesn't "have" to go to school, s/he will request to stay home again.

So, in the long run, doesn't the child suffer? S/he will be left behind in classroom studies and may even be penalized by the school (not allowed to attend field trips, etc.) after multiple absences. Schools have attendance policies, after all.

And in the LONG long run, isn't the child learning that it's okay just to bail on anything if you don't feel like it at that moment? How is that a useful life skill? I mean, I'd love to bail on going to work when I don't feel like it... or any other number of things. I'd RATHER say, nah, I want to stay home. But I *don't* because I know that other people expect a certain level of responsibility from me. If I don't go to work, others will suffer. I can't afford to make it all about how *I* feel.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, you know? And I personally feel that a child should know that getting something you want *now* isn't always the best answer -- even if it SEEMS like a good idea at the time, both to parent and child to stay home, it probably isn't a good idea in the long run. The world has rules, like it or not... and no matter what we do at home, we need to be congnizant of these rules in the long run. That's being part of society.

And aren't we really looking forward to the long run, in thinking about what's best for our kids, and helping them contribute to society?

I'm puzzled as to how this approach can be beneficial.

chinaKat


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat*
OK, I'm intrigued by this thread. I appreciate the idea of treating my child as I would like to be treated.

But... I'm having a tough time with some of the specifics. To the pp who said she would be fine with keeping her child home from school for the day if s/he didn't feel like going... I don't get that.

How does that benefit the child in the long run?

In the short run, child gets immediate gratification -- avoidance of something s/he finds unappealling. It's highly likely that once the child learns that s/he doesn't "have" to go to school, s/he will request to stay home again.

So, in the long run, doesn't the child suffer? S/he will be left behind in classroom studies and may even be penalized by the school (not allowed to attend field trips, etc.) after multiple absences. Schools have attendance policies, after all.

And in the LONG long run, isn't the child learning that it's okay just to bail on anything if you don't feel like it at that moment? How is that a useful life skill? I mean, I'd love to bail on going to work when I don't feel like it... or any other number of things. I'd RATHER say, nah, I want to stay home. But I *don't* because I know that other people expect a certain level of responsibility from me. If I don't go to work, others will suffer. I can't afford to make it all about how *I* feel.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, you know? And I personally feel that a child should know that getting something you want *now* isn't always the best answer -- even if it SEEMS like a good idea at the time, both to parent and child to stay home, it probably isn't a good idea in the long run. The world has rules, like it or not... and no matter what we do at home, we need to be congnizant of these rules in the long run. That's being part of society.

And aren't we really looking forward to the long run, in thinking about what's best for our kids, and helping them contribute to society?

I'm puzzled as to how this approach can be beneficial.

chinaKat

Yeah, this is what I'm wondering too. I'm guessing that a TCS parent would explain all that to them, but what if they still then decided to stay home? I guess you let them live with their decision, but isn't THAT kind of like "letting them learn the hard way?"

I don't mean that to sound sarcastic, I'm genuinely interested in how this works, and since you moms have done it...


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

My impression is that if you are prcticing TCS and your child does not like school you don't do it. I think most TCS families unschool. If your child wants to participate in school then the parent would probably explain the importance of fallowing the schools rules with regards to attendance etc., or maybe they would find a school with relaxed rules.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momoffour*
My impression is that if you are prcticing TCS and your child does not like school you don't do it. I think most TCS families unschool. If your child wants to participate in school then the parent would probably explain the importance of fallowing the schools rules with regards to attendance etc., or maybe they would find a school with relaxed rules.

so, tcs sounds pretty impossible without homeschooling...


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

My understanding is that if a child wanted to go to school, a parent would try to accomodate that if it were found to be a mutually beneficial choice or whatever they call it. And if a child didn't want to go to school the family again would try to find a mutually beneficial choice. I do think, though, that most TCSers homeschool or unschool.

Also, I think TCSers probably aren't too concerned about making their kids good "worker bees" in society. The sentence "in thinking about what's best for our kids, and helping them contribute to society?" really doesn't jive with that Libertarian mind-set I think, because it assumes those two issues, what's best for kids and helping them contribute to society, are related.

But I'm no expert on TCS so I could be wrong.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

It's probably difficult to understand TCS in the context of something like school, which is usually a pretty coercive place. Nearly all of the unschoolers I've known have been unschoolers - non-coercive schooling kind of goes with non-coercive parenting. I do know a girl who decided to go to school in 4th or 5th grade, first a private Waldorf and then she would up applying for admission to a fairly conservative Catholic high school and going there, and thriving...but she's the exception. And really, it was up to her. If she wanted to go to school, her parents were willing to drive her, and they'd try to help her get her needs met with the school, but they also gave her lots of information about the school's expectations and how things worked. She thrived...

But since school is an artificial environment and most TCS kids don't choose to particpate, especially young kids, it's probably not the best example. My daughter, though, has done things like play on soccer teams and act in lots of theatrical productions. Both were activities she chose to do, and her attendance at both has always been exemplary. Actually, her attendance at everything she commits to doing is excellent... and while she hasn't always enjoyed every part of the activity, she has enjoyed the activity on the whole. I think part of it was that she could see how her attendance has an impact on her goals - her time is being spent meaningfully, even if it's not always pleasant, and she is doing something she wants to do.

I think learning about the potential results of your decisions is an essential part of TCS - that's the "sharing theories" bit, in which a parent gives the child information that he or she thinks might be relevant to the child's decision. TCS kids don't have to agree with the parents, but they generally listen critically and evalute the information.

Quote:

I guess you let them live with their decision, but isn't THAT kind of like "letting them learn the hard way?"
Well, if possible, you try to lessen the effects of the decision - like, if it was school, you offer to write a note saying the absence was excused. And you also look at other solutions, like finding schools with a difference philosophy on attendance, or finding a way for the child to get the parts of the activity he enjoys without the parts he dislikes.

Dar


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat*
so, tcs sounds pretty impossible without homeschooling...

Well, it's pretty impossible if you're coercing your child to go to school... if he wants to be there it can work.

Dar


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat*
How does that benefit the child in the long run?

In the short run, child gets immediate gratification -- avoidance of something s/he finds unappealling. It's highly likely that once the child learns that s/he doesn't "have" to go to school, s/he will request to stay home again.

And she could request to stay home again whenever. No big deal as far as I can tell. We'd likely search for a school that was alright with us being absent whenever we wanted, or we'd maybe get any assignments for the days we were absent prepared for us to do at home. Whatever works. We unschool though, and like Dar said, many TCS families do because school tends to be pretty coercive. If a child wants to be at school then it works fine.

Quote:

I mean, I'd love to bail on going to work when I don't feel like it... or any other number of things. I'd RATHER say, nah, I want to stay home. But I *don't* because I know that other people expect a certain level of responsibility from me. If I don't go to work, others will suffer. I can't afford to make it all about how *I* feel.
Well, school isn't the same as your job IMO. (even though I have heard parents say that school is a child's job. I disagree.) TCS parents will share info with their children about what might happen as a result of any action or decision they might make. If you were repeatedly absent from work you'd likely upset your boss, co-workers, get a warning, pay cut, and/or be fired. My kids knew that at a very young age. TCS kids, IME, don't spend a lot of time being disrespectful to othes or shirking responsibilities.

Quote:

And aren't we really looking forward to the long run, in thinking about what's best for our kids, and helping them contribute to society?
Children making their own decisions, being respected and not forced? You bet I am looking toward the long run.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I just want to say unschoolma, I really agree with a lot of the things you say on MDC... not just in this thread...

Okay, enough of the @ss kissing LOL...

about this quote:

Quote:

But... I'm having a tough time with some of the specifics. To the pp who said she would be fine with keeping her child home from school for the day if s/he didn't feel like going... I don't get that.

How does that benefit the child in the long run?
My mom was far from ap or even gd, but in some ways she was kind of tcs if that makes sense. With this particular subject, my mom totally let me stay home from school whenever I wanted...which was rarely...

I am sure if it got "out of hand" she would have "made" me go, but there were certain times where I would plainly say "I don't feel like going to school today, can I stay home if I promise to catch up tomorrow" or whatever... and she did... I am not a degenerate or anything LOL and I was a pretty "spirited" child. Just my personal experience...

also this...

Quote:

and helping them contribute to society
It is important to distinguish between contributing to society and being a slave to society and their expectations of what is "normal"...

To most people I am a total freak I suppose, but I am happy, a wonderful wife, mother, and woman...

I love a lot of the TCS philosophies, but like anything, it is not my absolute answer to everything ya know?


----------



## sweetfiend (May 22, 2004)

>But... I'm having a tough time with some of the specifics. To the pp who said she would be fine with keeping her child home from school for the day if s/he didn't feel like going... I don't get that.<

I actually had an interesting experience with a neighbor kid and this issue. He is 12 years old and attends public school (always has). Anyway. we had him living with us for three weeks last Spring while his parents were in Europe. The first day with us he went to school, but he called part way through the day with a "stomach ache." Then the next day the same thing happened. At that point I said, "Look, when you live with me YOU get to decide about school attendance. But could you give me a heads up about your plans so that I can plan my day?" So he wrote up a series of schedules--wanted to be there certain days and times because he enjoyed it AND wanted to be there at other times because he felt it was important to accomplish certain tasks. SO he was totally rational about it, in my opinion. Went when it benefitted him and did other things when it was a waste of time. Of course, the school sent a counselor to discuss the situation with me. I asked, "Has his work suffered? Is he behind? Not turning things in?" And the counselor had to admit that he was totally caught up, doing fine, showing up for tests, with his homework (which of course, I also refused to enforce)

Just an ancedote to throw into the mix.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Well, with all due respect... if school is coercive... so is *life*.

I'm sorry but I just don't buy the fact that teaching somebody that you can always do exactly as you please is a valuable life lesson.

I like the general theory of tcs but I feel that taking it to an extreme just can't be helpful.

There are rules everywhere. Maybe I FEEL like writing an expletive-laden flaming post here, but I DON'T, because I want to be part of this community and don't want to get banned. I might talk that way all the time at home because I WANT to, it's my first amendment right. The site managers are being coercive, they are making me follow rules.

Just one stupid little example. But life itself is coercive. There are gentle ways to learn that, and harsh ways... but sheltering a child from this knowledge entirely doesn't make sense to me.

chinakat


----------



## babybugmama (Apr 7, 2003)

This has been a wonderful discussion. Please, keep it that way. It is a great way for people to learn about lots of different aspects of parenting.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Chinakat, I thought the EXACT same things you are saying when I first learned of TCS, here, a couple of years back. I am hoping a true TCSer will answer your concerns and help you to see better the way that this philosophy works, if not, I'll try to come back tonight and give it my best shot. I *know* this all seems crazy at first.


----------



## insahmniak (Aug 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat*
I'm sorry but I just don't buy the fact that teaching somebody that you can always do exactly as you please is a valuable life lesson.

Perhaps this is a little OT, but I'm amazed at the visceral reaction I'm having to this statement. I'm not sure how to articulate this well, but one of the greatest hopes I have for my daughter is that she realizes that she CAN do exactly as she pleases -- always. I'm not sure I'm the one to "teach" her this or not, but the empowering aspect of this is totally appealing to me. No, she doesn't have to follow The Rules that say all women must have babies, in hospitals, circumcise them and shoot them up with vaccinations and antibiotics. She has choices. I want her to experience them to the fullest. And I expect that even then, she will choose to be kind and considerate and accommodating at times. But because that is what she values, and not because it's "what she should do." That is my greatest hope for her.

Edited to add:
I don't get the feeling that TCS inspires egocentrism as much as it inspires empowerment.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

It isn't teaching kids to do whatever they want with no concern for anyone else. It seems more to be teaching kids to find solutions that make everyone, including them, happy. That's not really the same thing because they would be learning to take into account how everyone else feels as well as what they want.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Well actually, you CAN always do what you please when you really think about it. I think what the pp was referring to was consequences to your actions. Sure, if you please, you can write a completely flaming message on here, cursing and insulting whoever -- but you don't do it because you are aware of the consequences (being banned) and you aren't willing to do what you please because you don't want the consequence. It is like anything really. I mean if you want to get extreme, you could murder someone in cold blood if you really wanted to, but most people don't-- I like to believe it is because they are decent people with morals etc, but I am sure someone people don't hurt other people because they don't want the consequence that goes along with breaking the law or whatever.

I guess my point is, I don't believe in teaching children they can't do a certain thing just because they aren't "allowed". I think my understanding of TCS personally, is that by guiding our children and helping them avoid dangerous or hurtful situations, while also allowing them to explore their world and have an equal or near equal say in the family, they will develop self control, reasoning, morals etc...

I don't believe TCS is a free for all where you just let your child do whatever they want whenever they want. I believe it is a cause and effect, a reasoning and critical thinking lesson, a way of respecting your childs needs and desires, while also keeping them safe.

Sure, society is structured in such a way where there are consequenses to certain actions, but really, you can pretty much do whatever you please. If you want to tell your boss to F off, you can. The consequence you will most likely recieve from that though, is that you will be let go...but if you have found work elsewhere, you don't care, or whatever... you sure can tell him or her to go somewhere....

I think part of the point of TCS'ing is to eliminate arbitrary rules and get to why they are "rules" at all. For instance, mealtimes. Many parents make their child eat at a certain time, a certain place (the table for instance), a certain meal... they can't have dessert until they finish, they can't go play until they wash their plate, whatever -- with TCS, it is basically saying, when you are an adult, you don't have to finish your peas, you can have a cookie before dinner, you can choose to eat in another room, on the floor, not eat at all, and you can wash your plate AFTER you play... so why shouldn't children have that same right?

Of course, if it is a very small child, maybe you don't want food all over the walls etc -- but with an older child, that is how TCS may work.

ETA: ...and I am not teaching my child to kill someone or tell her boss to F-off... I was just illustrating that yes, you actually CAN do whatever you please... but of course, their are consequences to certain actions, and hopefully by teaching my child by example and by empowering her with the right to make her own decisions, she will be smart and capable enough to make her own decisions and be able to decide for herself whether any action is worth the consequences. Of course, when she is very little, it is my job to make sure she doesn't get hit by a car or something, but you get my drift...


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Well, I guess my mother must have been TCS on some level. Because she never coerced me to clean my room -- she just let me live in whatever level of pigsty I could endure. When I was old enough to earn money, she never coerced me into saving any of it, she just let me blow it each week on whatever I felt like buying. She never coerced me to be punctual so I always showed up for appointments whenever I felt like it.

Guess what?

When I grew up, I was a total slob. I never had clean clothes to wear to work. I was humiliated when people dropped by. I'd run around in the morning like a maniac trying to get ready and got to work late every day, to the point where it endangered my job. I couldn't even *find* my bills, much less pay them on time -- and I had no sense of money management, so my credit wound up in the crapper. My relationships suffered because people saw me as not caring enough about them to show up on time.

And I was miserable.

But I didn't know any better. Because my mom just let me do what I wanted to do, I didn't want to clean my room or save money or be on time... so I didn't. And that's how life worked.

It took me years to figure out what was making me so unhappy with my messy, hurried, unsatsifying life. I finally had the "a-ha!" moment that I needed to (literally and figuratively) clean up my act. No, it wasn't FUN doing stuff like laundry or paying bills, but I had to do them -- even though I didn't want to.

And then, finally, I got it. And now I live a much more comfortable existence. It's like a 180 turn around.

And oh, how I wish I'd grown up being coerced into having a little personal responsibility.

chinaKat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

There are a million and a half things I do every day because I "should" even though I dont feel like it at the time.
I feel very strongly that in order to enjoy life and participate in society to the fullest it is important to learn the rules and live by them. And of course to have a great deal of freedom and creativity within that framework.
It isnt all about the biggies like having the freedom not to grow up and do everything "by the book". It is about the smallies such as I have to wash the dishes or my kitchen might get roaches. I do not want to wash the dishes. I really dont feel like doing it. I hate the way the casserole dish is all baked on caked on stuck on. I could rationalize that I am willing to accept the alternative. But the fact of the matter is it comes down to there are things in life that we really do not have choices about.
I can choose not to vax or circ like the pp said, but I cant choose to just leave and go to the mall with my infant home by themselves during their naptime.
Also I find it extremely interesting that this is based on the philosophy that the only reason a child would behave irrationally is as a reaction to having been coerced.
Now I can imagine that a child who is forced to hold hands and be dragged along is more likely to pull away and bolt into the street as a reaction to being coerced. HOwever I just dont see the logic that this is the only reason children behave in irrational ways.
I know as an adult I have been irrational many many times for reasons completely unrelated to coercion. I can only imagine that children have no fewer motivating forces which conflict with rationality than adults do.
I hope my children will grow up learning a balance between freedom and responsiblity which I think that life is all about. I WANT them to learn how important it is to do things just because they should sometimes. Even if it doesnt benefit them in any forseeable way.
And that is how I treat them as well.
Joline


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat*
Well, I guess my mother must have been TCS on some level. Because she never coerced me to clean my room -- she just let me live in whatever level of pigsty I could endure. When I was old enough to earn money, she never coerced me into saving any of it, she just let me blow it each week on whatever I felt like buying. She never coerced me to be punctual so I always showed up for appointments whenever I felt like it.

I'm not a TCS expert at all, but from what I have gathered from this discussion, I think the difference here would be that a TCS parent would be discussing with their children the ramifications of not cleaning their room, not saving money, and not being courteous and punctual...letting them know how it would impact them and others around them, and giving them alternative ideas to get things done...I'm not sure if your mom did that, but from the way you described it above, this sounds like a "hands-off" parenting style instead of one that would work with the child to help them make their own decisions.

Granted, if in the end the child decides to not clean, not save, and not be on time they will have to deal with the consequences. But, I think that over time a TCS parent would be continually discussing it with them, not just letting them do whatever they want, and at some point the child would likely see the value in *not* not doing those things...I agree that most of the time people don't deliberately want to do things that make themselves or others uncomfortable, just that sometimes they don't realize the effect. And, instead of just telling them what has to be done, if you can teach them the effects of what happen if it is not done, then they can really understand and do things because it's the thoughtful thing to do, not "just because".

I could be completely wrong here, though :LOL , so please let me know if I am!!

I have been reading this thread with GREAT interest, and hope to use pieces of it to fit my own family's needs and style...


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

ChinaKat - it's kind of funny that you and I had the exact same problems when we were first out on our own and we both blame it on our parents but our parents were opposites. My parents forced me to keep my room clean, forced me to save half of everything I earned in the bank, etc. And when I got out on my own, I completely rebelled and did the opposite until I learned that I didn't like living that way. I assumed it was because my parents coerced me so forcibly that I did a 180 on it.

Maybe that's a good lesson that it isn't fair to blame our parents when we're going through learning experiences.

And if you're doing it because you don't want roaches in the kitchen and you don't want to be embarassed when people come over, then you aren't being coerced to do it; you've made a concious decision based upon the consequences.


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

chinaKat, I think you might be confusing coercion with teaching. You say you were never coerced to do things like clean your room or save money. Were you taught those things? Were you taught the importance of them? Coercion is a method of control, whether by force, by fear, by humiliation, etc. One can still teach children important and valuable lessons about life and about responsibility and about consequences without using coercion. It sounds as though you taught yourself those lessons when you realized the importance of keeping a clean environment and showing up for appointments on time. Do you remember what it was that clicked and gave you that "a-ha" moment? Maybe your answer to that could help you understand how children can learn without being coerced.

Nobody here is arguing that life is always fun. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't be responsible (although we must decide for ourselves what "responsible" means.) I agree with you that doing laundry and paying bills is not fun. I do those things too (most of the time.) I do them because I like the end result. I like having clean clothes and I like having my bills paid on time both to avoid late fees and so they don't get too high. Children are capable of understanding cause and effect. It is our responsibility to help them learn about cause and effect, about possible consequences, and about different possible outcomes. We can help them figure out how to find a solution that makes all parties happy. I think it all starts with a basic belief that children want to be safe and happy and want others to be safe and happy as well.

Remember that there are many more people who don't practice TCS that there are people who do. If TCS is not for you, that's okay.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
I'm not a TCS expert at all, but from what I have gathered from this discussion, I think the difference here would be that a TCS parent would be discussing with their children the ramifications of not cleaning their room, not saving money, and not being courteous and punctual...letting them know how it would impact them and others around them, and giving them alternative ideas to get things done...I'm not sure if your mom did that, but from the way you described it above, this sounds like a "hands-off" parenting style instead of one that would work with the child to help them make their own decisions.

.

Here's the thing, I would imagine that her parents DID discuss the reasons for all of these things with her. I know mine did. What parent wouldnt?
And yet my experience was very similar to chinacat's.
To some of I think that all talk and no action is "hands off" parenting.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee*
And if you're doing it because you don't want roaches in the kitchen and you don't want to be embarassed when people come over, then you aren't being coerced to do it; you've made a concious decision based upon the consequences.

Which is what happens when children are coerced too. THey make a conscious decision based on the parent enforced consequences.

eta:
I dont know what my point here is and I really should stop. This is so interesting to me. I just wanted to add and make it clear that even though I am "debating" the nitty gritty here, I am just doing so academically and I do truly support the choices other families make in this regard.
I was thinking, "why are you arguing this?" because I really dont intend on convincing anybody of anything. I just wanted to share. Sometimes I am a dork and just feel compelled to argue when somethign doesnt make sense to me and I guess I just never stop having opinions.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

I'm trying to get a handle on the "nuts and bolts" here, so if someone who practices TCS would take a look at this to see if I have it right, I'd appreciate it:

TCS is *not* letting your child do whatever they want without talking to them about what they're doing. From what I understand, TCS involves discussing and explaining the consequences of a child's actions and choices (including the short term and long term effects on the chid themself, the family unit, and the outside world), and exploring the alternative actions or choices they might have and their ramifications (obviously, in an age appropriate manner). That part sounds great to me...

I think the MAJOR difference with TCS, though, is that after discussing and exploring choices, you have to be OK with your child making a decision that isn't the same as the one you would make (or make for them), and support them through it...then, if they don't like the consequences, help them figure out how to avoid them in the future.

I think it is this point that is the sticking point for many people..however, based on the TCS philosophy a child would not often deliberately make a choice that causes much discomfort or inconvenience for themselves or those they care about...as for the outside world, maybe that is less of a factor for many TCS families, which is also probably another sticking point with some. There is a huge variation in what different people believe being a productive member of society is, ranging from towing the line of mainstream society, to being completely antidisestablishmentarian (wow, I never, ever thought I would actually use that word in a serious sentence!!). This is a gigantic spectrum of beliefs, and is probably where issues with TCS come up. I would wager that the more TCS a family is, the less they care about their family conforming to societal norms.

Personally, I am somewhere in the middle; not quite mainstream, and not quite *not*. I do think though, that even families that are moderately mainstream or moderately crunchy can work pieces of TCS into their lives...I am hoping to be able to myself!!

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on anything I have mentioned above. This has been a great thread - thanks, everyone.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Which is what happens when children are coerced too. THey make a conscious decision based on the parent enforced consequences.

The difference is that in one case the person involved makes a personal choice based on real-world consequences that he/she could ignore if he/she wanted, and in the other case the person is being forced externally by artificially created consequences that will probably continue to get stronger and stronger until the situation gets to where the parent wants.


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Quote:

Which is what happens when children are coerced too. THey make a conscious decision based on the parent enforced consequences.
I think the idea is that they are capable of making those same decisions WITHOUT parent enforced consequences.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

:LOL

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
Personally, I am somewhere in the middle; not quite mainstream, and not quite *not*. I do think though, that even families that are moderately mainstream or moderately crunchy can work pieces of TCS into their lives...I am hoping to be able to myself!!


Me, too. I like the idea of compromise and treating children with respect, but when it comes down to it, my 4 year old doesn't have the same life experiences and understanding that I do, so I have veto power









I think I probably follow TCS more than I think, but when it comes to examples such as my child wanting to jump off the roof, there's no room for compromise or talking about it. It's "NO. You will break your legs or kill yourself. It is NOT safe." The end.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee*
The difference is that in one case the person involved makes a personal choice based on real-world consequences that he/she could ignore if he/she wanted, and in the other case the person is being forced externally by artificially created consequences _that will probably continue to get stronger and stronger until the situation gets to where the parent wants_.

I think that is just as much a myth about parent enforced consequences as our understanding of TCS as meaning out of control children.

Just as children are capable of learning without coercion and parent enforced consequences, they are capable of learning with minimal consequences.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Here's the thing, I would imagine that her parents DID discuss the reasons for all of these things with her. I know mine did. What parent wouldnt?
And yet my experience was very similar to chinacat's.
To some of I think that all talk and no action is "hands off" parenting.

I see your point...I just wonder if there may be a difference between a TCS based, ongoing discussion, versus a more "authoritarian" (I can't think of a better way to phrase that) discussion...

I was a total slob as a teenager and young adult (and still might be considered one by some people







) and have had money problems as a young adult, but I wouldn't ever "blame" my parents for it. They certainly talked to me about things, and set a great example, I just chose to not follow it...and that's not their doing whatsoever...actually, it probably is their doing, because they raised me to be an independent thinker and not worry about what other people thought or said....I actually told my mom one time when I was in my 20s and we were discussing something I was going to do that she didn't agree with, "Well, it's your fault for raising me to think for myself and do what I think is right for me!" and we had a big laugh about that.

Granted, none of my decisions put myself or anyone else in danger, and I'm sure if they would have, my parents would have stepped in. But for the most part, we talked about things and I did what I thought was right, even if my parents were displeased or disappointed (which they weren't afraid to express - but the differentiated between displeasure in the action and displeasure in *me*).

I can just about guarantee you that if I was 'forced' to clean up my room, or punished for not cleaning it, I wouldn't have learned anything other than I had to clean my room when my parents said so, not that it was nice to have a clean room...I learned that on my own when I was older.

Not sure what my point is here, other than I don't hold my parents responsible for the choices I've made in life; they have been teachers and guardians, but I have been the ultimate decision maker, and I really value that....

Oh, that and I would wager that there is probably a difference between the content of a discussion of choices and consequences between a TCS family, and hands off family, and a mainstream authoritarian family.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I dont know what my point here is and I really should stop. This is so interesting to me. I just wanted to add and make it clear that even though I am "debating" the nitty gritty here, I am just doing so academically and I do truly support the choices other families make in this regard.
I was thinking, "why are you arguing this?" because I really dont intend on convincing anybody of anything. I just wanted to share. Sometimes I am a dork and just feel compelled to argue when somethign doesnt make sense to me and I guess I just never stop having opinions.

ITA! I have really enjoyed the discussion,and remember enjoying posting with you on the Anthony Wolf thread a while ago - I think we think a lot alike in many respects. For the record, I'm not sure how much true TCS I'll use in my own family, but I do know it will play some role...as Cherry Bomb said, I'm not sure I'm willing to give up the right to veto - which I knew in dangerous situations my parents would have definitely invoked :LOL


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
I can just about guarantee you that if I was 'forced' to clean up my room, or punished for not cleaning it, I wouldn't have learned anything other than I had to clean my room when my parents said so, not that it was nice to have a clean room...I learned that on my own when I was older.

The advantage to the child who was made to do it anyway is that they have learned the skills to complete the task. SO that if they should later come to the voluntary conclusion that they do indeed want to do x y or z, they already know how because they have done so.
I might not have much to say in the outcome if my child is a slob or a clean person. Or if they pay their bills on time etc. . .
But by intstructing them how and having them go through the motions, they learn the necessary skills.
Whether or not they use those skills IS their choice. But whether or not they learn them is my job.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
ITA! I have really enjoyed the discussion,and remember enjoying posting with you on the Anthony Wolf thread a while ago - I think we think a lot alike in many respects. For the record, I'm not sure how much true TCS I'll use in my own family, but I do know it will play some role...as Cherry Bomb said, I'm not sure I'm willing to give up the right to veto - which I knew in dangerous situations my parents would have definitely invoked :LOL

well I have never read TCS.
I do think it is my job to always give my kids the whys and wherefores and give them the opportunity to willingly comply. I also think it is my job to choose my battles so I only really take action with things that I feel are truly important.
So in real life and practice it might look very similar to TCS. Because I am always talking and explaining and teaching. And because most of the time I do NOT have to coerce my children.
But in the end, when push comes to shove, I am more than happy to play my "I'm the Mom" trump card. And in that regards I suppose I am not, nor will I ever be TCS.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
The advantage to the child who was made to do it anyway is that they have learned the skills to complete the task. SO that if they should later come to the voluntary conclusion that they do indeed want to do x y or z, they already know how because they have done so.
I might not have much to say in the outcome if my child is a slob or a clean person. Or if they pay their bills on time etc. . .
But by intstructing them how and having them go through the motions, they learn the necessary skills.
Whether or not they use those skills IS their choice. But whether or not they learn them is my job.

I see what you mean, but I can't think of very many things that one could not learn to do on their own, esp. wrt keeping house and paying bills, etc. My parents never showed me how to pay bills, I just figured it out, maybe someone at the bank gave me a primer when I got my first checking account, I don't remember, common sense would tell one that paying them on time would be the thing to do, and the statements usually tell about late charges.

Housework- my parents were really laid back about us doing housework, not TCS, just hands off. I learned that I liked my room clean as I got older, I watched my mom vacuum, do dishes and laundry, etc. And as I got older and my mom went back to college on top of working part time, I started doing the vast majority of the housework, no one asked me to, no one paid me to, I just loved my mom and wanted to help her out. I don't think anyone ever taught me to clean a toilet or wash dishes, I just knew from watching I guess.

I am not altogether using TCS either, but that is mainly b/c I married a man who had no idea what I would become.







He had no clue I would nurse a baby older than one, or refuse to vax, want to homeschool, etc. I have had to pick my battles with him. He is a good man, but he wanted to spank the kids on occasion, so just getting GD going was a challenge, he'd go off of the deep end if I expected him to use TCS theories all of the time.

It seems to me that TCS with one child, no partner (or a very much agreeing partner) and a really felxible job/career of your own would be easiest. And believe me, I thought this was all kinds of crazy when I first learned of it, made no sense at all, and I used all of the arguments being used on this thread. As it stands I do coerce, I am just trying to do it less and less, I am trying to trust my children more and more, and stop trying to control them so much. Ideally, I'd be unschooling my kids, dh would be all rosey with TCS philosophies and I'd go full-force, but that is not realistic right now, so- I am a "TCS-try-er" :LOL


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *donosmommy04*
I'm not a TCS expert at all, but from what I have gathered from this discussion, I think the difference here would be that a TCS parent would be discussing with their children the ramifications of not cleaning their room, not saving money, and not being courteous and punctual...letting them know how it would impact them and others around them, and giving them alternative ideas to get things done...I'm not sure if your mom did that, but from the way you described it above, this sounds like a "hands-off" parenting style instead of one that would work with the child to help them make their own decisions.

.

Interesting interpretation.









Here's what I said:

_she never coerced me to clean my room -- she just let me live in whatever level of pigsty I could endure. When I was old enough to earn money, she never coerced me into saving any of it, she just let me blow it each week on whatever I felt like buying. She never coerced me to be punctual so I always showed up for appointments whenever I felt like it._

"Hands off" or "TCS"? Aren't we just using different *labels* here?

Certainly, I was given the choices. I saw my mom cleaning the rest of the house. Playing was more fun. I saw my parents paying bills. Spending my money on me was more fun. Given the chance, why not take the fun route? Nobody said I had to do otherwise, so why not do what appeared to be most advantageous to me at the time? I think you'd have to search pretty hard for a kid that preferred chores and saving to playing and having money to spend.

Now, you can interpret my situation as MY parents didn't do all the proper TCS things and give me a big song and dance about how I *ought* to save money and do chores. But if they never said I *had* to... why on earth would I have? And that's how I wound up without a *clue* as to how to be a grown up.

The thing is, I don't see "you only have to do X if you want to" as a teaching moment at all... not if when you grow up, you HAVE to do X. That's not treating a child as an adult (which is what TCS seems to ostensibly be about), that's giving a child special "get out of jail free" status. It's like taking children's responsibilities UNseriously. Which makes for a rude awakening upon adulthood, when you figure out you can't just always play all day long.

chinaKat


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat*
The thing is, I don't see "you only have to do X if you want to" as a teaching moment at all... not if when you grow up, you HAVE to do X. That's not treating a child as an adult (which is what TCS seems to ostensibly be about), that's giving a child special "get out of jail free" status. It's like taking children's responsibilities UNseriously. Which makes for a rude awakening upon adulthood, when you figure out you can't just always play all day long.


Well clearly TCS doesn't have to result in a rude awakening to adulthood, because many TCS'ed children make that transition with out traumatic difficulty.









TCS to me is not about treating children as adults, IMO. For me it is about treating children with the respect you'd give an adult while keeping developmental things in mind. I do not think it would be very kind to treat a 3 year old like a 15 yr old or a 9 yr old like a 40 yr old, developmentally speaking and in terms of what their responsibilities might be.

Everyone has choices to make. I can choose not to do dishes, but I know what will happen if I do not do them. (There will be dirty dishes, less or no dishes to eat from or cook with, a smell in the house perhaps, and more to deal with later, etc) This knowledge causes me to get the dang dishes done, rather than deal with what would happen if I did not, and rationally speaking who wants those other things to happen? Playing might be more fun than washing dishes (or washing dishes might be play, but that's not the point), but washing dishes is less unpleasant than what dirty dishes brings. We examine what will happen.

Responsibility often sounds like such a negative thing when I hear people say it. It's as if it comes with a heavy, unpleasant, and negative weight attached to it. It feels like they say it like: "I have to do this. It's my _responsibility_."







. But when you grow up not being forced to be responsible, but instead seeing what it responsibility looks like, and what decision making looks like you don't see responsibility as a this bad thing that other people make you do, or that you feel you must do even though you don't want to.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

"Hands off" or "TCS"? Aren't we just using different *labels* here?
That statement offends me a lot. TCS in many ways, takes a LOT of effort, because many of us were programmed to think that we aren't good parents unless we are controlling our children.

My goal is not to control my child. She didn't choose this, I did. My goal is to teach her, guide her, respect her, love her, keep her safe -- in doing that, yes, their may be times where I *may* have to step in and be the voice of reason as someone with more life experience and a better understanding of cause and effect (like the jumping off the roof thing) -- but blaming your parents because you didn't get your act together for a while to me is a cop out.

If you saw your mother cleaning, and paying the bills, and they spoke to you about it, the consequences of "playing" all day.. if they were honest and open with you about the *real* world and how it worked, then it seems to me, the choices you made were YOURS, not theirs.

This stuff about blaming our parents for everything is kind of bogus to me. Yes, my parents helped formed who I am, and in many ways I feel I was emotionally effected negatively because of that -- but I got to a certain age where MY choices were MY choices and I couldn't go around blaming something they did or didn't do for what I was doing at the present time.

Obviously, you learned you didn't want a filthy house and you wanted to pay the bills, that is great -- it takes some people longer than others, but at least in the end you changed, and isn't that what really matters? In other words, I would rather have my daughter come to a lesson learned on her own, being wiser, stronger, happier in the long run, than to blindly follow what she *should* be doing all the time just so no one can accuse her of *playing* and not being "responsible".

I have every confidence my daughter will get *there*. She may not be this wise, perfect, life-experienced person at 18, and that's okay. Some of the most interesting, wonderful, smart, creative, funny people I know are 40 and still don't have a damn clue about what they want to do with their lives, ya know?

I mean what are we talking about here really? Has this turned into a white collar job, white picket fence, properly dressed, says all the appropriate things, does all the socially accepted things as a measure as how *successful* our parenting styles are??

All I ask of my daughter is that she is happy. That is all, that she is happy and that she tries to better people's lives instead of hurting them (that can even be done by smiling at someone instead of frowning)... and when you are happy inside, I feel you do works of good..so the rest will follow suit...


----------



## momsgotmilk4two (Sep 24, 2002)

CherryBombI think I probably follow TCS more than I think said:


> I always thought it was funny when people would bring up the "jump off the roof" example because I thought it could never happen and it was just one of those sayings. Then several years ago, we were discussing this very thing and someone on another website who is TCS said that her dd really did decide to jump off the roof when she was about 6. They discussed it at length, she had jumped off other things before, and now she wanted to jump off the barn roof. She broke both arms and ended up in emergency surgery and mom still felt she had done the right thing.
> 
> One problem I have with TCS too (for my family of course, I don't have a problem with anyone else practicing it) is that for certain things, like the eating only at the table example, ds would be perfectly happy to accept the consequences and I would not. He would get crumbs all over the floor or furniture, choose not to clean up after himself, and accept the consequences that the floor and furniture is now stained and dirty. He is five. He doesn't care if the couch that *I* paid over $1000 for is now stained with grape juice. Crumbs ground into the carpet don't phase him. *I* care what the house looks like. So *I* have to accept the consequences of ds's choices, NOT ds.


----------



## momsgotmilk4two (Sep 24, 2002)

captain crunchy said:


> If you saw your mother cleaning, and paying the bills, and they spoke to you about it, the consequences of "playing" all day.. if they were honest and open with you about the *real* world and how it worked, then it seems to me, the choices you made were YOURS, not theirs.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I agree. My mom never made me clean the house or my room and it was a pigsty until I was about 15. That is when I decided to redecorate my room. I fixed everything up and really took pride in it. I realized that I loved the way my room felt when it was clean. I never had a messy room again. Now, my house is about the save level of clean as I grew up with. It was cleaner before I had three boys


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

I had no idea that some Objectivists had started a parenting philosophy. Interesting.

I'll have to go check that out, though, I won't be letting my child jump off of barn roofs. I would not describe Ayn Rand as right wing or left wing though, it's pretty "different" and I think a lot of her ideals can do a lot of good.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trinitty*
I'll have to go check that out, though, I won't be letting my child jump off of barn roofs. I would not describe Ayn Rand as right wing or left wing though, it's pretty "different" and I think a lot of her ideals can do a lot of good.

You're right - Rand is more stone-cold libertarian. Which I'm not. So a lot of the ideals of TCS don't really work for me, because I don't share those ideals regarding responsibilities, the common good, or lack thereof. There did not seem to be a lot of empathy-building or compassion for others built in to what I've read? But it sounds like many mamas are able to bring that into their own parenting style, and I really appreciate the creative methods used to help children come to the rational conclusions that work. I agree that children are rational; but there's an emotional element of considering others needs that needs to be there too, for me at least. Rand's philosophy of utilitarianism is not so much a world I'd like to live in or what I've observed from watching children interact. It is logical though, in a sort of free-market-love way.

Also, one of the website/TCS' main founders says that "TCS is fundamentally incompatible with pacifism." So I guess I'm outtie in the TCS book anyhow. Ah well.

That's why I like Alfie Kohn - he talks about many similar approaches; but within a context of needs vs wants, empathy, cooperation intead of competition, and considering others. Old-school liberal, baby.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

Hey, thanks for replying.

I really like Atlas Shrugged, (read it twice and listented to it) and I've looked through most of "Philosophy: Who needs it?" I appreciate her point of view of getting things done, striving for excellence the beauty of the human mind and spirit and the importance of ownership and achievement.

I haven't read her other writings.

I know that she's not exactly popular on these boards, though, I do think that her ideas are being terribly misrepresented by the so-called "Rand Institute" She's dead. I don't think it's right to issue opinions under her name after she's passed on.

.......................................

I'm not a Mom yet, so, I haven't read parenting books, and, I don't know if I will.

I have some pretty good ideas when it comes to raising children, I think, and I'll want to trust my gut to start.

I've read tonnes of pregnancy and birth books though.

We'll have to wait and see


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momsgotmilk4two*
One problem I have with TCS too (for my family of course, I don't have a problem with anyone else practicing it) is that for certain things, like the eating only at the table example, ds would be perfectly happy to accept the consequences and I would not. He would get crumbs all over the floor or furniture, choose not to clean up after himself, and accept the consequences that the floor and furniture is now stained and dirty. He is five. He doesn't care if the couch that *I* paid over $1000 for is now stained with grape juice. Crumbs ground into the carpet don't phase him. *I* care what the house looks like. So *I* have to accept the consequences of ds's choices, NOT ds.










Another problem is that children sometimes make very poor choices for themselves. Like the other day my two dd (3 and 5) were really miserable at home but refused to go to the park and yes I got them to go and we had a great day, of course.... I mean now please do not think that I forced them into their clothes or yelled them or bribed them... I just made it clear that we were going to the park I set the timer and we raced against the clock to get ready... I do not see why what I did is worse than sitting in the house all day with two miserable preschoolers on a bright sunny day...


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

"Hands off" or "TCS"? Aren't we just using different *labels* here?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
That statement offends me a lot. TCS in many ways, takes a LOT of effort, because many of us were programmed to think that we aren't good parents unless we are controlling our children.

Sorry.

I didn't mean to offend. I know TCS has got to be a heck of a lot of work.

I just found it interesting that when I pointed out an example of non-coercive parenting that *didn't* work out very well in the long run, it got the (negative) "hands off" label. When it really seemed no different (to me) than TCS.

Anyway, I'm sorry I'm raising hackles. I'm just questioning TCS as it applies to me. I think it's wonderful if it works out for other peoples' families.

I think I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate... but only because the entire premise is quite thought provoking. Believe it or not this discussion *will* have an impact on my parenting style, even if I'm not a full TCS convert.









WRT your other statement, though... I *do* believe that parenting has a great deal to do with what kind of a person one grows up to be. I've read too much developmental psychology to feel otherwise. But I've never "blamed" my parents for my disordered life as a young adult. I could easily look around my apartment and say, duh, this place needs to be cleaned up, etc. I just really *wish* they'd given me the life skills to make it happen -- clearly, many of my friends with sparkling homes and credit reports had those skills at a much earlier age than I did... I felt like I was behind. I eventually made it on my own, sure. But it doesn't mean I don't *regret* that I didn't have a little more of a boost in the right direction.

Hopefully I can provide that kind of boost for my dd -- in a noncoercive, encouraging way.









chinaKat


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gaialice*







I just made it clear that we were going to the park I set the timer and we raced against the clock to get ready... I do not see why what I did is worse than sitting in the house all day with two miserable preschoolers on a bright sunny day...

Well, now, see that doesn't really sound coercive to me. Maybe slightly manipulative if the truth be told, but more like you talked them into it. And it would only be perceived as manipulative to an adult, definitely not to preschoolers. So TCSers, what do you say? Would you use a strategy like that? Or would that go against TCS?


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat*
I *do* believe that parenting has a great deal to do with what kind of a person one grows up to be. I've read too much developmental psychology to feel otherwise. But I've never "blamed" my parents for my disordered life as a young adult. I could easily look around my apartment and say, duh, this place needs to be cleaned up, etc. I just really *wish* they'd given me the life skills to make it happen -- clearly, many of my friends with sparkling homes and credit reports had those skills at a much earlier age than I did... I felt like I was behind. I eventually made it on my own, sure. But it doesn't mean I don't *regret* that I didn't have a little more of a boost in the right direction.
chinaKat

Yeah, it's hard to know what's helping or hurting, isn't it? Like Captain Crunchy said, all she wants is for her dd to be happy. A noble goal, but I would also argue that happiness is directly linked to success in life. Not success in the "white picket fence" sense like she said, but in the sense of being able to manage the details in your life, instead of them managing you. If you have to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about how to get your bills paid, or feeling guilty because you're overdrawn, or trying to clean up your credit report, I agree it can definitely impact your happiness.

However, you really can't force anyone to do anything. Even your kids. So maybe the TCSers are on the right track not even trying. Maybe because they're always so respectful to their children, their children are very respectful and listen carefully when someone explains how to clean a toilet. I don't know.

I do think it would be a very hard way to parent without other TCSers around. UnSchoolnma, maybe you can answer this? What do you do about other people, like grandparents and friends, who aren't willing to do the same thing with your kids? Could you ever get a babysitter? Or is that kind of against the philosophy, too?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Years ago I remember hearing it said that what all parents want is for their children to be happy.
That didnt sit well with me at the time. I thought, No, not really. I want my children to be GOOD and happy. A crazy axe murderer who enjoyed his work was not my idea of success. LOL.
Happiness is often defined by superficial things and how you feel in the moment.
So recently after really trying to clarify what my true goals are as a parent I have revised the Good and Happy to be just this:
Joyful.
I think that people who are joyful cant help but be good. I think that people who are joyful arent always happy because happiness is an ephemeral emotion that comes and goes based on outside events. But inner joy is not quenched by momentary unhappiness or frustration or even temporary anguish.
A joyful person can feel negative emotions and quickly get through them and past to the other side.
I think that a person who learns that all types of tasks can be fun will work joyfully and be happy even when donig something that is usually undesirable.

I think that sometimes in order to be joyful, immediate gratification and therefore superficial happiness must be delayed.

Anyway, I have many thoughts on this and it is still a work in progress.
I do know that it is my desire to raise my children in a home filled with as much joy as possible. And when we have moments of frustration or anger, that deep joy will not long be buried.
So if I have to struggle to get a toddler into the carseat when they dont want to leave. I will do so. But only beause it is the faster way to the greater joy on the other side. To just persevere through those brief moments of unpleasantness. Because who knows what adventure it may lead us to when it is done.
And perhaps as a result of feeling occasionally challenged when they cannot have their will, they will grow up being just that much more resilient. WHich is just another word for getting through and back to joy.

joline
p.s. This is not an argument against TCS because I think TCS would be one great way to achive the same goal. Just another view on what it means to want our children to be happy


----------



## insahmniak (Aug 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
And perhaps as a result of feeling occasionally challenged when they cannot have their will, they will grow up being just that much more resilient. WHich is just another word for getting through and back to joy.

"And perhaps as a result of .... they will grow up being just that much more resilient." ? I've heard this rationale used before and it really throws up all kinds of red flags for me.

Perhaps the "more resilient" outcome would happen with a certain type of person -- those "I survived this horrible, atrocious experience and now I'm a CEO" folks, who likely would have been CEO's anyway IMO. But this "more resilient" outcome is definitely not true of all. _Ahem_. Feeling occasionally challenged when I cannot have my will, simply for the sake of teaching me some kind of lesson in resiliance, would simply burn my butt. (And for the kid who is screaming not to get in the car seat, I don't think they are going to understand the use of force as anything but an overpowering experience, regardless of what zoo or park they end up at.) I didn't appreciate that kind of condescention when I was four, or fourteen or.... And the approach didn't make me more resilient. It simply damaged my relationship with my parents/supervisor/exhusband/_______....


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Just as an aside... what happens when you are already away from home and the child doesn't want to get in the carseat?

Do you spend the night at the zoo?

Not trying to be snarky. This just seems like a real obstacle to this whole theory...

chinaKat


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
Maybe because they're always so respectful to their children, their children are very respectful and listen carefully when someone explains how to clean a toilet. I don't know.

Well, yeah that's about right. Of course TCS'ing families have moments of total freak out like everyone else. I mean we get angry, frustrated, and sad. We are human. We talk, we apologize sincerely, and we try to learn from each other. And there _are_ situations that I don't think being respectful is the best approach, such as when you have to stand up for yourself and be a little aggressive etc.

My MIL was being very controlling to Dd several months ago during a visit. She was prohibiting certain TV shows and food choices (among other things) and it was really starting to Dd off. Dh and I talked to MIL about it, and we encouraged Dd to stand up for herself as kindly as she could. It finally took Dd saying something like "I am sorry but you do not get to tell me what I can and can not do, watch, or eat. Those decisions are mine to make and you are out of line!" It wasn't pretty, polite, or what most people would call "respectful" but it was the right thing to do.

We've encouraged the kids to be as polite and respectful to others as is realistically possible (to treat others as they'd like to be treated etc), but sometimes you have to say what needs to be said. In a nutshell: My kids do not always do what people want them to do. They do what they feel is right.









Quote:

I do think it would be a very hard way to parent without other TCSers around. UnSchoolnma, maybe you can answer this? What do you do about other people, like grandparents and friends, who aren't willing to do the same thing with your kids? Could you ever get a babysitter? Or is that kind of against the philosophy, too?
We are the only TCS'ing (I think there are folks who might say that my family is not really TCS because we don't have a problem with compromise. I think the TCS founders see compromise as an unacceptable solution. Either way, I think we are pretty TCS.) type family I have ever met IRL. Most of our friends use punishments and rewards and such. Somehow we've managed to make those relationships work, though it hasn't always been easy.

My dad and his wife do not always agree with our ways, but they have tried to be really respectful of it & the same for our friends. I did not leave the children often when they were younger, but when I did it was with family or a close friend that I trusted to be kind and respectful to the kids.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ohmtaretu*
Feeling occasionally challenged when I cannot have my will, simply for the sake of teaching me some kind of lesson in resiliance, would simply burn my butt.

Amen. I know that I cannot always have what I want. I know that because there have been many times that what I wanted was not happening. My kids (most kids?) learn that too, but not letting someone have what they want (even though it's quite possible to do so... I assume that's what we mean here right?) just to teach them some lesson or to be more resilient would be really dreadful IMO.


----------



## Helen White (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
So recently after really trying to clarify what my true goals are as a parent I have revised the Good and Happy to be just this:
Joyful.
I think that people who are joyful cant help but be good. I think that people who are joyful arent always happy because happiness is an ephemeral emotion that comes and goes based on outside events. But inner joy is not quenched by momentary unhappiness or frustration or even temporary anguish.
A joyful person can feel negative emotions and quickly get through them and past to the other side.
I think that a person who learns that all types of tasks can be fun will work joyfully and be happy even when donig something that is usually undesirable.

I really don't have much of a position on TCS (haven't learned enough about it yet), but i just wanted to say this really resonated with me. "Joyfulness" really is what I want for my children. It does seem so much more meaningful than just "happiness." It's taken me most of my life to even discover what joy really is (probably has something to do with becoming a mother and overcoming incredible challenges), but on those days when I truly feel joyful, it's like I'm on the right path in life and problems can't even touch me. I feel an inner peace that stays with me when happiness wouldn't. This is definitely what I want for my children.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ohmtaretu*
"And perhaps as a result of .... they will grow up being just that much more resilient." ? I've heard this rationale used before and it really throws up all kinds of red flags for me.

Perhaps the "more resilient" outcome would happen with a certain type of person -- those "I survived this horrible, atrocious experience and now I'm a CEO" folks, who likely would have been CEO's anyway IMO. But this "more resilient" outcome is definitely not true of all. _______....

I couldn't agree more. Nothing is true for all. Although for ME I am quite fond of the phrase "What doesnt destroy me makes me stronger" But certainly we all get our strength from different sources.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ohmtaretu*
"_Ahem_. Feeling occasionally challenged when I cannot have my will, simply for the sake of teaching me some kind of lesson in resiliance, would simply burn my butt. _______....

Oh gosh. I certainly hope that you dont think I mean refusing to let my kids have their way "simply for the sake of teaching some kind of lesson" Absolutely rediculous.
{eta: I just had to say more. LOL(as usual) In fact, I think that it is very important to say "yes" whenever possible and only do "no" when unavoidable. I think it builds trust. I want my kids to always know there is a good reason why they arent getting their way. I want to never be arbitrary because I want them to trust that my decisions are always in their best interest and never because I am "being mean" or "just dont want them to have any fun"}

No, really, as it is occasionally unavoidable, perhaps some good can come of it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ohmtaretu*
"[(And for the kid who is screaming not to get in the car seat, I don't think they are going to understand the use of force as anything but an overpowering experience, regardless of what zoo or park they end up at.) I didn't appreciate that kind of condescention when I was four, or fourteen or.... And the approach didn't make me more resilient. It simply damaged my relationship with my parents/supervisor/exhusband/_______....

WEll I certainly hope my relationship with my children is much more solid and resilient than any that could possibly be damaged by a 2 year old occasionally not getting their way. If this was universally true, there would be no good relationships.
Certainly a fun filled day at the zoo or whatever joyful day we have in store for us is going to resonate in their memory and experience far more than the 2 minutes of upset at having to get in their carseat.
In addition, the 2 minutes of unhappiness is minute compared to the alternative of missing out on what have been joyful day in order to actually have their immediate want.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:

someone on another website who is TCS said that her dd really did decide to jump off the roof when she was about 6. They discussed it at length, she had jumped off other things before, and now she wanted to jump off the barn roof. She broke both arms and ended up in emergency surgery and mom still felt she had done the right thing.








Wow.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UnschoolnMa*
(I think there are folks who might say that my family is not really TCS because we don't have a problem with compromise. I think the TCS founders see compromise as an unacceptable solution. Either way, I think we are pretty TCS.) a close friend that I trusted to be kind and

I think that you're defining compromise more narrowly than TCS does. Compromise really necessitates coercion, because people aren't getting what they really want. However, if someone wants to find a mutually agreeable solution, that becomes part of what he really wants, too...

For example, if Rain and I are trying to figure out where to go for dinner and she wants Indian food and I want Sweet Tomatoes, we might come to all sorts of resolutions. We might decide to go get Indian food because I know Rain has had a hard day and I want her to be happy and have a great dinner more than I want Sweet Tomatoes... or we might decide to go to and Inidian place that has a nice salad because I want for both of us to enjoy dinner more than I want Sweet Tomatoes...and while I'm not getting what I originally wanted, I don't consider it to be a compromise. I don't think it's TCS to agree to a plan even though it's really not what you want, but I do think wanting your family members to be happy and wanting a peaceful time together are legitimate wants, as well...

I don't think setting a timer and saying, "When it rings, we're going to the park" was TCS, at least in the way the OP described it. If the kids had known from pas experience that they could say, "Nope, don't want to go to the park" than it could be, like a parent might set a timer to let someone know when dinner time was, or when he should start cleaning up his activity so that he can leave the house in time for another activity... but in TCS-land, that assumes that the timer is a reminder, not a command, and the person can say no.

I don't think I want joyfulness for my child, no... but maybe it's a definitional issue. "Intense and especially ecstatic or exultant happiness" is the defintion I got from dictionary.com, and it just doesn't sound very... fulfilling. I want my child to be fulfilled, to find meaning in her life and the things she's doing. I think happiness often comes with that, as does peace... but fulfillment seems to be the ultimate goal.

As far as the child at the zoo not wanting to get into his carseat, we'd try to find solutions... in my experience, a lot of carseats just aren't comfortable, and resolving that can go a long way. It really never was a problem for us, so I can't get into specifics. I had the kid in the carseat at 80 pounds and age 8, because she could see better and liked it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChinaKat*
I just found it interesting that when I pointed out an example of non-coercive parenting that *didn't* work out very well in the long run, it got the (negative) "hands off" label. When it really seemed no different (to me) than TCS.

TCS is more than non-coercive parenting - non-coercive parenting by itself is neglect, imo.

Quote:

Now, you can interpret my situation as MY parents didn't do all the proper TCS things and give me a big song and dance about how I *ought* to save money and do chores. But if they never said I *had* to... why on earth would I have? And that's how I wound up without a *clue* as to how to be a grown up.
Sharing theories is not a "big song and dance" about how people ought to save money and do chores. It's realistic, real-life discussion about how things work. As to "wy on earth would I have?", I think the biggest reason is that it's the rational thing to do, and as a TCS kid you would be acting rationally. My daughter saves money all the time for things she wants, and does things to help out. She's pretty aware of our household budget and can see that we can't spend on everything... and I also think she enjoys working for money to budget and then spend on the things she wants. Who'd of thunk it, eh? But I do that... and she sees it. She also helps out a lot around the house, but we don't see it as "chores"... just being part of a family.

Dar


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
I don't think I want joyfulness for my child, no... but maybe it's a definitional issue. "Intense and especially ecstatic or exultant happiness" is the defintion I got from dictionary.com, and it just doesn't sound very... fulfilling. I want my child to be fulfilled, to find meaning in her life and the things she's doing. I think happiness often comes with that, as does peace... but fulfillment seems to be the ultimate goal.

Dar

Well I suppose it must be a definitional issue. I have never looked up the word "joyful" for a dictionary defintion so I was unaware of that definition.
I suppose what joy means to me is deep satisfaction and happiness.
I think of the 7 dwarves "whistle while you work". I think of Anne of Green Gables when she says "I just love to make dirty things nice and clean again". Even when faced with work, what others might feel to be drudgery even. The spirit of joyfulness in the heart makes the task a joy to complete.
I think of the lady who was singing to herself when I was at the convenience store, becasue what is music but an expression of joy.

I think of happiness as being a fleeting emotion and joyfulness as being a state of mind. I suppose it is not really a different definition as above because I do see it as happiness but deeper, touching not just the mind but the soul. Deep and profound. A happiness so resolute in the psyche that transitory griefs cannot truly scratch its surface.
However I think that there is some overlap between my undestanding of joyfulness and fulfillment. Not exactly synonomous, but not entirely different either.

joline


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
However, if someone wants to find a mutually agreeable solution, that becomes part of what he really wants, too...
I don't think it's TCS to agree to a plan even though it's really not what you want, but I do think wanting your family members to be happy and wanting a peaceful time together are legitimate wants, as well...

Yes what you wrote here is exactly how I feel as well. I think it's OK to agree to things other than exactly what I wanted because it leads to making someone happy, etc. Mutually agreeable is how we operate.


----------



## insahmniak (Aug 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
Oh gosh. I certainly hope that you dont think I mean refusing to let my kids have their way "simply for the sake of teaching some kind of lesson" Absolutely rediculous.

I totally misread this. My apologies!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
...as it is occasionally unavoidable, perhaps some good can come of it.

I believe TCS argues that mutually agreeable solutions are ALWAYS possible, and that no good ever comes from even occassional coercion. Am I wrong about that? Just wondering out loud, here. If so, this must be one of your major differences with TCS. I hear you saying good CAN come of coercion.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
WEll I certainly hope my relationship with my children is much more solid and resilient than any that could possibly be damaged by a 2 year old occasionally not getting their way. If this was universally true, there would be no good relationships.

The condescention of "In the end, I know better than you and you're going to do it my way whether you understand it or not" is what was damaging about these (and any like these) relationships I've had. I felt it very, very young. It persisted throughout my childhood/adolescence. I had joy,too, like zoo trips, but this "I know better" trump card really sucked for me. Some people take it okay, (my sister, for example). But it was darnright dangerous for me. It drove me from the relationships of people who genuinely loved me to people who didn't give a darn.

Maybe you are thinking that the trump card deal is what you reserve for when they are two, say, and that you won't have to use it when they get older because they will see how reasonable your opinions are. (Can you appreciate the possible flaw in that line of reasoning?) From personal experience, the consequences of rebellion are much more dangerous at later ages, when they are much more out of your control. I think the "early reasoning" training that TCS seems to encourage is one of the most appealing things about it. Especially when she's in adolescence, I want my daughter to be able to think of our relationship as one of mutual respect. I don't know how mutual respect can involve coercive trump cards.

I sense from your posts that you are such a caring and loving and diligent parent. I sure hope my responses don't seem confrontational or judgemental; diplomacy skills are not my forte. And in case you find yourself with high-spirited, rebellious young people in the house, I simply wanted to share with you my high-spirited, rebellious experience. dangerous.


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
I don't think setting a timer and saying, "When it rings, we're going to the park" was TCS, at least in the way the OP described it.

Dar, thanks for your patience in answering this thread and my example in particular. Really. It must be tough to parent like this. I do not think I will ever go all the way to TCS but I will try to insert more negotiation (there already is quite a bit) in my parenting style. However I'd like to clarify my timer-setting example. As I said, it was a bright summer day, and I have two dd age 4,5 and 3. I was alone since my dh was away for work. Now, I sense after a while kids were becoming nervous, and would you blame them? They needed some fresh air and letting some energy out. So I said, let's go to the park. Nope, they didn't want to. However, I *know* that staying inside a 90 square meter flat much longer would mean that they'd start fighting. So I *got* them to go. Gently and playfully but yeah, I did get them to go. I know this is not TCS, in fact, it is playful parenting, at least, that's what I think. However, they were MUCH HAPPIER at the park than at home... it was honestly a ton better for our relationship too, or that's what I think, at least, because after a while at home with their constant arguing I am not at my best as a mom either while at the park I was playing with them pushing them on the swing and all that... I guess TCS means that if after some discussion they still refused to go we all would have had to stay home, and have a totally rotten day?


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ohmtaretu*
I totally misread this. My apologies!

I believe TCS argues that mutually agreeable solutions are ALWAYS possible, and that no good ever comes from even occassional coercion. Am I wrong about that? Just wondering out loud, here. If so, this must be one of your major differences with TCS. I hear you saying good CAN come of coercion..

True this is where I diverge from TCS. I do think it is a natural and normal part of a parent/child relationshp that some coercion takes place.
I do not argue that it works for some not to. But for me, as a mom of four and a former child, I dont see harm in occasional coercion. I certainly think there are caveats, such as a child's feelings must be taken into consideration, and the parent must not be arbitrary.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ohmtaretu*
The condescention of "In the end, I know better than you and you're going to do it my way whether you understand it or not" is what was damaging about these (and any like these) relationships I've had. I felt it very, very young. It persisted throughout my childhood/adolescence. I had joy,too, like zoo trips, but this "I know better" trump card really sucked for me. Some people take it okay, (my sister, for example). But it was darnright dangerous for me. It drove me from the relationships of people who genuinely loved me to people who didn't give a darn. .

Was there any effort made to help you understand it? Or was your need to understand ignored?
Was this the only issue? I can see that in an otherwise unhealthy relationship this type of use of power can be the thing to put one over the edge. But I think that where there is mutual trust and understanding this might not be the case. Without trust, coercion is very dangerous I think.
Of course I cannot say from your experience.
As a adult I have had memories, flashbacks and "A-Ha" moments where I have learned the thing I was ignorant of as a child and I have remembered times when my mom did coerce me in one way or another and I think "Now I know why she did that."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ohmtaretu*
Maybe you are thinking that the trump card deal is what you reserve for when they are two, say, and that you won't have to use it when they get older because they will see how reasonable your opinions are. (Can you appreciate the possible flaw in that line of reasoning?) From personal experience, the consequences of rebellion are much more dangerous at later ages, when they are much more out of your control. I think the "early reasoning" training that TCS seems to encourage is one of the most appealing things about it. Especially when she's in adolescence, I want my daughter to be able to think of our relationship as one of mutual respect. I don't know how mutual respect can involve coercive trump cards..

Absolutely. My 2 year olds have no reasoning skills. My 3 year old has some but he has conflicting desires. But my 13 year old is old enough, (and has been for a long time) where coercion is simply unnecessary.
A lot has been said years ago about children having an "age of reason" at about the age of 7.
Now I dont know how true it is that magically at age 7 children suddenly become rational. But I do think that at sometime during mid childhood they do become more rational and that is the time when coercion really becomes unnecessary for the most part. (I hate to use the word "unnecesssary" I realize that in some families it is never necessary so nobody has to post the reminder







)
Now at 13 I would say I "almost never" use coercion. And only in dangerous situations.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ohmtaretu*
I sense from your posts that you are such a caring and loving and diligent parent. I sure hope my responses don't seem confrontational or judgemental; diplomacy skills are not my forte. And in case you find yourself with high-spirited, rebellious young people in the house, I simply wanted to share with you my high-spirited, rebellious experience. dangerous.

I think that some children are high spirited and rebellious by nature. It is part of a certain spirited temperament. And I think for many of those children they must learn from their own mistakes. It is the only path for them. Which means no matter how their parents try to protect them with their own knowledge and understandign, they will fill that need to learn through experience rather than from the wisdom of others.
I do not think there is any magical parenting cure for this.
joline


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I also think what a lot of people do (I am guilty myself) is fall into these labels -- they find a philosophy they really understand or one that appeals to them and by trying to think outside the box -- they just box themselves into something completely different that is equally as confining ya know?

I only refer to myself as being TCS mainly because it is one of the philosophies I closely identify with, but certainly, I know not EVERYTHING I am going to do is going to fall into TCS and that is okay. The same way not everything I do falls under *AP* or *nfl* either, but it is sort of a "catch-all" for a certain parenting approach.

The key for me, is to treat my daughter as closely as possible (keeping in mind it is my job to keep her safe and provide for her) to anyone else I dearly love, admire, respect and cherish. I would no sooner tell my daughter what she can and can't eat than I would my husband. Similarly, I wouldn't think of telling my best friend that I couldn't go to her house for coffee until she cleaned her kitchen. I wouldn't think of laying a hand on my mother if she angered me. I wouldn't even consider giving my sister a set in stone "bedtime" when she wasn't at all tired, or tell my brother "because I said so."

Similarly, because everyone wants to bring up this jumping off the roof thing (which I think is kind of ridiculous.) I would have the same conversation with my child as I would if my friend got the bright idea to jump off the roof.

I think some people think children are just some kind of wild beasts who have no concept or understanding of anything... I acutally think children may be smarter than us all :LOL ... yes, it is my job to keep my child safe and to provide for their physical and emotional needs, but it is not my place to control them.

I don't know if children are "rebellious" by nature, when there is not much to rebel against (in the home that is), what is there to rebel ya know?


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gaialice*
Dar, thanks for your patience in answering this thread and my example in particular. Really. It must be tough to parent like this. I do not think I will ever go all the way to TCS but I will try to insert more negotiation (there already is quite a bit) in my parenting style. However I'd like to clarify my timer-setting example. As I said, it was a bright summer day, and I have two dd age 4,5 and 3. I was alone since my dh was away for work. Now, I sense after a while kids were becoming nervous, and would you blame them? They needed some fresh air and letting some energy out. So I said, let's go to the park. Nope, they didn't want to. However, I *know* that staying inside a 90 square meter flat much longer would mean that they'd start fighting. So I *got* them to go. Gently and playfully but yeah, I did get them to go. I know this is not TCS, in fact, it is playful parenting, at least, that's what I think. However, they were MUCH HAPPIER at the park than at home... it was honestly a ton better for our relationship too, or that's what I think, at least, because after a while at home with their constant arguing I am not at my best as a mom either while at the park I was playing with them pushing them on the swing and all that... I guess TCS means that if after some discussion they still refused to go we all would have had to stay home, and have a totally rotten day?

This is my major hangup. I just really find it so hard to believe that a two and a half year old child would be rational about something that requires a whole lot of self-control. For example, we recently bought some chocolate kisses, and I am positive that if I hadn't rationed them out, my dd would have eaten them all in one sitting. Then she would have felt very sick.

Now I think that I could have explained this until I was blue in the face, and she wouldn't have been able to resist. Having never been sick from eating too much chocolate, and being a child with a pretty iron stomach, I just don't think she could have fathomed it. So in the end, I had to coerce her into not eating them all, by hiding them from her, and not giving one to her every time she asked.

I guess this problem could be solved by not buying them, but then my child never gets to enjoy the great pleasure of a chocolate kiss. Or really any other food that you shouldn't eat too much of. That's something I wouldn't wish upon anyone! :LOL


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I do think it is important also to love and respect and cherish our children just as much as anybody else, child or adult.
However unlike with the other people I love and care about I have a responsibility over my children that I do not have with other family members and loved ones. (except maybe my dh)
I do tell my DH "please dont eat that, dinner is in only 10 minutes"
It is not your responsibility to show your best friend what her responsibilities are and help her learn about them. That was her mom's job.
It is not your responsibility to help your sister get a good night's sleep.
It is not our responsibility to guide, teach, or protect the health and well benig of everybody we love. Just our children (and sometimes our husbands, from what lots of women tell me).
So while I cherish and respect them even MORE than my mother/sister/brother/best friend. My responsibility to them is even greater still.
I think the two can go hand in hand.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

I don't know much about TCS but just wanted to respond to Captain Crunchy's comment:

Quote:

I don't know if children are "rebellious" by nature, when there is not much to rebel against (in the home that is), what is there to rebel ya know?
Actually, rebellion is a healthy milestone for children. I have a friend whose adult children had a lot of problems and they all went to a family counselor. The counselor explained that my friend was too permissive (_I'm not saying that *TCS* is too permissive!_) while they were growing up and didn't create boundaries against which the boys could rebel, as a result, they missed that critical milestone in their development. I realize this is just one anecdotal datapoint, and also that every family/ child is different, but just thought I'd throw this out there as a point of interest.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonconformnmom*
Actually, rebellion is a healthy milestone for children.

My sister has a friend who had very crunchy, hippie parents who were always telling her it was okay to have sex, smoke pot, drink, etc. in high schol, that they just wanted to know that she was safe, etc. So what did she do? She became a born-again Christian. Tee-hee!

I agree that the need for kids to "individuate" or whatever you want to call it is always there, but I think it's stronger in some families/personalities than others.

Also, johub, I agree with you. Or at least I can't help but help my kids. I am willing to let them learn some lessons for themselves, but I feel like I can save them a lot of heartache by passing on my experiences.

My other question about TCS is, how do you handle two children close together? There are times when the baby's crying and needs my immediate attention, and I just haven't been able to negotiate with my dd. Would someone who was TCSing intentionally space your children far apart?

Also, if hardcore TCSers don't believe in compromise, what do they do? Do they just do everything a child asks? That seems like a very unhealthy way to have a relationship to me, with children or adults.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Re compromise - they define compromise differently than I do, and probably than you do too. They consider a compromise to be any solution where people go away without getting what they want. They look for mutually agreeable solutions, they have a special name for it I can't remember, where everyone thinks together to find a solution that *everyone* likes, and where no one feels like his/her needs or wants are being compromised. If the parents were always giving in, then the "solution" wouldn't be agreeable to the parents and therefore it wouldn't be an acceptable solution in TCS either. The parents have to be happy with the outcome too.

I am not a TCSer but I am intentionally spacing my children for the reasons you stated.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I do tell my DH "please dont eat that, dinner is in only 10 minutes"
I guess that is the difference then. I wouldn't say that to my husband. He is free to do as he pleases in our home. If I am cooking dinner, I will usually tell him I am cooking (earlier in the day just as a head's up) but if he wants to eat something before dinner, or something instead of dinner, that is totally up to him -- the same way it would be up to our child.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
This is my major hangup. I just really find it so hard to believe that a two and a half year old child would be rational about something that requires a whole lot of self-control. For example, we recently bought some chocolate kisses, and I am positive that if I hadn't rationed them out, my dd would have eaten them all in one sitting. Then she would have felt very sick.

I think rationing ensures that she will eat them all in one sitting, if given the opportunity.

In TCS households, where food of all kinds is freely available, the kids generally don't eat to the point of feeling sick. It may happen occasionally - once when I was visiting a TCS friend, another friend came visiting from out of town and she made a delicious lentil dal, and I think quite a few of us ate so much we felt ill afterwards. I don't actually remember any of the kids doing this, though, so maybe it was just the adults. I do know that Rain has eaten too much of something and felt sick sometimes, but no more often than I have, and probably less often.

mamazee described mutually agreeable solutions and how they differ from compromise very nicely, and AFAIK, mutually agreeable solutions is the term used...

I don't think rebellion is a necessary stage, and indeed, in many cultures and during many times in history, it isn't (or wasn't). It's our messed-up culture that sees it as necessary. Individuating, now, is something different.I do think most kids have a jump in independence somewhere around the beginning of puberty, and their worlds expand further into the surrounding community, and they become less dependant on their family... not all kids, but many. I don't think that this needs to be done by rebelling, though... with the TCSish families I've known, it's generally been more about the kids planning more of their own activities, developing new interests, and spending more time away from the family (either with friends or doing activities related to their interests or working, or any combination thereof).

Dar


----------



## Devaskyla (Oct 5, 2003)

Sorry for kind of jumping in here in the middle and asking for help, but I don't really have net access at the moment (just enough to open a couple windows and get off, then jump on to submit pre-typed stuff) and since I wanted a TCS perspective and have this window open, figured it would be a good place.









We have 2 big issues with our ds, 4 years. The first is one that's been on-going practically since birth, which is that he will not sleep. He will deliberately keep himself awake, no matter how exhausted he is, by moving and/or talking. Pretty much the second he stops both, he's out. I get so frustrated with this behaviour. I take him to bed when he's tired, he doesn't have a set bedtime. We co-sleep, although he now has his own bed right next to ours rather than me sleeping with him. We go to bed, I read a couple of stories while I nurse the baby to sleep. He goes to his bed or potty then bed when I'm done. And then the bouncing/talking/anything to stay awake begins. It drives me nuts! He's rubbing his eyes, yawning like crazy, dark circles from all the sleep he hasn't been getting every other night (needless to say, he doesn't nap and I gave up trying a couple of years ago). I usually end up yelling at him and/or ignoring him until the 30 second of stillness occurs and he collapses. I'm so tired of this every night and I'm tired of yelling. What would someone who does tcs do? I've tried explaining to him why it's important for him to go to sleep and that doesn't seem to help, either.

The other thing is that he's constantly touching stuff while we're out. Ok, the touching isn't so bad, it's the destroying that's the problem. For example, the other day we went to the post office. They have a bunch of pictures hanging from the counter. He had to go up to them and hit them all. Another example, dh and ds were at the grocery store. Dh was grabbing some bread and in the time it took him to do it and look at ds again, he had gone up to the cakes and slammed in the plastic on the tops of all of them. He's not usually that destructive, usually he just messes up the displays, but it's completely aggravating. We've tried explaining why he shouldn't do stuff like that, that we might end up having to pay for stuff he wrecks, but it doesn't seem to work. Again, ideas from a tcs perspective? Thanks!


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I completey agree with Dar... I don't feel that rebellion is *neccessary* in child development. Coming from the perspective of a sociologist (I majored in it but have yet to write my dissertation), rebellion is, in essence, the reaction to feeling controlled -- and in an environment where you remove that control, there is not a need to rebel. Now, it should be said that asserting independence is different than *rebelling*. I fully expect my daughter to get to a certain age where she begins expressing (as Dar said) the desire to "do her own thing" -- spend time with people other than us, perhaps plan activities that don't include us etc, buy and listen to her own music, keep her bedroom door shut etc...and that is perfectly okay. I firmly believe though, that rebellion is a direct reaction to being controlled. In a completely unscientific consideration of all the people I have known in my life, I do notice that the ones who "rebelled" the most (myself included) were the ones that were most controlled by their parents...even if their parents were loving, decent people.

Look, there are different ways of approaching TCS, just as with everything. There are some Christians who believe it is wrong for women to wear pants, there are some muslims who don't cover, there are some people who practice GD that do time outs -- and as with anything, situations need to be considered as far as safety etc.. if my daughter was running into the street and a car was coming, of course I wouldn't sit back and be like "let's see how this plays out, I don't want to control her"... but I think the point of TCS is to eliminate the world of arbitrary rules there are to raising children.

To me personally, the root of TCS is seeing your child as an equal to you. Even the most GD parents I know still see their child as *lesser* than them in some way...when you begin to see your child as an equal, you treat them as an equal.

I have heard the arguements before: "so if your 5 year old wanted to drive a car you would let them!!??" Of course not. One still has to consider things like THE LAW when practicing TCS and the desire not to kill yourself and 6 other people in the process. I would however, try my darndest to satisfy her desire to do so, in keeping with the law and safety. That to me, is what TCS is about -- while a lot of parents would just be like "drive a car, are you nuts, that is illegal"... and leave it at that.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Different people probably define "rebellion" in different ways. A lot of parents would define a child dying his hair green as rebellion, but I would call that experimenting with individuality. All kids at some point hopefully go through that process, and it might look a lot like rebellion, but I would argue that they're two different things.

This psychologist might not have been talking about "rebellion" with the same definition I would use. I don't think rebellion against ones parents is necessary. Rebellion against conformity, which I would again call experimentation with individuality, is probably necessary.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Devaskyla*
The other thing is that he's constantly touching stuff while we're out. Ok, the touching isn't so bad, it's the destroying that's the problem. For example, the other day we went to the post office. They have a bunch of pictures hanging from the counter. He had to go up to them and hit them all. Another example, dh and ds were at the grocery store. Dh was grabbing some bread and in the time it took him to do it and look at ds again, he had gone up to the cakes and slammed in the plastic on the tops of all of them. He's not usually that destructive, usually he just messes up the displays, but it's completely aggravating.

Probably getting OT here, but I just wanted to add something quickly. I am interested to see what TCSers would recommend for your son.

I'm reading Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Baby by Marc Weissbluth, which has some very yucky stuff about letting your dc CIO, but has some very interesting studies about sleep deprivation and behavior. I would guess the destructiveness is linked to the lack of sleep. At least, that's how I feel when I'm not getting enough sleep. I have no self-control, I'm slightly obsessive, and I feel very quick to anger.

Have you tried putting him to bed lots, lots earlier?


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
To me personally, the root of TCS is seeing your child as an equal to you. Even the most GD parents I know still see their child as *lesser* than them in some way...when you begin to see your child as an equal, you treat them as an equal.

I think that you can "see your child as an equal" without being a TCSer. In fact, IMO, I think that I see my children as more than equal. Their needs have highest priority around our house. For example, I don't take into equal consideration my dh's need to finish his sentence, or my need to finish my dinner, and my dd's need for me to help her with the toilet, or my ds's need to get fed, changed, or put to sleep. It would be unfair of me to expect my children to have the patience of an adult and treat them as such.

In the same way, I think it would be unfair to expect them to be able to make the decisions of an adult, or to "have a say" in every decision about their lives. I'm not sure if that's what it means to TCS, and maybe that's because I've never tried it with my kids. Maybe if I'd always asked them and looked for "mutually agreeable arrangements" my dd really would be able to stop playing and take a bath at a reasonable time. But the way it is, she doesn't have the self control or the forethought. She needs gentle encouragement, or "coercion".

I guess what I take umbrage at is the idea that people see their children as "lesser" than them. IME, this just isn't true, not with GDers, or even with child abusers. I don't think that believing your toddler is incapable of making adult decisions in any way insinuates you think that person is lesser than you. It's just respecting their childhood.


----------



## nonconformnmom (May 24, 2005)

Sarah,
Very well put! I've been trying to figure out how to convey that idea for months now. The only example I could come up with was if my child has a potty accident on the kitchen floor. When that happens, I'm very neutral, I help her get out of her wet clothes and guide her to clean up. If my teenager or husband were to pee a puddle on the kitchen floor, I'd point and laugh!  Of course, I'm kidding because if an adult had a pee accident it probably means something is severely wrong medically and I should be calling 9-1-1 or something.

But you get the idea.







In my house, we treat the children _better_ than the adults. And we all like it that way because it's consistent with their developmental abilities.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Sarah, I kind of see what Captain Crunchy was saying and I don't know if it's exactly related to what you mean. Mothering is kind of a self-limiting group. Really mainstream moms aren't here - the types who do see themselves as truly more valuable. I think what she was talking about was seeing our kids as of equal value, and their wants and needs as equally valuable to our own. Treating your children as though they are at an equal level of development to you isn't the issue here I don't think.

I grew up in a family where my mom would make steak for herself and dad, and make us mac and cheese even though we would have liked steak too, and they said it was because steak would be wasted on us - it was too expensive for kids. That is the kind of mind-set I think Captain Crunchy was talking about. There are people who honestly treat their children as though they are of lesser value, but there might not be any people like that here on MDC.

I might be completely off CC, and I apologize if I am, but I've used that same statement about my parenting philosphy (though I don't think I'm TCS because we do have some coercion in this house) - the statement that my dd is of equal value to dh and myself and her wants and needs are equal to ours, and we behave that way.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I completey agree with Dar... I don't feel that rebellion is *neccessary* in child development. Coming from the perspective of a sociologist (I majored in it but have yet to write my dissertation), rebellion is, in essence, the reaction to feeling controlled -- and in an environment where you remove that control, there is not a need to rebel. Now, it should be said that asserting independence is different than *rebelling*. I fully expect my daughter to get to a certain age where she begins expressing (as Dar said) the desire to "do her own thing" -- spend time with people other than us, perhaps plan activities that don't include us etc, buy and listen to her own music, keep her bedroom door shut etc...and that is perfectly okay. I firmly believe though, that rebellion is a direct reaction to being controlled. In a completely unscientific consideration of all the people I have known in my life, I do notice that the ones who "rebelled" the most (myself included) were the ones that were most controlled by their parents...even if their parents were loving, decent people.

I think there is another aspect to it. Two children exhibiting the exact same behavior. The less controlling parent does not see this behavior as rebellion. The more controlling does. But really the children are doing the same thing.

I have heard some posters who claim that their children don't rebel and that they usually make good decisions and they dont see any "typical" teenagerish behavior. And yet these same posters in other threads describe behavior that if my daughter exhibited it I would consier it very rebellious, and far "worse" behavior than behavior I have seen and described in my "rebellious" daughter.
So "rebellion" is often in the eye of teh beholder.
A child who may have nothign to rebel against will sometimes participate in risky unwise behavior. But since the parent is not trying to control them, they dont define the behavior as rebellious.

joline


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

mamazee, that was exactly what I was talking about, thanks! What I meant was that many parents I have seen, however respectful and loving to their children seem to have a need to control them, to make sure they are "well-behaved", to limit choices, to punish... and to me, in seeing your child as equal to yourself in terms of who they are-- even if you consider their developmental stage and limits in impulse control-- I find that the mindset is slightly different. I am not saying that parents who do this are lesser parents than me AT ALL, I am just saying that I feel a TCS approach eliminates a lot of arbitrary rules that cause many of the power struggles a lot of parents have. I mean cmon, how many posts on here do you see that say "help, my child wants to jump off the roof" compared to the ones you see about "my child won't go to bed at said time" or similar. That was all I was saying...

I see your point too johub, the idea that it is about perspective. I am however, of a STRONG belief that children who aren't acting *right* aren't feeling *right* -- I mean, I am sure it has happened, but I have hardly EVER met anyone or seen anyone on TV or in the news who is a herion addict that robbed a bank for their next fix that was raised in the kind of households we try to have on MDC (respectful, gentle, loving, attentive etc). Again, I am sure it is possible, but it is certainly not the norm. That is the reason I don't anticipate my daughter falling into many dangerous situations or *rebelling* the way some people describe. Of course she is not perfect, of course she will make mistakes, of course I don't expect she will make the best decisions *all* the time -- but I completely believe in my heart of hearts that having years and years of experience with being treated with nothing but respect, the ability to make her own choices, with the knowledge that she can be who she is (green hair, lesbian, republican *gasp* jk) and still be accepted and loved, that she will be so used to being treated with respect and so familiar with her voice being heard and her choices and opinions respected, so used to not being punished when she makes a mistake... that she will continue that in her adult life and not make choices that are going to contribute to her destruction of self.

I think much of rebelling (not green hair, but TRUE destructive behavior) has to do with a feeling of self loathing, at least I can speak for my own experience. I think it has to do with a feeling of wanting to control your environment when all you have ever been is controlled--even if you are controlling it negatively. I think it has to do with a feeling of wanting your voice to be heard because no one has ever listened. I think it is directly related to seeking love that you may have never felt -- even if you had people who loved you (if that makes sense)...and while I know I will make mistakes and I am sure my daughter will make hers as well, I just don't anticipate the type of destructive behaviours people describe as "rebellious".

My luck she will be a meat-eating republican who listens to Britney Spears ... :LOL how is that for rebelling? haha


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I agree 100% with you CC. The type of thing I hear that annoys me the most is when I hear moms say something like, "How can I get my 2-month-old child to sleep through the night because *I need more sleep*." I can't help but think, why is the mom's need for sleep more valuable than the baby's need for food? If a baby is of equal value, then we would consider the baby's need for food as equal to an adult's need for food, which is above anyone's need for sleep, IMO.

Another one is when people say they want their kids to nap because they need quiet time in the afternoon. I understand the desire for quiet time, but if a child has truly outgrown naps, then why is the mom's desire for quiet in the afternoon so great that the child should have to sit for a long time in bed without doing anything?

The final one is when people say their kids have to go to bed at like 7 pm or something even though the kids aren't tired because the parents need "adult time" in the evenings. Again, if the kids and adults are of equal value, then the adults desire for adult time is not more important than forcing kids into rooms when they aren't tired. Again, I'm not talking about kids who are honestly tired at 7 pm, I'm talking about forcing kids who aren't tired to go to their rooms alone every evening because the adults don't want to have to hang out with kids in the evenings.

These are things I hear parents say all time time IRL (specific examples are courtesy of my sister-in-law). I think they are classic examples of cases where children are not treated of equal value to adults.

On MDC we have posts where moms say they want their kids to nap because they're obviously tired and they want to help them get the sleep they need, or they'd like their kids to have some quiet time in the afternoons because a baby is sleeping, but I haven't seen anything where someone says, "I know she isn't tired and doesn't need naps anymore, but *I* need her to nap so one way or another she's staying in that room for 2 hours in the afternoon, period" like I hear IRL. Because, again, this is a bit of a self-limiting group. Those kinds of moms don't read Mothering, and probably don't hang out here.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

If rebellion is normal we are totally abnormal. I agree that it depends on how we are defining it and also who the situation involves. If we mean "an act or show of defiance toward an rules or authority" my family has a pretty clear absence of that because there are not a bunch of rules or authority type figures happening around here. However in another environment, with other people, my kids may decide to rebel or be defiant if they feel it's the right thing to do. I see that as a good thing really.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

In the absence of strong authority isnt what would be an act of "Defiance" in another home just relabled as an "unwise choice"
Sure a child cant rebel if there is nothing to rebel against but then what do you call a pattern of unwise choices when they are given every right to make those choices?


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Just an an added note on rebellion. In the book, In The Shleter of Each Other: Rebuilding Our Families, Mary Pipher (the author of Reviving Ophelia) writes that teen rebellion is a product of our culture. What you might make of this is whatever you make of this.







I found it interesting and a bit different from what we are expected to experience.

She writes, "Teenagers hear that families are a hindrance to individual growth and development, and sadly, teens who love their parents are set up to feel odd. This sets up teenagers for trouble. Just when they desperatelky need their parents' guidance and support, they are culturally conditioned to turn away. They must tackle difficult tasks about sex, drugs, peers and chemicals on thier own. Rebels do not ask for adice and help....Our American love of rebellion makes the whole idea of commitment confusing. We are unclear about whether loyalty is healthy or unhealthy, good or bad. But commitment is about being there when it is not convenient or easy. It's about steadfastness in the face of change and crisis".

I am not saying that there are any easy answers, but i thought this was an intersting bit of writing. We think rebellion is inevitable, but our society is uniquely set up for rebellion. We can see that from public Middle School. Oy.

"


----------



## insahmniak (Aug 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
...but then what do you call a pattern of unwise choices when they are given every right to make those choices?

In a relationship with an adolescent (or maybe anyone?), the phrase "given every right" doesn't feel very indicative of a balanced or respectful relationship. If I used that term with my partner, it would indicate a very real problem.

And in any case, whether or not I was given a right was not ever the issue for me...I found plenty of ways to get into trouble without anyone's permission. What _was_ a problem for me was that the people who were so emphatic about their "concern" for me didn't take into consideration ME. They had all the experience, and all the right answers, and I, well, I had no experience and foolish notions. Damn right I was going to do all those things they were totally afraid I'd do and show them I could handle it. I felt condescended to, not respected. What I wouldn't have given to have a relationship where I didn't feel judged or one in which I wasn't thought of as "lacking" in experience and therefore couldn't make wise decisions! Did I end up making wise decisions? Better believe I didn't. But that wasn't the point anymore. The point was to prove I wasn't _wrong_.

I honestly feel I would have had a safer adolescence with TCS parents. I don't blame my folks or their parenting for the decisions I made as a teen. I just know that for myself, I'm going to do my very, very best to be the person my daughter COMES to, not runs away from, if she's conflicted or troubled or just hashing something out for herself...green hair and all. I know I can't do anything that guarantees that, but I can sure work hard to tip the balance.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

The green hair thing keeps coming up.
I just have to respond that my DD just happens to have green hair at this very moment! LOL
Can you see through my computer???


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I don't think that believing your toddler is incapable of making adult decisions in any way insinuates you think that person is lesser than you. It's just respecting their childhood.

This is a straw man... I don't think anyone expects a toddler to make adult decisions. My toddler didn't care how much I spent on a computer, or how I invested my money, or even what brand of peanut butter we bought. I wouldn't even say that everyone should be treated "equally", because everyone doesn't have the same needs and ablities. I do think that children are worthy of equal respect and equal self-determination.

Devaskyla - With a child who doesn't sleep, it sounds like going to sleep has developed some bad associations for him, and if you could figure out exactly what about it he's fighting you'd have a better shot at helping him. He's not acting rationally if lack of sleep is making him unhappy... perhaps he's had some nightmares, or perhaps he feels like he's missing out on things if he goes to sleep. Rather than talking to him about how he needs sleep, maybe you could ask him why he doesn't want to go to sleep. My daughter always slept better actually in bed with me, so that might help. You might also try making sure the environment is soothing and restful - dim lights, low noises, lots of snuggly blankets and pillows, back rubbing... My daughter used to like to fall asleep in front of a video at that age, when she took naps. She would snuggle up to me on the couch and rest, and sometimes fall asleep. Nursing to sleep also worked, if your son is still nursing. Some kids have a hard time slowing down and need a long time to wind down. Also, I always laid down and took a nap when Rain went to sleep at that age - I would usually get up again, but I would lie with her for half an hour or so. We never did a bedtime, but I would offer to read or snuggle when she seemed sleepy.

If you think he's gotten into a bad cycle and can't sleep because he's always overtired, a short-term sleeping aid might be a possibility, as well.

As far as touching stuff when you're out, maybe you could do errands without him if possible, and leave him with the other parent? Or maybe you could help find things he could do and touch when you're out, like ask him to get a loaf of bread or something at the grocery store, and channel his needing to touch things into things that you're okay with him touching.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
I have heard some posters who claim that their children don't rebel and that they usually make good decisions and they dont see any "typical" teenagerish behavior. And yet these same posters in other threads describe behavior that if my daughter exhibited it I would consier it very rebellious, and far "worse" behavior than behavior I have seen and described in my "rebellious" daughter.

You can't rebel without defying an authority - that's the definition of "rebel".

I suppose a TCS teen could rebel by refusing to participate in seeking mutually agreeable solutions, which they might occasionally do, especially when emotionally overwrought or hormonally challenged (or both)... but my daughter, at least, always gets past it. I think that's just normal teen behavior. I also think that making bad decisions at times is normal teen behavior - heck, it's normal *human* behavior, but because teens are often exploring more independence they generally make more than most. If it became a pattern, I'd wonder if perhaps I hadn't been sharing enough information with my teen, which is my job as a TCS parent...

Dar


----------



## sassykat (Sep 7, 2005)

I had never heard of TCS until I read this thread. It seems like TCS is more of talking your children down--that TCS parents aren't really worried that their children are going to jump off the roof or die their hair green, because they know that they will have in-depth discussion until the child decides not to follow through with the action. I would rather cut to the chase and stop the behavior, then spend the rest of my time enjoying and just listening to my children.

The parents who enjoy their teens, and are not miserable during the pre-teen and teenage years, are the ones who are consistent, disciplined, and loving (and a lot of other positive qualities)--maybe they have their own philosophy, maybe they are TCS parents, but they are definitely not exclusively TCS parents.

TCS is an interesting philosophy, and I hope to read about these children's endeavors as adults and employees in several years.








 sassykat


----------



## sassykat (Sep 7, 2005)

"As far as touching stuff when you're out, maybe you could do errands without him if possible, and leave him with the other parent? Or maybe you could help find things he could do and touch when you're out, like ask him to get a loaf of bread or something at the grocery store, and channel his needing to touch things into things that you're okay with him touching."

A couple of observations: Is channeling his needing to touch not a softer form of coercion? I guess I am confused. Also, if you are having to make arrangements to leave your children at different places, or with sitters, to avoid these situations, TCS would interfere with the Attachment Parenting philosophy.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sassykat*
It seems like TCS is more of talking your children down--that TCS parents aren't really worried that their children are going to jump off the roof or die their hair green, because they know that they will have in-depth discussion until the child decides not to follow through with the action.

This is not true for my family. We do not just talk them out of something that we might disagree with. We definately talk (in fact I would say that discussion has been one of the most important things with my kids) to the kids to give our opinions, advice, what we think might happen if someone does "xyz", what happened to us when we did "xyz" one time, and so on...but it's in an effort to really share information not to bully them or wear them down. And for the record I dyed my kids hair green and purple and black.









Quote:

I would rather cut to the chase and stop the behavior, then spend the rest of my time enjoying and just listening to my children.
I would rather discuss my problems/feelings about any behavior with my child if it's anything that seems serious. At this stage in my kids' lives often we are just right out there with it and say "Hey, knock it off dude. You're bugging the crap out of me." but we laugh with that too. Works for us









Quote:

The parents who enjoy their teens, and are not miserable during the pre-teen and teenage years, are the ones who are consistent, disciplined, and loving (and a lot of other positive qualities)--maybe they have their own philosophy, maybe they are TCS parents, but they are definitely not exclusively TCS parents.
 That is incorrect, sorry. I am very much enjoying the pre-teen and teenage years and we are TCS.

Quote:

TCS is an interesting philosophy, and I hope to read about these children's endeavors as adults and employees in several years.







sassykat
I could be wrong here, and if I am misunderstanding you I apologize, but that sounds pretty snarky. If what you are really meaning here is "Wow when these kids grow up they are going to be totally clueless and unemployable!"... then just say that.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UnschoolnMa*
That is incorrect, sorry. I am very much enjoying the pre-teen and teenage years and we are TCS.

I think you misinterpreted her on this one point







I think she meant that not only TCS parents raise children who make enjoyable teens, that other parents who employ consistant and disciplined approaches may also.

Otherwise, while this thread has been too fast and furious for me to really keep up, it's been very interesting and educational!


----------



## sassykat (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson*
I think you misinterpreted her on this one point







I think she meant that not only TCS parents raise children who make enjoyable teens, that other parents who employ consistant and disciplined approaches may also.

Otherwise, while this thread has been too fast and furious for me to really keep up, it's been very interesting and educational!

Yes, you are correct.







I was asking a friend about TCS last night, and we were talking about various parenting philosophies. Here's the analogy I made--I compare them to a skin care regimen--as long as a consistent schedule of cleansing/moisturizing, etc. is occuring twice daily, it doesn't matter what brand of product one uses, you'll see the benefits in your skin. LOL That probably sounds funny, but the point is that it's the consistency, not the philosophy, that produces enjoyable children.







Kat


----------



## sassykat (Sep 7, 2005)

_UnschoolnMa-"This is not true for my family. We do not just talk them out of something that we might disagree with. We definately talk (in fact I would say that discussion has been one of the most important things with my kids) to the kids to give our opinions, advice, what we think might happen if someone does "xyz", what happened to us when we did "xyz" one time, and so on...but it's in an effort to really share information not to bully them or wear them down. And for the record I dyed my kids hair green and purple and black.







"_

I do not know any TCS parents, so I am just observing by reading the information on these posts, and I understand that the process of coming to a mutual agreement with children might be harder to explain in writing than it would be to observe in person. It seems the question of harm is the most prevalent in these posts--what do you do if your child's choices are going to harm, and after presenting your experiences and all of the valid reasons of why the child should stop, the child still wants to harm? It seems that more discussion is the only solution, until the child mutually agrees to stop. If this is the case, you can have the same result, with the child internally understanding the "whys", using a more direct approach, "Jonny, you cannot poke the baby in the eye, because it will hurt him--it would hurt you if someone poked your eye" rather than, "Why do you want to poke the baby in the eye? How would you feel if someone poked you in the eye? You know, one time, someone poked me in the eye and it really hurt." Jonny is still trying to poke the baby's eye. "What could you do instead of poking the baby in the eye? Go get a book and mommy will read to you." Jonny says no. Continue discussing until there is a mutual agreement?

_"I would rather discuss my problems/feelings about any behavior with my child if it's anything that seems serious."_

I think that goes without saying for most parents.

_
"I could be wrong here, and if I am misunderstanding you I apologize, but that sounds pretty snarky. If what you are really meaning here is "Wow when these kids grow up they are going to be totally clueless and unemployable!"... then just say that. "_

No, I am curious about their relationships as adults and employees.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sassykat*
"As far as touching stuff when you're out, maybe you could do errands without him if possible, and leave him with the other parent? Or maybe you could help find things he could do and touch when you're out, like ask him to get a loaf of bread or something at the grocery store, and channel his needing to touch things into things that you're okay with him touching."

A couple of observations: Is channeling his needing to touch not a softer form of coercion? I guess I am confused.

It could be... or it could be a mutually agreeable solution. It all depends on how he takes it, and how it's implemented. If he's thinking, "Dang, I really want to squish the cakes, but I guess I'll get the dumb old bread, anyway", then it was coercion... OTOH, if he's thinking, "Oh, yeah, this is even more fun, because I get to pick what bread we're buying and be the fastest bread-getter", then it was a mutually agreeable solution... kid is happier, and mom is happier because she doesn't have to buy three squished layer cakes.

Quote:

Also, if you are having to make arrangements to leave your children at different places, or with sitters, to avoid these situations, TCS would interfere with the Attachment Parenting philosophy.
I think attachment parenting practices usually are fairly well-aligned with TCS, but definitely not always. If a child is happier staying home with another parent, or going to a friend's house, or staying with a babysitter, then why not make everyone happier and let him do that? Making everyone suffer through shopping trips in the name of a philosophy is not something I'd do, anyway. Of course, if he's not happy being left behind, that's not a solution, but many kids are...

Quote:

TCS is an interesting philosophy, and I hope to read about these children's endeavors as adults and employees in several years.
My daughter had her first paying job at 11, complete with time sheet. She make $6.75 an hour to work as an actress in a dinner theatre. She was always ready to go on time, she performed her duties exceptionally well (even when she was ill... the show must go on), she pulled her weight and more, and after a 6 months run she was invited to come back anytime. Since then she's done paper routes and babysitting, and excelled at both. I don't know what she'll be like as an adult, but she's done really well as an employee so far...

Dar


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sassykat*
Here's the analogy I made--I compare them to a skin care regimen--as long as a consistent schedule of cleansing/moisturizing, etc. is occuring twice daily, it doesn't matter what brand of product one uses, you'll see the benefits in your skin. LOL That probably sounds funny, but the point is that it's the consistency, not the philosophy, that produces enjoyable children.







Kat

I think this is very true, to an extent. I think the TCSers, at least the ones who are posting here, have figured out a parenting philosophy that works very well, and that they are very dedicated mamas. I wonder if TCSers advocate their parenting for everyone? Dar and UnSchoolnma, would you recommend that everyone adopt this? Or would you agree that you two have exceptionally patient personalities







?

However, I don't think consistency is the only important part of child-rearing. You can consistently send your toddler to time out for spilling their milk, and just because you do it every single time doesn't mean it's contributing to their future happiness. I know that's probably not what you meant, but I wanted to point out the distinction.


----------



## FireWithin (Apr 29, 2004)

I'm getting a lot out of this thread. After reading Unconditional Parenting and while mulling over this thread, I have been slowly moving more and more to TCS.

DS is able to reason and discuss mutually agreeable situations for rudimentary things. He appreciates our discussions and we all benefit from it.

From birth DS has been a sleep fighter. I remember at 2 weeks ds staying awake for 9 hours and I tried my darndest to help him sleep. He declared that he hates to sleep and he tries his best to make sure he doesn't.

Up until now, I didn't feel comfortable having ds take full control over his bedtime (although he already has a huge amount of input, and we try to make this time as gentle as possible).
I was worried that if I didn't have a break in the evening with DH alone, or by myself I would become a less capable mother. I believe a continuous lack of sleep and lack of quiet me time contributed to significant ppd, and when I don't have it now I now feel that depression slipping back. So for my family's health, we chose to create a gentle-parent decided bedtime.

I have two questions.
**What do TCS families do when a nonverbal (or a child unable to reason) needs start to affect the well being of the entire family, and a gentle GD parenting solution (but not TCS solution) is (partially) successful.

I mention partially successful because although DS falls to sleep everynight, we have not helped him discover the healthfullness of sleep, nor recognize on his own when he is sleepy and allow him to charge of that sleepyiness.

**Have you transitioned to a TCS bedtime and how did it go?

(I am going to search the nighttime forum also)


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Sorry, double entry


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
To me personally, the root of TCS is seeing your child as an equal to you. Even the most GD parents I know still see their child as *lesser* than them in some way...when you begin to see your child as an equal, you treat them as an equal.

I do treat my children's needs seriously. I do treat them like I would treat any human being, with respect and with love. However, if we go to the supermarket together and the kids (3 and 5) decide to stock on junk food, no I will not let them. We: discuss in advance what foods are good and what are not, how good food has vitamins, gives us strength energy... and junk food only causes caries... and we do make sure that the kids are mom's little helpers at the shop and I take time to make the shopping trip fun for them too... And I will always buy some reasonably healthy little sweets or icecream... but I said loud and clear I am not stocking on candy and I will NOT. Gently, respectfully, lovingly but I am setting limits. And this is not because I do not treat my children as lesser than me.. I totally think I am treating them better indeed than any other member of the family me included... I wish someone would give me a warm bath, gently massage me with cream if I am itchy, read me stories, hug me and kiss me till I sleep...
My mom did all this with me too and in fact I do not eat a lot of junk food. Indeed it is not because she was "coercive" (which she wasn't, I mean she was/is very gentle ) I am now craving all the junk food that she deprived me of.. On the contrary, I am thankful to my mom for teaching me good nutrition. Again as I said, I learnt a lot from this thread and I am trying to put more negotiation in my lifestyle but I do not really see how it would work in a family with young children where both parents work...


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee*
The sentence "in thinking about what's best for our kids, and helping them contribute to society?" really doesn't jive with that Libertarian mind-set I think, because it assumes those two issues, what's best for kids and helping them contribute to society, are related.

That, in a nut shell, is what's wrong with this country, imo. We have lost the idea of mutual aid and mutual benefit. It's all about what's best for us as individuals (or very, very small groups). Especially after spending time in overseas (particularly Ethiopia), I am truly shocked and horrified by how self-serving Americans are, and how highly the ideal of self-servism (for lack of a better word) is elevated.

As for TCS in general, I read the whole website a few years ago. I could never mentally get past the statement that was, at that time (don't know if it still is), on the site. It was something along the lines of TCS being based on the idea that it is possible to raise kids from birth without ever using coercion. I don't accept that statement as true, so even though I think it's good to look at situations in novel ways and to be willing to be flexible in your expectations of how things should go, I don't believe believe in the basic idea of TCS.

Namaste!


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
That, in a nut shell, is what's wrong with this country, imo. We have lost the idea of mutual aid and mutual benefit. It's all about what's best for us as individuals (or very, very small groups). Especially after spending time in overseas (particularly Ethiopia), I am truly shocked and horrified by how self-serving Americans are, and how highly the ideal of self-servism (for lack of a better word) is elevated.

As for TCS in general, I read the whole website a few years ago. I could never mentally get past the statement that was, at that time (don't know if it still is), on the site. It was something along the lines of TCS being based on the idea that it is possible to raise kids from birth without ever using coercion. I don't accept that statement as true, so even though I think it's good to look at situations in novel ways and to be willing to be flexible in your expectations of how things should go, I don't believe believe in the basic idea of TCS.

Namaste!

Amen Dharmamama!


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I think it can be helpful to remember that TCS is a philosophy, not a parenting technique. As a philosophy, whether truly raising a child from birth without coercion is *possible* isn't pertinent. If you're trying to parent according to the philosophy, clearly coercion will happen, but the philosophy itself and its conclusions are based on no coercion. Discussing TCS on a practical level and TCS on a philosophical level are two different (although related) discussions.

_"I do treat my wife's needs seriously. I do treat her like I would treat any human being, with respect and with love. However, if we go to the supermarket together and she decides to stock on junk food, no I will not let her. We: discuss in advance what foods are good and what are not, how good food has vitamins, gives us strength energy... and junk food only causes caries... and we do make sure that she is my little helper at the shop and I take time to make the shopping trip fun for her too... And I will always buy some reasonably healthy little sweets or icecream... but I said loud and clear I am not stocking on candy and I will NOT. Gently, respectfully, lovingly but I am setting limits. And this is not because I do not treat my wife as lesser than me.. I totally think I am treating her better indeed than any other member of the family me included... I wish someone would give me a warm bath, gently massage me with cream if I am itchy, read me stories, hug me and kiss me till I sleep..."_

If you truly believe that you're not treating your children as "lesser" than you, and "better than any other member of the family"... then would it be okay if your husband treated you the way you treat them?

Is TCS for everyone... I don't think so, really. Not in the real world.

Bedtimes... we've never had to transition away from one, so I don't know anything about that, other than using some of the suggestions I mentioned early on.

One thing I want to note is that a child's decisions will sometimes inconvenience the parent... it's important to think creatively in cases like this. I had the Incredible Non-Sleeping Baby/Toddler/Child (who sleeps more as a teen than she did as a 2 year old) and it was just the two of us... sometimes I hired the neighbor kid to watch her while I napped, and sometimes I turned on a video and closed us both inside a childproofed room and tried to snooze... and eventually she would just stay up and come to bed when she was ready. It worked out.

Contrary to opinions here, I think TCS is much easier with a non-verbal child, because their wants are generally fairly simple. You just have to offer physically, rather than verbally...

Dar


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Dar, if you aren't too busy, could you be my mom in my next life?


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
If you truly believe that you're not treating your children as "lesser" than you, and "better than any other member of the family"... then would it be okay if your husband treated you the way you treat them?

You beat me to this







But you said it so much better anyway lol. It becomes very clear how different we are treating the children (or as less) when we put an adult in that slot instead.

Quote:

One thing I want to note is that a child's decisions will sometimes inconvenience the parent... it's important to think creatively in cases like this.
 Oh yes definately. I used to (and sometimes still do) struggle with insomnia, and when the kids were younger they would often wake up very early and be ready to start their day well before me. We worked out ways for them to be up safely and for me to rest. It's not always easy, but we work it out.


----------



## insahmniak (Aug 16, 2003)

Quote:

Dar, if you aren't too busy, could you be my mom in my next life?








Or if you're not too busy, can I hire you to cover for me every once in a while? I could really use a break sometimes and I'd be honored if you'd stand in!


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
If you truly believe that you're not treating your children as "lesser" than you, and "better than any other member of the family"... then would it be okay if your husband treated you the way you treat them?

OK, I think at this point I did get your point. The supermarket example really clarified things. I understand your philosophy, but then, no, I would not be able to do that. I would just not be able to let my dc stock on candy at the supermarket and I would not be able to let them do a bunch of other things. I think I am really much more flexible and patient than most parents but..... there are some things that I think are not healthy, safe or not good for our family, and I do take decisions and set limits then. I guess you are right that TCS is not for everybody, in the "real world".... Thanks once more for taking the time to explain your point. I will take a lot out of this thread!


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

--One thing I want to note is that a child's decisions will sometimes inconvenience the parent... it's important to think creatively in cases like this. I had the Incredible Non-Sleeping Baby/Toddler/Child (who sleeps more as a teen than she did as a 2 year old) and it was just the two of us... sometimes I hired the neighbor kid to watch her while I napped, and sometimes I turned on a video and closed us both inside a childproofed room and tried to snooze... and eventually she would just stay up and come to bed when she was ready. It worked out.--

This brings up something that makes me a bit crazy. Which I'll get to in a sec. While, I don't claim to be TCS, I fall on that spectrum of more TCS than not. An old on-line friend once called our version Less Coersive Parenting, if there is such a beast, lol Anyway--my crazy thing--

It makes me nuts when parents choose against respecting the needs of the child becuase they think thier child is *more* something- more challenging, needs less sleep etc. Baring some real neurological issues, I don't buy that a parent can't make respectful parenting work. My last child is still, at age 6, a non -sleeper. She didn't even nap as a newborn. She was my 4th and i had to take care of three other small children and I did it. Like you say, we worked it out.

My second related gripe is AP families who think they can never get the neighborhood kid to help, that they can't work out something with other LLL families etc to give each other a break. My friends have been my saviors. I never thought I was supposed to do this parenting gig without some help. Even if occass it's Mr Rogers. Even if it means the kid has some candy once in awhile the the LLL friend who is kind beyond belief and will tade kids but allows gum.

I simply cannot live without assistance. I will not just make my life about me and my kids locked up in my house because only *I* can do it perfectly. I have seen beyond frazzled AP-type mothers stressing like crazy, yelling at bickering siblings, picking a fight over comsuming a potato chip at a hsing gathering etc. When one suggests letting a hsing teen come over and help, and I swear, the answer often sounds like "Oh no! I am the mommy and I could never not be there every single second of every single minute even if it might benefit my child. It's much better for a stressed mother to take care of her own child than to let someone else help me! And if i let her have this potato chip, i might as well say 'have a hit of this joint here'".

I hate the fact that being AP means to many that one (meaning the mother) has to suffer all the time. As the mother suffers, so does the child. Let the friends in.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*

_"I do treat my wife's needs seriously. I do treat her like I would treat any human being, with respect and with love. However, if we go to the supermarket together and she decides to stock on junk food, no I will not let her. We: discuss in advance what foods are good and what are not, how good food has vitamins, gives us strength energy... and junk food only causes caries... and we do make sure that she is my little helper at the shop and I take time to make the shopping trip fun for her too... And I will always buy some reasonably healthy little sweets or icecream... but I said loud and clear I am not stocking on candy and I will NOT. Gently, respectfully, lovingly but I am setting limits. And this is not because I do not treat my wife as lesser than me.. I totally think I am treating her better indeed than any other member of the family me included... I wish someone would give me a warm bath, gently massage me with cream if I am itchy, read me stories, hug me and kiss me till I sleep..."_

If you truly believe that you're not treating your children as "lesser" than you, and "better than any other member of the family"... then would it be okay if your husband treated you the way you treat them?


The flaw in this argument is, of course, that you are assuming that a three year old and an adult are equally equipped to make wise nutritional choices.

chinaKat


----------



## insahmniak (Aug 16, 2003)

Quote:

The flaw in this argument is, of course, that you are assuming that a three year old and an adult are equally equipped to make wise nutritional choices.
Of course it could be argued that our outrageous adult obesity rates don't indicate that adults are any better equipped.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ohmtaretu*
Of course it could be argued that our outrageous adult obesity rates don't indicate that adults are any better equipped.

That's a rather disingenuous comment, don't you think?

I can't remember the last time I heard a three year old say "Gosh, I really shouldn't be eating this ice cream sundae, it's going to go straight to my hips."

There is clearly a difference between not understanding nutrition and not caring about it.

chinaKat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ohmtaretu*
Of course it could be argued that our outrageous adult obesity rates don't indicate that adults are any better equipped.

But adults have only themselves responsible for them. Children have the added benefit of our guidance and protection.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *johub*
But adults have only themselves responsible for them. Children have the added benefit of our guidance and protection.


i have to agree with Johub on this. I also want to pass on good eating habits like my parents did rather than let my child run the risks of illnesses now and later in life from eating poorly while a child. There are a lot of foods that are just not going to be available in my house and I feel it's important to aclimate my child to healthy foods while she is young like my parents did so they will be her preference for life. I don't care if she eats them when out in moderation, but at home I'm not going to let her eat things that could in larger quantities hurt her uninhibited.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I can't say I'm totally non-coersive, but I do let my daughter choose stuff at the grocery store if she wants it. Sometimes that means I buy some candy, but sometimes she'll ask for healthy stuff too. I usually shop at a small store that doesn't have a lot of bad stuff so that helps. But I don't see her wanting to stock up on garbage. She did ask for Spaghettios at one point and I found some Annie's Natural brand ones and she thought those were fine so we got those. I would rather she not eat regular Spaghettios. But we were able to find a solution that we were both happy with without too much trouble.

She's only 3. Maybe when she's older she'll want more garbage? I don't know.


----------



## roseselene (Aug 3, 2003)

OK, I admittedly have not had time to read all of this thread because my 2 children don't really like it when I sit at the computer for long periods of time, so I hope i'm not repeating anything. I'm just curious. how on earth would I handle the following situation with TCS? .....
DD is very aggressive with DS....has been since he was about 3 months old. She pushes him over, she hits him, kicks him, bites him. You name it, she does it. I know that its out of jealousy, I can tell it is. I've made a big effort to provide both of them with individualized attention, I've sat down and talked to her about the fact that I love her even though Ben is here, I still love her. I've talked to her about the hitting, biting, etc...but she still does it. I just can't really see a way to rectify this without coersion...meaning I have to coerse her to stop abusing him. I can't just let her do it...ya know? So how does someone who practices TCS deal with this? I've tried very hard and I just can't seem to make it work.
Amy


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat*
The flaw in this argument is, of course, that you are assuming that a three year old and an adult are equally equipped to make wise nutritional choices.

Exactly! Most 3 year olds I know are MUCH more equipped to make healthy food choices than the vast majority of adults I know, including myself. They're way more in touch with their hunger drives, and what their bodies need.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
Exactly! Most 3 year olds I know are MUCH more equipped to make healthy food choices than the vast majority of adults I know, including myself. They're way more in touch with their hunger drives, and what their bodies need.










Exactly. Controlling food now does not mean your child won't be happy to be rid of you when they get to take a little control over their food.

Absolute food control is always going to backfire. The bfing might help control for obesity genetically later on, but a lot of these kids go to junk food town when their parents are no longer around telling them they *must not* have the cakes and chips.

I hate the word 'moderation' because it's sounds like a sell-out. But in 16 yrs of knowing many food police moms, my experience shows it doesn't often come to a good end.


----------



## FireWithin (Apr 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
It makes me nuts when parents choose against respecting the needs of the child becuase they think thier child is *more* something- more challenging, needs less sleep etc. Baring some real neurological issues, I don't buy that a parent can't make respectful parenting work. My last child is still, at age 6, a non -sleeper. She didn't even nap as a newborn. She was my 4th and i had to take care of three other small children and I did it. Like you say, we worked it out.

I am enjoying this conversation, but this kind of comment really gets to me. I mention it now simply because I have seen such responses many times before, not because I think the OP was particularly caustic.
Not everyone can handle the same kind of situations in the same way. I tried my very best to treat my baby, now toddler with a huge amount of respect in regard to sleep. (DH and I have spent countless hours trying to figure out how to help all of us in the family regarding sleep.) It bothers me when something works out smoothly (or not so smoothly) for one family, and then that family can't understand why others can't do the same. Trust me we tried really hard with the tools we had at the time.

I see this situation and other challenging parenting situations as part of a learning curve. I see the path now taking us towards a more TCS approach to sleep, rather than just a very gentle GD approach - something I believe is necessary for the emotional health of my son.

For me, part of the learning curve was figuring out that post partum hormones and lack of sleep put me into a psychotic ppd. And, lack of sleep for DH made him into a terrible, terrible grump who became useless. What I have learned is that I will take Zoloft when the new baby comes, and we will use friends more for sleeping help. (At the time, my main source of support was other new mothers - unable to help in the way I needed.)

I hope that by the time I have my fourth child, I can use all of the knowledge and experience I picked up from daily life and the wise mamas from here, to make healthy respectful choices for everyone in my family. THese type of threads certainly help me on this path.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz*
Exactly! Most 3 year olds I know are MUCH more equipped to make healthy food choices than the vast majority of adults I know, including myself. They're way more in touch with their hunger drives, and what their bodies need.









This is one of those statements that sounds really nice in theory, and I am sure it would be true of a society that didn't have all sorts of chemicals and additives and added sugars and flavor enhancers in its food, but I don't agree that it's true anymore once a child has been introduced to junk food. My mouth certainly wants me to have Pringles for that mid-afrernoon snack, but my brain reminds me that that carrot sticks and frozen peas are much more healthy, so I have those instead. Food additives are like drugs. They alter the needs of your body in unhealthy ways and make your body's hunger and nutritional needs signals much less reliable.

I enjoy the occasional junk food snack. I want my kids to be able to, also. But it's not healthy for my kids to have 8 Joe-Joes (Trader Joe's oreos) at a time, like my son tried to do the other day, so no matter what his body (or brain) might be telling him about nutritional needs and desires, I'm going to make sure he treats his body well. I see that as my job as a parent.

Namaste!


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Food additives are like drugs. They alter the needs of your body in unhealthy ways and make your body's hunger and nutritional needs signals much less reliable.

I have to say this really plays an important factor in my view on this issue of food. If there were nothing but organic fresh foods available I'd never comment or interfere at all. My child could eat anything. I think some of those other foods can really alter a child's behavior and make parenting WAY more difficult. For example allowing sugar levels to spike and crash can ruin a nice family outing. Yes maybe it's ok to let them experience it once and learn from it but as a kid I am glad my parents limited my choices to mostly organic and whole foods and as an adult I still far prefer them. I know a lot of people who were raised this way and it works for them. I mean yes there were a few times when I was 16 when I ate a whole bag of doritos or candy or something and felt sick afterwards but never picked up the habit. I love healthy food as an adult partly because it's what I'm used to. I don't LIKE a lot of sugar and additives because they feel so foriegn to me.

I don't think influencing your child's eating choices equals a lifetime of them rebelling in the other direction of junk food. I am sure for some people that was their experience but I guess it was just never up for debate in the home I grew up in so I never had the option of asking for other foods and I like them (the good ones) now as an adult. Conversely I have a friend who grew up on white bread and processed food and only wants to eat those foods. I guess I'm basing my thoughts on this on my own experiences but I just don't understand why some seem to think that influencing your child's choices to the healthier foods and helping them establish healthy choices is going to harm them. Sure there are rebellion and controll cases but it doesn't have to be that way. It can be done in non-overbearing ways.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
Exactly. Controlling food now does not mean your child won't be happy to be rid of you when they get to take a little control over their food.

Absolute food control is always going to backfire. The bfing might help control for obesity genetically later on, but a lot of these kids go to junk food town when their parents are no longer around telling them they *must not* have the cakes and chips.

I hate the word 'moderation' because it's sounds like a sell-out. But in 16 yrs of knowing many food police moms, my experience shows it doesn't often come to a good end.


Are you talking about kids out at an event where there is cake and chips? I'd never restrict my child in that stuff unless they were sick or had a diabetic/adhd/other condition. I'd encourage them to limit themselves but never police what is on their plate. However if they were eating all of one special food item and not leaving enough for others at the party I'd interfere. Hoarding is not ok. I'd encourage moderation without 'policing'. I'm not clear as to whether or not you feel there is a difference? I don't have those foods at home so it's not an option. I think my limited grocery budget cuts out a lot of food options anyways so it may be a moot point. When my kids are old enough to make money and buy their own foods they can bring some foods into the house then that they want. But I can't say I won't comment on it then either. My own parents commenting on food but even moreso living a healthy life-style influenced me heavily and I plan on keeping the same traditions alive in our home.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I guess my opinion on it is, by the time your child is old enough to even ask for certain foods you have influenced their food choices, simply because it is hard to let a 10 month old go to the grocery store and pick out their own foods, know what I mean? In other words, even if you are a hard core TCS'er, just by sheer inability on the child's part, you are choosing their first foods for at least a year or more (say you begin at 6 months with solids and they can't communicate until 2 years old)...

I think it is pretty unlikely for a child who has only been fed organic, vegetarian, whole foods and vegetables and doesn't even know what an oreo is (even if they may have had one once) to come out and be like "hey mom, I want burger king!". I am not saying that this is the case 100% of the time, I am just suggesting that if all your child knows from a very early age is healthy foods and healthy foods available in the home for the most part, it is unlikely out of the blue they are going to load the cart with crap they have never even heard of or tasted.

Now it is a bit more difficult if you are a TCS'er who allows unlimited TV time because of course the advertising is going to be a problem. We personally watch very little television so we don't anticipate this being an issue.

I am just saying I don't believe children come out of the womb craving big macs and a box of candy. This is learned behavior and I really feel that in a home that is mostly healthy, where habits are formed early, it won't be a huge issue. I think TCS is being misunderstood in this way. It isn't as if you take your 1 year old to the store and everything they point at, you throw in the cart and line up in front of them to gorge on... it is more (imo) when they are old enough to communicate their needs and wants (regarding food) that you exersise a tcs approach...but by that time, they will have already developed some tastes and likes and dislikes for the foods you have provided before they could communicate so they will likely ask for those (mostly).

Our daughter is free to eat whatever is in our home when she gets old enough. Fortunately, we eat healthily/organic for the most part, and any "junk" is bought in moderation...I think some TCS'ers problem with food restriction is a "do as I say not as I do" approach ... for instance, mom or dad will be snacking on junk, then little johnny asks for some and they get the bs answer of "no, we want you to be healthy"....


----------



## sassykat (Sep 7, 2005)

I've been researching the basic definition and explanations of TCS, and would like to know if Sarah Fitz-Claridge has children of her own.
Thanks,
sassykat


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I am just suggesting that if all your child knows from a very early age is healthy foods and healthy foods available in the home for the most part, it is unlikely out of the blue they are going to load the cart with crap they have never even heard of or tasted.

My kids don't ask for things they have never had. But they do ask for ice cream, Joe-Joes, goldfish, and other things that I have had in the home occasionally or that they have been given while at someone else's house. I don't mind if they eat these things occasionally because they taste good and I enjoy them, too. I, however, understand the need to limit these things to occasional snacks, and my 2 and 3 year old children do not. I talk to them about healthy food choices, I talk to them about some food making our bodies grow healthy and strong and some making our bodies sick or not work well, I talk to them about how some foods that taste very good and are fun to eat are not good choices for strong, healthy bodies. My kids are very young. Learning about nutrition is a process, and in the meantime I am not going to let them stuff their faces with junk.

Quote:

I am just saying I don't believe children come out of the womb craving big macs and a box of candy. This is learned behavior and I really feel that in a home that is mostly healthy, where habits are formed early, it won't be a huge issue.
For some kids it won't be. For some it will. For every kid who gets complete control over what they eat and grows up to make healthy choices, there is probably a kid who gets complete control and grows up to be a junk-food junkie. The odds are in my favor that my kids will grow up with more healthy food preferences if I steer them in that way, and that is what I do. If it means taking away six of the eight Joe-Joes and replacing them with a banana, I do that. I don't want my kids (and I don't think it's possible anyway) to be completely kept away from any and all unhealthy foods. I like junk occasionally, and I let my kids eat it occasionally. They learn to like it, just like I did as a child. They ask for it, and sometimes they get it. But not always, and not always in the quantities they desire.

Namaste!

Ps. My religious beliefs also influence my parenting, as I am sure is the case for many people here, and in my case, I am Buddhist. Buddhism is very much based on karma, or cause and effect, and lots of discussions of karma also relate it to habituation. Every action you undertake habituates you to that action. In the food example, every time you eat junk food, you are habituating, or conditioning, yourself to eat junk food. My job as a parent who is looking out for my child's karma and his or her precious human life is to help them learn to minimize negative karma and to avoid temptation and desire. I feel that I would be abdicating this extremely important religious duty if I let my kids eat whatever they wanted, in whatever quantities they desired, whenever they wanted.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mammo2Sammo*
I am enjoying this conversation, but this kind of comment really gets to me. I mention it now simply because I have seen such responses many times before, not because I think the OP was particularly caustic.
Not everyone can handle the same kind of situations in the same way. I tried my very best to treat my baby, now toddler with a huge amount of respect in regard to sleep. (DH and I have spent countless hours trying to figure out how to help all of us in the family regarding sleep.) It bothers me when something works out smoothly (or not so smoothly) for one family, and then that family can't understand why others can't do the same. Trust me we tried really hard with the tools we had at the time.

I see this situation and other challenging parenting situations as part of a learning curve. I see the path now taking us towards a more TCS approach to sleep, rather than just a very gentle GD approach - something I believe is necessary for the emotional health of my son.

For me, part of the learning curve was figuring out that post partum hormones and lack of sleep put me into a psychotic ppd. And, lack of sleep for DH made him into a terrible, terrible grump who became useless. What I have learned is that I will take Zoloft when the new baby comes, and we will use friends more for sleeping help. (At the time, my main source of support was other new mothers - unable to help in the way I needed.)

I hope that by the time I have my fourth child, I can use all of the knowledge and experience I picked up from daily life and the wise mamas from here, to make healthy respectful choices for everyone in my family. THese type of threads certainly help me on this path.

You know, I wasn't even thinking about anyone here when I wrote that. When I post, I post from my own life, hoping something reasonates with someone.

It's what i see all the time.

This is a discussion, and a long one at that, I can barely remember who posts what, and I am absolutely not looking to pick apart frazzled AP mothers.

I do think people should stop assuming they are the only tired ones, and somehow everyone is rested, well, not on meds, and never doubting themselves. It's wholly untrue. Some people with small children might cope better, have a better support system, hide it better, drink when no one is looking, whatever. But everyone has their own ghosts.

I once again watched someone in my hsing group smack a tiny child because this parent believes her child is 'wild' and nobody can possibly understand what she is going through. She has the demon child, and the rest of us are lucky we don't.

Ah, no. Some of us decided long ago not to hit, no matter what. It's not that we are saints or are not also struggling. And *there is nothing wrong with your child!*. Mostly, it's adults with the problems and their own childhood baggage. Sadly, children don't get two childhoods. They depend on adults getting themselves somewhat straight once they can idetify their issues.

Most mothers are in the same boat, and people need to know that some of us have realized that putting a few coping mechanisms in place can help with stress. If your kid doesn't sleep, you need to figure out ways you can sleep. Is it easy? Doable? Not always, but we have to try before we put that stress on our child. It doesn't help that 'everyone else' seems to be coping so well, or that we are supposed to be afraid of everyone because everyone is a potential molester of children. This is mostly a societal problem -- a primary caregivers' needs have not biologically caught up to modern western expectations.

I hope it doesn't take any parent 4 kids to understand that being stressed to the breaking point is bad for the parent **and** worse for the children, because they are at our mercy. Bar debilitating clinical depression when we can't even function, we owe it to them to take care of ourselves and to reach out when we need to. And goddesses have mercy on the parent with no supoort at all sufferring so.

If my post has angered you to the point you might decide to care for yourself & cut yourself some slack, so be it.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I think it is pretty unlikely for a child who has only been fed organic, vegetarian, whole foods and vegetables and doesn't even know what an oreo is (even if they may have had one once) to come out and be like "hey mom, I want burger king!". I am not saying that this is the case 100% of the time, I am just suggesting that if all your child knows from a very early age is healthy foods and healthy foods available in the home for the most part, it is unlikely out of the blue they are going to load the cart with crap they have never even heard of or tasted.

I agree with this, until they taste them. For example, we went to visit my mom for three weeks. She stocked up on potato chips and Lucky Charms and Ritz crackers, things that I never buy. So now my dd has had them, she knows they're delicious, and she asks for them. So I have to say no. Not only because they're unhealthy, but because they're too expensive. Our food budget is too limited to buy processed foods. We will make cookies from scratch, or other goodies, but I can't afford those brand-name snacks. So am I coercing her by denying her wants so we have enough money for me to stay home? If I explained that to her, would she be able to choose which she wanted? Generic brown rice, or daycare? Frosted Flakes, or mommy?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Now it is a bit more difficult if you are a TCS'er who allows unlimited TV time because of course the advertising is going to be a problem. We personally watch very little television so we don't anticipate this being an issue.

Yeah, but what if your dc wants to? What if they see it at a friend's house, and know they like it? Then what do you do? Coerce them and say no? Or let them self-regulate?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I am just saying I don't believe children come out of the womb craving big macs and a box of candy.

I have to say, I think we do. It's our genetic makeup, we evolved to love those high-calorie, high-energy foods which were, until recently, so hard to get and yet so important for our survival.

Okay, I'm kind of arguing against TCS here, obviously, but just to find out more about it. But I have to share my example of trying it out today. We were getting ready to go to story time, and I asked my dd to go potty before we leave. This is a rule, we always have to try before we leave the house. Well, she said no, and so instead of insisting I just pointed out that we might miss part of the story if we had to get up and go pee, and if she had an accident during story time, we'd have to come home and change and we'd miss the whole thing. It worked like a charm! She made the rational choice and I didn't have to have a power struggle. I'm definitely going to try to continue integrating TCS as much as possible.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat*
That's a rather disingenuous comment, don't you think?

I can't remember the last time I heard a three year old say "Gosh, I really shouldn't be eating this ice cream sundae, it's going to go straight to my hips."

There is clearly a difference between not understanding nutrition and not caring about it.

chinaKat


My kids knew about nutrition, in a vague way at least, at age 3. We were honest that eating too much of anything could make you feel bad, and that too much candy, pop, or french fries made the your body not work well. They sometimes made the choice to eat those things, and sometimes they did eat a little too much, but we tried to help them understand and little by little the connections were made between food=how you feel=health.

We still sometimes eat candy and chips or soda even though we know it's not great for us. We understand nutrition (for the most part anyway. I never claimed to be a dietician or nutrionist or etc) and sometimes we just do not care. As a TCS parent that is a decision my children make for themselves.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UnschoolnMa*

My kids knew about nutrition, in a vague way at least, at age 3. We were honest that eating too much of anything could make you feel bad, and that too much candy, pop, or french fries made the your body not work well. They sometimes made the choice to eat those things, and sometimes they did eat a little too much, but we tried to help them understand and little by little the connections were made between food=how you feel=health.

We still sometimes eat candy and chips or soda even though we know it's not great for us. We understand nutrition (for the most part anyway. I never claimed to be a dietician or nutrionist or etc) and sometimes we just do not care. As a TCS parent that is a decision my children make for themselves.



Parents can't decide what teenagers eat. But what i do is make what I offer as healthy as i can and have whole ingredients around so they can prepare their own food. When my kids were small, they didn't know about certain foods and never knew to ask for them. But i also let them partake in the world asi don't do that degree of food control. (My personal issue is I can't take them to fast food place-- that's way beyond my political & emotional comfort zone and they accept that fringe element of their mother. lol) ) If I know there is a lot of ' junk' available somewhere, I have been known to top them off before we leave so they are no famished and will be statisfied with a taste. This was more likely when they were little and going off to holiday parties with candy bowls and the like.

My teens and youngers make really good choices most of the time, and have become very politcal about factory farming and pesticides, so that does help them stay away from some things. I don't comment on their choices, except to suggest a bit of protein if a child looks like they are sugar or carb loading and seeming like they are going to crash. My oldest dd often needed a hard boiled egg here and there to keep her from melting.

But no way do i deny them food, no way do I even get involved in party food at this point. My 16 yr old can drive, he can have 100% control over what he puts in his mouth. All my kids can. It's not like I want him livng in my basement when he is 40 wondering if mommy would like what he's doing/eating/dating.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama*

I don't think influencing your child's eating choices equals a lifetime of them rebelling in the other direction of junk food.

Without a doubt I influence the food choices my kids make. They recognize me as a trustworthy resource for information about a variety of things, including nutrition and health. They have heard me talk about my mom's weight struggles (and my own to a lesser degree), and about how she died at 49 from complications of that. They are seeing Dh deal with diabetes right now.

They see me read food labels, and they do too. They see me eat spinach salad, homemade soup, black bean and veggie burritos, ice cream, Pepsi, and chocolate bars. They've heard me say I needed to get some more sleep because I'd not had enough lately, and they watch me make an effort to get some excersize. I do influence them. I do guide them. I do talk with them. I do help them. I do share information, opinion, experiences and struggles. But I don't force.


----------



## FireWithin (Apr 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
If my post has angered you to the point you might decide to care for yourself & cut yourself some slack, so be it.

Bothered yes, angered no. I appreciate what you say too often to feel angered about this one comment. I wrote the post because I thought this would be a good place to discuss that GD or TCS parenting can be a process that can be challenging, and full of ups and downs.

Over this past year I have figured out ways to cut myself some slack and look forward to implementing them with a new babe.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mammo2Sammo*
Bothered yes, angered no. I appreciate what you say too often to feel angered about this one comment. I wrote the post because I thought this would be a good place to discuss that GD or TCS parenting can be a process that can be challenging, and full of ups and downs.

Over this past year I have figured out ways to cut myself some slack and look forward to implementing them with a new babe.


----------



## babybugmama (Apr 7, 2003)

Thank you everyone for continuing to work so hard to keep this discussion on topic and gentle. It is very appreciated.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

This situation arose this morning and, as I was handling it, I was thinking of this thread and wondering how a TCSer might handle it differently.

I allow my daughter to go out on the front porch by herself. I do not allow my son to do this because he is younger (2) and he doesn't even stay on the porch when I tell him to and I am out there with him, so I won't let him go out by himself. My dd wanted to go out and swing on the porch swing, so I said she could. My ds then wanted to go out in the backyard alone. I think he is too young to be out unsupervised, and I was right in the middle of scrubbing the toilet, so here is what I said:

"Honey, boys who are two years old are too young to be outside without their mommas or daddies." (Ds begins howling.)

"Momma is cleaning the bathroom right now, so I can't go out with you right now." (Ds continues howling.)

"If you would like to look at some books or play with your magna-doodle until I am done, then I will go out with you."

Ds, still howling, says "Noooooooo! Aubie go outside by self!"

"I know you do, honey, and when you are bigger, you can. Right now, you need to wait until Momma can go with you. What would you like to do until I can?"

Apparently, he wanted to fall on the floor and howl about the injustice of it all, because that's what he did.

I continued to make suggestions: "How about, after I finish cleaning the bathroom, I will sit on the utility porch and watch you while you go outside?"

"How about, after I clean the bathroom, I will sit in the dining room and watch you through the window?"

"How about, after I finish cleaning, we get your bike out and we can ride around the block?"

"How about you put on your dress-up clothes and when I am done cleaning, we can go out and you can do your yak dance?" (A Tibetan thing the kids love to do)

"How about if you help Momma scrub with the scrub brush while you wait?"

None of these were acceptable. My son wanted to go out in the backyard by himself right now. He's two years old, he's not very verbal, and he was dead set on doing what he wanted to do. Alternatives did not interest him.

I was not willing to let him go outside alone, unsupervised, so letting him do that was not a common preference. Neither was me leaving the bathroom half-cleaned to go supervise him.

So how would a TCSer handle something like this differently? How do TCSers accomodate their own need to limit their kids' activities based on safety considerations?

Namaste!


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Just wondering dharmamama, why couldn't you go outside with him first and clean the bathroom later instead of the other way around?


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Because I had was halfway done with scrubbing the toilet, and there's no reason to stop halfway through the job just because my son wants to go outside *right now*. His desire to go outside is not more important than my desire to finish scrubbing the toilet, and, additionally, in our family we generally operate by the philosophy that we finish what we have started before we move on to something else. Neither my husband nor I are extremely organized people, and having that "rule" or whatever helps us avoid having half-finished things all around the house. Besides, my son didn't want me to go outside with him. He wanted to go outside by himself. When I was done scrubbing the toilet and told him we could go outside now, he refused to go because he wanted to go out *by himself*.

Anyway, I am not asking how _I_ could have handled the situation differently. I am asking how a TCSer would handle it.

Namaste!


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

I'm not a TCSer, but I think that in order to practice TCS, you really have to agree with the philosophy of TCS. I think part of that is believing that everyone's needs and wants are equally important and valid.

Quote:

His desire to go outside is not more important than my desire to finish scrubbing the toilet
But is it equally important as your desire to finish what you're doing? I'm not sure how you feel about this. The fact that you insisted that your ds wait while you finished cleaning leads me to suspect that you consider your desire to finish cleaning more important than his desire to go outside. (I know this might not be the case, just how it seems.)

For myself and my ds I would consider a number of things. First, I consider our needs and desires equally important. Second, I consider my ability to understand that equlity, and my ability to wait. I also consider my ds's relative inability to understand the importance of my needs and desires and his inability to wait. (Of course, he'll wait if I make him wait, but he doesn't have the coping mechanisms in place yet to deal with the disappointment.) I would stop cleaning and go outside with him. (Or if he wanted to be outside alone, I would watch from the dining room window like you suggested.)

TCS doesn't say everyone has to be happy all the time, about everything, forever. TCS is treating children with equal consideration and respect, while respecting their different needs and abilities. The decision to sacrifice one's immediate wants to fulfill the desire of a child can still be a common preference. If the options are such that either my child will be screaming and unhappy, or that I must put aside my desire for a short time in order to fulfill his desire, the latter is the one I'd pick. It's a mutually agreeable solution if you deside to be agreeable about it.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

I am not a TCSer and I have no desire to be one (although that doesn't mean I am not interested in how TCSers handle things). With that in mind, here are my answers to your questions.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abac*
I think part of that is believing that everyone's needs and wants are equally important and valid.

Yes, that's true in theory. In practice, I think that can break down very easily. Last week, my daughter was not feeling well and was lying on the family room couch, near the bathroom if she needed it, near me so that I could attend to her as needed. My son wanted to listen to a CD he listens to while jumping off the couch. That would be disturbing to my ill daughter. Is his desire to listen and jump equally as valid as her deisre to rest quietly in a convenient, comfortable space? Of course. Is it equally as important that I accomodate his desire? No, not in my opinion.

Yes, my son's desire to go outside alone right now is as valid as my desire to finish the job I started. But that doesn't mean it trumps mine and I should just have to give up doing what's important and valid to me. Had I just jumped up and taken my son outside, I would have been pre-occupied with the fact that I had a half-finished bathroom. I would not have been comfortable with that, and I would not have been happy abandoning my task, half-done. I would not have been happy with that solution. Some parents might be, and that's fine, but not me, and in TCS, EVERYONE is supposed to be happy with the solution. Dropping what I am doing and accomodating my son's desire simply because he might cry if I don't is not, to me, a good way to arrive at a common preference. And besides, I am NOT going to let my two-year-old go outside alone, no matter how much he cries. He wanted to be like his sister and go outside alone. I suppose I could have said, "Ok, go outside alone" and then watched him secretly. But that's dishonest, and when I floated the "I'll watch you form the window" suggestion, he was not satisfied with that. He wanted to go outside alone. Period. I don't think it was the "now or in five minutes" issue that upset him. It was the "not getting to be just like my sister" issue, and I was not and will not bend on that until he's older. Even when he's three, like my daughter, I don't think I will be able to let him go out alone, because he's not as thoughtful and conscientious as my daughter is and was at two. He's much more impulse-driven than she was at two.

Quote:

The fact that you insisted that your ds wait while you finished cleaning leads me to suspect that you consider your desire to finish cleaning more important than his desire to go outside.
No, not the desire, but the practicality. To me it is very important to finish a job you have started. If my son were in the middle of something and I suddenly desired to go somewhere, I would respect his desire to bring his activity to conclusion. And, I do think that it is important that kids learn to prioritize desires, and in our family, finishing a job we have started before moving on to something else is a value we prioritize and wish to impart to our kids.

Quote:

Second, I consider my ability to understand that equlity, and my ability to wait. I also consider my ds's relative inability to understand the importance of my needs and desires and his inability to wait.
Yes, I understand that, and maybe you are more organized and less thrown by spontaneity than I am, but I don't do well when things change quickly and tasks are left undone. That's just who I am. I become anxious and pre-occupied with the undone task. I have two kids, 3 and 2, and they ask me to do things with and for them continually throughout the day. If their desires were always prioritized above mine because they don't yet have the same ability to understand and wait that I do, then I wouldn't be able to get done the things I need and want to get done. I can't even fold a load of laundry without having to stop and wipe someone's rear end, and to me, constant interruption and changing course is very disorienting.

Quote:

TCS doesn't say everyone has to be happy all the time, about everything, forever. TCS is treating children with equal consideration and respect, while respecting their different needs and abilities. The decision to sacrifice one's immediate wants to fulfill the desire of a child can still be a common preference.
Yes, it can be a common preference. But what about when it's not? What about the times when I really, honestly, can not be happy with sacrificing my desire for my child's? Should I just always give in to please my child? In my opinion, no. I think that family life, especially when there are more than one child and one adult in a family, involves balance. Sometimes I accomodate my kids. Sometimes they accomodate me. Sometimes they accomdate ecah other. Sometimes I accomodate my spouse. Sometimes he accomodates me. Recently, my dh wanted to leave the house on Saturday morning at 7 am (on my day to sleep in) so he could take the bus somewhere. I was leaving the house at 9:30 am to take the kids to a friend's party. What we decided to do was have me drop him off on my way, leaving at 8:45 instead of 9:30. That was a great solution. What would I have done if my husband had fallen on the floor and rolled around and yelled, "No, me leave at 7 by self!!" I understand that little kids don't have the patience and the understanding of the situation that adults have, but to me, part of how they learn those things is by seeing them carried out in practice, not by always having someone else bend to accomodate them.

Quote:

If the options are such that either my child will be screaming and unhappy, or that I must put aside my desire for a short time in order to fulfill his desire, the latter is the one I'd pick. It's a mutually agreeable solution if you deside to be agreeable about it.








Sometimes I do put aside my desires for my child. Sometimes I don't. Had I been involved in something that would have taken me an hour to complete, I might very well have said, "Ok, I'll finish this later. Let's go outside!" (or, "Let me watch you out the window now!") Had I not been stressed about the bathroom that had not been cleaned for three weeks, because no one cleaned it while I was in Ethiopia and I didn't have the opportunity to clean it last week, I might have said, "I can finish this later." Had my mood been slightly different at the time, I might have said "I can finish this later." But this morning, those were not the conditions I found myself in, and this time, my son had to accomodate me for five minutes. Imo, it can be very difficult to find a common preference with someone who doesn't understand the other person's viewpoint and who is developmentally egocentric, and I don't think that the best way to parent is to always give in to your child just because they are little.

Namaste!


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Another part of TCS is letting go of entrenched theories - things we believe because we've always believed them, even though we've never critically examined them. Needing to finish the bathroom because you started it might be an entrenched theory. Needing to clean the bathroom every three weeks might be an entenched theory. Your son needing to stay on the front porch to be safe might be an entenched theory.

I think the whole idea of wanting to go outside by himself is probably a result of coercion around that issue, so it may not be the best example for "what would you do?" because I don't think it would happen. It's hard to think of TCS solutions when you're still operating in a non-TCS environment...given that, though, I would try to examine some of your entrenched theories and figure out how dangerous it really would be for him to be outside, and maybe see if you can find a mutually agreeable solution for a short time period, like 2 minutes, and then you'll check on him, and then maybe another two minutes... or one minute, or 30 seconds. Maybe he'd be okay with being outside with his older sibling. Maybe he could be on the cell phone with you on the other end. Whatever. But it really needs to be a give and take, where you stretch and think critically about your beliefs, rather than just deciding out- of hand that certain things weren't acceptable to you.

And yes, you won't always be able to do things the way you want to. In the grand scheme of things, leaing the toilet half-scrubbed is just not a big deal. If you truly believe that coersion is harmful to your child, it becomes even less of a big deal, and because you don't want to harm your child, you leave the toilet.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Unschoolnma*
They see me eat spinach salad, homemade soup, black bean and veggie burritos, ice cream, Pepsi, and chocolate bars.

This has been making me hungry every time I read it... I want to go to your house for dinner! Those are all my favorites









Quote:


Originally Posted by *sassykat*
I've been researching the basic definition and explanations of TCS, and would like to know if Sarah Fitz-Claridge has children of her own.

She has two daughters, I think they're probably in their late teens now? Or maybe the older one is in her early twenties? They were. I won't post their names in case she's decided not to put those out publicly, but they used to post on the TCS list occasionally. She may have had more kids since then, too, I don't know - this is as of about 1998.

Dar


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Another part of TCS is letting go of entrenched theories - things we believe because we've always believed them, even though we've never critically examined them. Needing to finish the bathroom because you started it might be an entrenched theory. Needing to clean the bathroom every three weeks might be an entenched theory. Your son needing to stay on the front porch to be safe might be an entenched theory.

Yep, I'm sure they are entrenched theories, and I'm happy with them being that way. They go hand in hand with my entrenched theories that having lots of unfinished jobs around the house leads to a disorganized and uncomfortable environment, that smelly bathroms with dust bunnies are not pleasant places, and that children wandering into the street because they are not supervised is an unsafe situation.









I get what you are saying, Dar, but I'm also not comfortable living in a "question everything" environment. I need more order and stability than that.

Quote:

I think the whole idea of wanting to go outside by himself is probably a result of coercion around that issue, so it may not be the best example for "what would you do?" because I don't think it would happen.
Sorry, I DON'T get what you're saying here. He wanted to go outside by himself because his sister was outside by herself and, as the little brother, he wants to do the same thing she does so he can be like her. I'm not sure where coercion comes into that, and I kinda resent the idea that somehow I have misparented my child just because he wanted to go outside alone.









Quote:

In the grand scheme of things, leaing the toilet half-scrubbed is just not a big deal. If you truly believe that coersion is harmful to your child, it becomes even less of a big deal, and because you don't want to harm your child, you leave the toilet.
But see, it's not just about the toilet. It's not about isolated incidents. It's about how life in general fits together, and if I add up all the half-scrubbed toilets and half-folded baskets of laundry and half-vaccuumed carpets and half-cooked meals, that becomes a major part of my life, not just an isolated incident. And anyway, I don't believe that coercion the way it is defined in TCS is harmful to a child.

Bowing out now because, like I said, I'm not a TCSer and I don't want to be a TCSer so I probably have nothing more valuable to add!







I am, however, interested in reading about what you meant by the "go outside by himself is the result of coercion" comment.

Namaste!


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

dharmamama- while I too would have left the toilet to figure out something of the outside issue, I thought your incident of "sick sister on the couch he wants to jump on", was a really interesting one. I am thinking, I would try to help him find a different activity to do that was equally as enjoyable (but then again, I have easy kids who always prefer one of these options -playdough, cookie making, outside play--over everything else-lol), but what if he put up a real stink about it, what if he really wanted to do that so badly? I keep thinking of *my way* as more of "how I treat my dh"(since we have a great marriage) than TCS, if my dh insisted on doing something completely inconsiderate of my sick daughter I'd likely have quite a lot of words with him, yk?

I can see a number of complicating factors to TCS, one- both parents need to be into it, another- I can see it being harder with more than one child, esp. close in age children---finding common preferences is easy between one adult and one child, but try a 5 yo, a 4 yo and an almost 2 yo- :LOL. As I say, I am lucky to have "easy" kids in that regard who always prefer certain things. Another thing that seems like it would complicate things would be strong religious ties, in a more "restrictive" religion (like mine







).

Then, there is us--the mamas, we want so badly to do well for our kids, often we have come to where we are personally through lots of trial and tribulations, and it is HARD to give up what we have found works for us (like your cleaning, and "finishing what you've started" ways).

I said before, I think TCS is an ideal, an ideal I don't see myself reaching (partly as I didn't start out that way, partly due to my own "issues" and partly due to dh's lack of wanting to do it), but I think the idea of finding common preferences as often as possible, questioning long-held beliefs, and trying to treat our children with the respect we would want from a partner, are great things to work on. I am pretty sure TCS is an "all encompassing" thing, like you can't be "partly TCS" :LOL, but that is how I think of myself, and I think my kids are better off for it.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I am pretty sure TCS is an "all encompassing" thing, like you can't be "partly TCS"
I disagree... I don't think you can be partly TCS per se, but like anything, I think that the degree in which you impliment it can vary. For instance, you can be "AP" and not breastfeed (I am all for breastfeeding, just using an example)... and I also believe you can practice GD and still use time outs (although I don't plan to). I think you can still be a Christian and have a few glasses of wine, a Buddhist who still celebrates the decorating/santa/presents aspect of Christmas, a Muslim woman who doesn't cover her head, a republican who thinks Bush sucks (I am not a republican btw), a pro-choicer who is staunchly against the death penalty, and a feminist who believes prostitution should be legalized (like me).

I think the problem with many theories and philosophies is that people do make them all encompassing to the point that they isolate themselves and others, and create a sort of chaos where they are trying to create some peace...and that they are too worried about what the other tcs'ers or ap'ers or gd'ers might think if they dare go against anything the masses believe in those areas.

I love the philosophy of TCS. I plan to impliment it in almost all situations in raising my daughter -- but am I going to be a TCS'er who lets her watch 18 hours of TV a day if she wants to? Probably not... but it doesn't mean that most of my parenting and philosophies don't align closely with TCS. The same way I would definately consider myself AP to anyone who asked, and yet, my daughter is on formula (long painful story, but formula all the same).

The point is, I take my parenting philosophies from many different sources, people, ideas, my husband, my instincts, my daughter's personality etc... and I think everyone should really do the same. Any time you take one single doctrine or belief and make it the absolute only thing you believe or do, you kind of run into trouble (imo) ...

Of all the philosophies though, TCS is the one that makes the most sense to me, so that is why I "call" myself that... but it doesn't mean I will do 100% of it 100% of the time...

ETA: I would have left the toilet too... life is too short.. I realize that you want some sort of order in your life, we all do, and no one says you should live in filth so you can do what your kids want all the time and stuff --- but when I die, the last thing I want someone to say is, boy she had a real clean toilet! ya know?


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
and maybe see if you can find a mutually agreeable solution for a short time period, like 2 minutes, and then you'll check on him, and then maybe another two minutes... or one minute, or 30 seconds. Maybe he'd be okay with being outside with his older sibling. Maybe he could be on the cell phone with you on the other end. Whatever.

We did this with a set of walkie talkies, and we worked out the boundaries we all thought were safe. I checked on them often etc.

Quote:

In the grand scheme of things, leaing the toilet half-scrubbed is just not a big deal. If you truly believe that coersion is harmful to your child, it becomes even less of a big deal, and because you don't want to harm your child, you leave the toilet.
 Right, in my world if it's toilet vs. kid the kid wins.

Quote:

This has been making me hungry every time I read it... I want to go to your house for dinner! Those are all my favorites








Happy to help with the snack attack! :LOL They are soo good. Sometimes I think I could almost live on black bean veggie burritos with lots of salsa and avacado.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:

Right, in my world if it's toilet vs. kid the kid wins.
Yes, because it really is a contest between the toilet and my kid and my kid lost, obviously.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Sorry if I offended you. Not my goal at all.









Maybe I should have said in a situation that causes me to consider my need to clean the toilet and my child's desire to go outside I would come to the conclusion that my child's desire outweighs the importance of a clean toilet. I am seriously struggling for a way to say what I mean without sound snarky.


----------



## eccomama (Oct 6, 2005)

wow. i actually spend the last hour reading through this thread and wow, this is a great discussion. i am new to this board, i have an almost 17 month old who is very much sprited and stubborn. the little positive discipline i have done revolves around telling dd what to do, instead of what not to do, distracting if the previous doesn't work, and if all else fails physically removing her from the undesirable or dangerous situation. no spaking, no yelling, shaming etc.
the TCS sounds interesting but how could you use it on a 17 month old who has no ability to reason or understand what's wrong, right, dangerous, hot, etc?
also, i work part time out of necessity and she's in homecare 3 full days a week. the caregiver is empathetic to my ways but she has 3 other ones to attend to. we have not had a situation when dd has to be disciplined yet but the lady uses distraction first and time out as last resort. i'm sure the different approaches confuse her. same thing with ec, we do it at home but not at homecare. this has caused a lot of confusion and miscommunication from dd. i don't want to run into the same thing with discipline.
any advice?


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

From the get-go, i was thinking: Dang. Dharma hould have used a different example: nobody is gonna go for, or be sympathetic over this example.

We have a friend whose baby was born with a life-threatening, yet not-a-death-sentence massive birth defect, and she has to tube feed him breastmilk every hour, plus she breasteeds him every two hours, which takes a long time. She always says, 'I have no idea what i would do if he were not my first".

I have to admit---there have been times I wasn't doing the most important thing in my life, but i still wanted to do it when my toddler wanted to do something else.

Finishing pooping is something that comes immediately to mind.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
From the get-go, i was thinking: Dang. Dharma hould have used a different example: nobody is gonna go for, or be sympathetic over this example.

But I wasn't asking people to be sympathic or tell me how I should have handled the situation differently. I am satisfied with how I handled the situation. I merely wanted to know how a TCSer would have handled it.









Namaste!


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom*
Finishing pooping is something that comes immediately to mind.









:LOL, I bet even the most hard-core TCSer would finish the pooping too.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
But I wasn't asking people to be sympathic or tell me how I should have handled the situation differently. I am satisfied with how I handled the situation. I merely wanted to know how a TCSer would have handled it.









Namaste!









OK. Well. I am not an absolute TCSer, although i do take my kids' needs totally seriously.

But even middle- of- the- road me, wouldn't have worried about the toilet. Some things are simply not important. I tend to tidy the bathroom when the kids are actually in the bathroom, in the tub. Swipe, swipe, done.









OTOH-- I have not scrubbed a toilet since my dh took over that job about 18 yrs ago. I love that guy.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peppermint*
:LOL, I bet even the most hard-core TCSer would finish the pooping too.


No kidding.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I guess there are just two different thought processes. People who don't think their world should revolve around their children )and that is okay) and people who do. It is much easier to practice TCS (imo) when your world happily revolves around your child, as mine does. Don't get me wrong, I still have my hobbies and interests, and I don't plan on being one of those people who makes their child think they will die if they leave their side -- but my child absolutely comes first to me, or at the very least, equal.

I grew up in a home where we were not equal and we knew it. We were loved, sure, but we all knew who was "boss". We were talked to, listened to, sure, but we still knew at the end of the day who was in "control" and it wasn't us. My parents, and many others are from the school of "kids join OUR lives, we aren't changing for THEM" (I think Dr. Phil says this too *blech*) -- but my mindset is one of, this little girl didn't ask to be born, she didn't choose this, she doesn't get to choose where she lives, who her parents are, the fact that she legally has to live with us for the next 18 years -- it is my job to make her happy we made that choice (imo).

It is very easy to me to practice TCS having this mindset, that WE are honored to have her in our life and not the other way around. I am not saying that people who don't practice TCS don't feel this way, but we feel that her needs come equal or more important to ours and we are completely prepared to drop anything -- from cleaning the toilet to rescheduling a dinner with friends if she is upset/fussy/needy ... that to us, is just what we signed up for.

Now some people would say "your child is running your life" ... and to me, that is the sign of someone who has some control issues. Our child doesn't run our life but she is a HUGE part of our life, and being the one who didn't have a choice in any of it, we feel that her wants and needs should be addressed. It would be completely different if she got to check us out, our life, the way we did things, how we lived, got to study us and live with us on a trial run then said "I am cool with this and how you live, I think I will come aboard!"

Coming from a very controlling, punitive upbringing, it has been very difficult to change my mindset of "children need to be put in their place" or "children are not equal to adults" type mentality, but thankfully I did years ago when studying Sociology and moreso when I became pregnant and found this site.

I guess part of it too, is that I have seen it done the other way. All my life, every single person I have ever known but for a couple of people with hippy parents, has been raised in a less than GD or TCS home and while they may become "normal, decent" people, they still to this day struggle with issues of control, guilt, resentment, and anger as a result of their childhood, myself included -- even though I love my parents and are very close to them now....

So I decided to try it a different way and see how that works out. A way where everyone is respected and valued as an equal member of the family. A way where my position of "authority figure" is not the trump card, but rather a tool _only_ used as a last measure in issues of real safety etc...


----------



## sassykat (Sep 7, 2005)

I think it is interesting the way the word "control" is used with TCS. By making the decision to discuss and find a mutual agreement, is the parent not still controlling the environment? It is not within the child's realm of knowledge to do this.

An observation I have also made, is that for families who raise their children to honor the 10 Commandments and make Jesus a priority, TCS would not be an option, specifically by going to church regularly and dying to self daily. Ultimately, as an adult, my life and decisions will not be discussed and a mutual agreement made with my higher authority, and I would be hesitant to create a false sense of "this is how life is" in my children.

I would also like to add that being a non-TCS parent, my children are shown respect daily through our communication with each other (affection, speaking, listening) and my relationship with my husband, their daddy. If I had to say my world revolved around something on this earth, it would be my family as a whole.
















:
Kat


----------



## sassykat (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*

She has two daughters, I think they're probably in their late teens now? Or maybe the older one is in her early twenties? They were. I won't post their names in case she's decided not to put those out publicly, but they used to post on the TCS list occasionally. She may have had more kids since then, too, I don't know - this is as of about 1998.

Dar


Do either of them have a web-site?
Thanks,
Kat


----------



## roseselene (Aug 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *roseselene*
OK, I admittedly have not had time to read all of this thread because my 2 children don't really like it when I sit at the computer for long periods of time, so I hope i'm not repeating anything. I'm just curious. how on earth would I handle the following situation with TCS? .....
DD is very aggressive with DS....has been since he was about 3 months old. She pushes him over, she hits him, kicks him, bites him. You name it, she does it. I know that its out of jealousy, I can tell it is. I've made a big effort to provide both of them with individualized attention, I've sat down and talked to her about the fact that I love her even though Ben is here, I still love her. I've talked to her about the hitting, biting, etc...but she still does it. I just can't really see a way to rectify this without coersion...meaning I have to coerse her to stop abusing him. I can't just let her do it...ya know? So how does someone who practices TCS deal with this? I've tried very hard and I just can't seem to make it work.
Amy










I'm quoting my own post to bump it because noone responded and I truly am interested in knowing how one would handle this situation as nothing I have done seems to work. Also, I have had a chance to read through some of these posts and it would seem to me that TCS is inherently impossible when you have 2 children who want 2 different things.......wouldn't it be forcing one to do something that the other didn't want to do? I don't know....with my 2...I'm reading these examples and it just doesn't seem plausible. DD is extremely high needs and yes my world does center around my children, but I also value brushing my teeth and going to the bathroom. If my children had it their way, I wouldn't do that. So that why I sort of like







with some of this.....I just really don't get it. I'm trying to get it, but I don't. It seems with a high needs child (which I have) and/or more than one child (i have 2) some of these examples would just not work. Thoughts?
Amy


----------



## Treasuremapper (Jul 4, 2004)

Amy, I think you have a very valid point. I was into TCS when I had only one dd, and, though I cringe now to admit it, I was very judgemental about it and thought I knew everything and that TCS was totally the best way for all families, etc. My older dd is "high needs" (I do not like that expression, but it helps to explain) so I thought that if people could not do it, they just were not putting enough time and energy into their kids.

I am not proud of the fact I felt that way, I'm just explaining to give background.

Then I had my second baby, who had a life threatening medical condition and had major surgery to correct a birth defect. My children are 22 months apart. My older dd wanted to hit, kick, and pummel my medically fragile newborn - basically, she really wanted to do it whenever I had contact with my newborn. My older dd also wanted to prevent me from nursing my newborn, and I had almost no help or support whatsoever, just what my dh could offer me after working his ten hour days. Suddenly, all of my ideals (I'm thinking about TV, too) were called into question in the face of real life practical considerations like having to feed and protect my newborn.

So ultimately, TCS did not work for our family. I think it may work again as the girls get older, when we can talk a bit more about common preferences, etc. A lot of the values are still very influential to me. For example, what is the point of forcing a kid to wear pajamas if they don't want to? Who cares? If a child doesn't want to go in a carseat, do we really have to go somewhere? A few times have been real emergencies, but 99.9 percent of the time there was no real reason to force a child to go somewhere. However, I am very comfortable about "coercing and manipulating" (to use some TCS lingo) my children to do things like brush their teeth and not hit each other.

I do know one TCS family in real life with two boys -- and TCS works really well for them. It is hard for me as an outsider to tell whether the boys are gentle and peaceful because of the TCS or whether TCS worked well because they had gentle and peaceful dispositions to begin with. All of the other TCS families I know in real life have only one child.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I guess there are just two different thought processes. People who don't think their world should revolve around their children )and that is okay) and people who do. It is much easier to practice TCS (imo) when your world happily revolves around your child, as mine does. Don't get me wrong, I still have my hobbies and interests, and I don't plan on being one of those people who makes their child think they will die if they leave their side -- but my child absolutely comes first to me, or at the very least, equal.

Well, I have to agree with the pp that it's not as clear-cut as this. Our world revolves around our children, and we think it should, but that actually means that we are not always able to pay 100% attention to their wants and desires. Maybe this works better for people who are better off financially, but part of us wanting the best for our children is that we want to be able to afford to send them to college, and so we have to make sacrifices now. So that means that some things just aren't an option, some obligations must be met, and some desires must be delayed. At least with the preschooler, not so much with the baby, obviously.

And, I think that there's something to be said for doing the things that you have to to maintain your sanity, to an extent. If you need a two-hour massage and three martinis every afternoon while your dc watches violent cartoons, then your priorities might need reexamining. If, however, you're like Dharmamama and just need a clean toilet, I think you should do it. Especially if you felt like you would become resentful of your dc otherwise.


----------



## roseselene (Aug 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *inezyv*

Then I had my second baby, who had a life threatening medical condition and had major surgery to correct a birth defect. My children are 22 months apart. My older dd wanted to hit, kick, and pummel my medically fragile newborn - basically, she really wanted to do it whenever I had contact with my newborn. My older dd also wanted to prevent me from nursing my newborn, and I had almost no help or support whatsoever, just what my dh could offer me after working his ten hour days. Suddenly, all of my ideals (I'm thinking about TV, too) were called into question in the face of real life practical considerations like having to feed and protect my newborn.

Yes! That's exactly what I'm talking about. I didn't have a medically fragile newborn, but I did have a newborn. My kids are 20 months apart and my daughter was so very jealous .....she did crazy things (well still does) to my son. One time he was napping and all of a sudden I heard him crying and she came around the corner and announced "ben woke up" I went in and she had scratched the heck out of his face







I don't have any idea how a person would implement TCS in situations like this.
Not to be snarky, but I've noticed noone has really chimed in with a TCS suggestion on how to do that....so I'm starting to think that there isn't one. There are just so many examples in my life on a day to day basis that this method just doesn't seem possible.
Amy


----------



## Treasuremapper (Jul 4, 2004)

Amy, I did look into some TCS solutions for the problem, and they were beautiful, gentle solutions, but they just did not work for us. They might work for some families, but they did not work for us. Because I had very serious safety and feeding considerations, I had to have something that would work and work quickly. I could not experiment with lots of different ideas over a prolonged period of time.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Yep, I'm sure they are entrenched theories, and I'm happy with them being that way.

And you're welcome to 'em, of course... but you asked how a TCS parent would approach the situation, and I answered in that vein.

Quote:

Sorry, I DON'T get what you're saying here. He wanted to go outside by himself because his sister was outside by herself and, as the little brother, he wants to do the same thing she does so he can be like her. I'm not sure where coercion comes into that, and I kinda resent the idea that somehow I have misparented my child just because he wanted to go outside alone.








I'm surprised that this bothers you, actually... you've said you make no attempt to be non-coercive, so clearly your child *has* been coerced, and TCS dogma is that his irrational behaviors are due to coercion. I didn't say misparented, just coerced. The whole idea that she was permitted to do something and he wasn't permitted to do it, and therefore he wanted to do it to be like her... that doesn't happen in TCS families, because no one is "permitted" to do things.

sassykat - I just looked, and yeah... www.lulie.org.

I try not to respond to sibling questions because I really can't speak from experience - our family is just the two of us. Of the three TCS families I used to hang with, one had two children (one of whom had Down Syndrome, and the mom was single), one had 4, and one had an only child. And Sarah Fitz-whatever she is now has two... apparently it's doable, even if I don't have first-hand examples.

Dar


----------



## soladeo (Feb 19, 2005)

I was not familiar with TCS until I read about it in this thread, and here's my thoughts as an ex-teacher and newbie parent:

I like Dr. Sears philosophy (he talks about it when discussing night parenting) that you need to do what's right for your child, for you, and for your family. So, if co-sleeping isn't working because your child flails around at night and punches you and you're not getting any sleep, then you think of alternatives. For some, it's a separate room, others a mattress on the floor, others it's adding a side car. But if the child is miserable in his or her own room and not ready to be on her own, that's not right for the child. So a toddler bed or a mattress in your room might work, but you might have to ease her into it.

The pendulum of parenting swung towards parents having absolute control for so long now, but I think the "danger" of permissive parenting is a true concern. I've known children whose parents allowed them to do whatever it is they want, with the consequences of a child who was unhappy and lonely (because other kids didn't want to be around them). It doesn't seem as if TCS is this kind of philosophy though. However, I think taking any philosophy lock, stock, and barrel is dangerous. (That's why I like Dr. Sears







I mean, children, even older ones, are not always rational- esp. during hormone driven years of teenagerhood. There are times that neccessitate, IMO, action and not discussion. However, I have found as both a teacher and a parent, that I question the "why" of rules more often. As a teacher we had a rule that only two kids could be a on the teeter-tooter. "Why," I asked. "Because that's the way we do it." I thought about it, and realized that with certain conditions, I number of children could be on the teeter-tooter- which is what they wanted, because they're girls (mostly) and wanted to be social while the y swooshed up and down. The girls and I discussed it, and agreed to a compromise- they could sit up to four on each side but could not roughhouse, try to stand, etc.

I do think, even with young ones, it's a good idea to give rational explanations for rules, even if the kids don't quite understand it yet. My 13mos. hates to get his diaper changed, but I think it's non-negotiable when I need to change him. So I say explain to him in short phrases why he must get his diaper changed "time to get cleaned up" or "eww-stinky diaper" (which he thinks is funny) I let him choose the new diaper, and give him any power I can. But sometimes he cries and screams. That's the way it is.

Anyway, that was quite long. I guess the bottom line is common sense.







I could have said that in a much shorter way!!


----------



## where the hawks go (Mar 29, 2002)

You can be left and TCS (I'm pretty dang left!). You can TCS a baby and a toddler. You can TCS with multiple children.

It is not about self sacrifising or a list of rules. It is a new paradigm where everyone gets their needs mets (including yours and your partner). It is living with your children cooperatively.

Children are rational and want to remain safe. IME they respond to emergency situations rationally. They respond to information about safety rationally.

It is a very good fit for me and my family.









I also dislike the jargon and tone of some TCS-lists and sites. I am a member owner of a natural parenting/AP discussion board that includes a TCS *support* forum. If you are interested in getting guidance and how to-s, or have questions you would be most welcome to post there. (Please no threads or questions with the sole intention to provoke debate). Lurking is welcome too! http://pub3.ezboard.com/bsageparenting


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
The whole idea that she was permitted to do something and he wasn't permitted to do it, and therefore he wanted to do it to be like her... that doesn't happen in TCS families, because no one is "permitted" to do things.

Sorry, I don't buy this. I think you have it backwards. My son didn't want to be like his sister just because I wouldn't let him go outside alone. He would have wanted to be like her even if I'd allowed him to go outside alone. Him wanting to be like his sister came before the "coercion." Indeed, it was the cause of his "coercion." My son _wanting_ to be like his sister has nothing to do with coercion or being permitted to do something. I'm sure that his getting upset about it was due to me not letting him, but the desire to be like his sister has nothing to do with coercion. It's just how little kids are. They want to be like the people they love and admire. I don't believe that just because a family practices TCS, little siblings don't want to be like their big siblings, and I also think that, even in a TCS family, a little sib could become frustrated that he or she developmentally can't be like the big sib (for instance, riding a bicycle or climbing the stairs, things that have to do with skill level, not permission.

Namaste!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Ps. Just to make sure we're on the same page regarding terminology, it is my understanding (based on reading the TCS pages and having email conversations with David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge) that a child is being "coerced" any time they are not completely happy with any outcome or solution. FTR, I don't believe that is coercion. To me, coercion is making a person act against their will. I believe that people can be not completely happy (or even unhappy) with a given situation but still not be acting against their will.

Also, I wanted to add that I had a very bizarre email exchange with David Deutsch in which he told me that, had my nephew been raised in a TCS family, he wouldn't have had Asperger's. I thought that recasting a neurobiological disorder as a parenting disorder was off the wall, to say the least.

Namaste!


----------



## Treasuremapper (Jul 4, 2004)

Hmmm... Hawks... methinks I probably know you! (ok, I just figured out who you are -- and yup, I have seen your family in action and TCS works beautifully for y'all! -- a living testament to how TCS can work well in real life!







)

My experience with emergency situations is that children don't always respond rationally any more than adults do. Sadly, I have been through some true life or death emergencies and I didn't notice rational behavior in my 23 month old dd at the time. I didn't notice it in myself, either!

TCS works great for some families, but it doesn't work great for others. I'm thrilled it works for so many, because it really is a cool concept.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Re: rationality in emergency sitautions:

I was once assaulted outside a crowded building, in an empty parking lot. My response was to run _away_ from the building and _toward_ my car, which was farther away from people who could help me. In my mind, at the time, I was thinking, "If I can run to my car I can drive away." I guess someone could take that to the basest level and say that I was acting rationally by trying to get away from my assailant, but on a more sophisticated level, the more rational thing to do would have been to go _toward_ the building and get help from the people inside. "Fight or flight" responses are not rational or irrational. They're just instincts.

Namaste!


----------



## where the hawks go (Mar 29, 2002)

Hey inezyv







nice to "see" ya!







:

I know, I'm not rational in emergencies either. Like once some high winds kicked up suddenly. I had to rush outside to secure another building where I worked and saw the wind catch the upper branches and crack the top of tree and watched as it came toppling down. Did I run quickly away? No, I crouched down and covered my head.







: Luckily it landed a few yards away.

I definately learned something in that experience (like I have crappy reflexes, lol). Seriously, I don't think we ever stop learning. We make mistakes and learn things and grow.

TCS is about sharing information with our childre--information that is timely and important. And it means striving to find creative solutions to problem that everyone is happy with.

I find alot of AP families implement these strategies without adhering a label to their parenting style actually.


----------



## momsgotmilk4two (Sep 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Ps. Just to make sure we're on the same page regarding terminology, it is my understanding (based on reading the TCS pages and having email conversations with David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge) that a child is being "coerced" any time they are not completely happy with any outcome or solution. FTR, I don't believe that is coercion. To me, coercion is making a person act against their will. I believe that people can be not completely happy (or even unhappy) with a given situation but still not be acting against their will.


I agree with you. I found the definition of coercion to be bizarre as well. Sounds like circular logic to me.

From one of the first posts on this thread:

"It's irrational to want to be run over by a big truck, so the parent assumes that a child would not really want that, even if he's standing in the street screaming, "I want to stand here forever!" as a truck bears down upon him, and that the reason he's standing there is either that he's not aware of the danger or that he's been coerced previously and thus is acting irrationally as a result, but since he truly does not want to be hit by a truck, allowing this to happen would be allowing further coercion."

This is what I mean by circular logic. Child makes a poor choice and it's labeled "previous coercion", thus allowing it would be further coercion, even though it was the child's choice. I see no proof or evidence of this.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Sorry, I don't buy this. I think you have it backwards. My son didn't want to be like his sister just because I wouldn't let him go outside alone.

I think you misunderstood... I didn't say that him wanting to be like his sister was a result of coercion. In the situation you gave, she was permitted to go outside. He wasn't. By giving permission for one child to do certain things and not giving permission for others, you coerce your child and force him to act irrationally when he (very naturally) wants to imitate his older sister. You've turned "being outside alone" into a s privilege that one child has and the other does not. That doesn't happen in TCS.

Quote:

I also think that, even in a TCS family, a little sib could become frustrated that he or she developmentally can't be like the big sib (for instance, riding a bicycle or climbing the stairs, things that have to do with skill level, not permission.
But in a TCS family, the parents are actively trying to help him do these things, not forbidding them. Because this is the dynamic, my experience has been that children respond very differently to not being able to do things . Often they work very hard at it - my daughter taught herself to swim one summer by literally going back and forth hundreds of times, and she was only 3 or 4. Other times, if it's truly a developmental task, they seem very happy to do it with parental assistance, and they believe the parental assurances that it will come. They don't tend to get very upset over it. It does happen occasionally - my daughter was a very late writer, and occasionally she would get frustrated over her inability to spell (although I tend to think it was due to outside coercion she had experienced) but it's not common.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momsgotmilk4two*
This is what I mean by circular logic. Child makes a poor choice and it's labeled "previous coercion", thus allowing it would be further coercion, even though it was the child's choice. I see no proof or evidence of this.

Again, the basic of TCS theory is that children are innately rational and become irrational through coercion. If you believe this, then the fact that the child is acting irrationally *is* proof. As TCS is a philosophy, it's subject to the rigors of the scientific method, and therefore would tumble like a house of cards if anyone could logically disproove this initial postulate. So far no one has... it's like "Two points determine a line" in Euclidean geometry. If you start there, an entire enormous field follows. If you don't start with that same initial postulate, though, you'll never get to any of it. In sphere geometry, for example, two points don't determine a line... and everything that follows is therefore different.

And that was a pretty serious situation... if child has been coerced around eating sweets and makes the irrational decision to eat two fudge cakes, even after you've shared your best theories, then you don't interfere, because your coercion in this case will be more damaging than his eating the cakes. getting run over by a truck is a lot more extreme, and it's also not something that's ever happened to me or anyone I know...

And yes, the TCS definition of coercion is specific, and not the standard one... but on the other hand, perhaps doing things that make you unhappy is irrational in and of itself.

Dar


----------



## sassykat (Sep 7, 2005)

Thanks, Dar, for the link.







I looked over her site.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *where the hawks go*

I find alot of AP families implement these strategies without adhering a label to their parenting style actually.









: I was thinking about that, too. I use various parenting techniques with my children, depending on the situation.

_Dar wrote: "You've turned "being outside alone" into a s privilege that one child has and the other does not. That doesn't happen in TCS."_

I do question the logic of allowing a two-year old outside alone, just because his older sister is outside alone. The potential for danger or an accident is huge.

_"As TCS is a philosophy, it's subject to the rigors of the scientific method, and therefore would tumble like a house of cards if anyone could logically disproove this initial postulate. So far no one has..."_

I have done no research on children being born with innate rationale--does this mean that there is existing research that children are rational from birth, or that no one can prove that children aren't rational at birth?

Thanks!
Kat







:


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sassykat*
I do question the logic of allowing a two-year old outside alone, just because his older sister is outside alone. The potential for danger or an accident is huge.

But no one is advocating that, or at least TCS isn't. There's a whole world of possibilities besides forbidding and allowing... with TCS, there is no forbidding and no allowing. There's only solution-finding. It's a different paradigm.

Quote:

I have done no research on children being born with innate rationale--does this mean that there is existing research that children are rational from birth, or that no one can prove that children aren't rational at birth?
The latter. Or. at least, no one has disproved it as of yet.

Dar


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

**Edited because I decided not to continue debating.**


----------



## babybugmama (Apr 7, 2003)

Again - although the discussion is intense I think everyone is doing a great job of keeping it on topic and not personal. I am thoroughly enjoying reading everyone's thoughts and opinions. It's fascinating the *business* of parenting. I'm even using lots of thoughts here with my own little one. Thanks for keeping such a potentially charged conversation simply fascinating.


----------



## Kateri (Nov 21, 2001)

I haven't had a chance to read much of this thread (apologies if this was already brought up) but this philosophy sounds very much in line w/ Alfie Kohn's _Unconditional Parenting_. Quite likely this book was mentioned? I read _UP_ over the summer and was very impressed and inspired. Have been working hard to reduce any of my controlling tendencies and to invite everyone to problem solve. As a result, I have been feeling much closer to and connected with my children. I'm also very impressed w/some of the solutions my kids come up with and how it seems to make them feel as they bring up ideas/solutions/plans/goals. It's wonderful! Think I need to work w/ giving my youngest more autonomy. It feels as though I'm carting him around alot and managing him in a way that works w/the rest of our goals a little more often than he may be happy with.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

To those interested in Unconditional Parenting,

I found a "Unconditional Parenting" 'tribe' in the 'Finding Your Tribe Forum'. It is inspirational to me.

Another similar mentor of mine is Jan Fortune Wood. She has a website called 'autonomous child'. Here is a link: http://www.autonomouschild.co.uk/

Pat


----------



## TinkerBelle (Jun 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Ps. Just to make sure we're on the same page regarding terminology, it is my understanding (based on reading the TCS pages and having email conversations with David Deutsch and Sarah Fitz-Claridge) that a child is being "coerced" any time they are not completely happy with any outcome or solution. FTR, I don't believe that is coercion. To me, coercion is making a person act against their will. I believe that people can be not completely happy (or even unhappy) with a given situation but still not be acting against their will.

Also, I wanted to add that I had a very bizarre email exchange with David Deutsch in which he told me that, had my nephew been raised in a TCS family, he wouldn't have had Asperger's. I thought that recasting a neurobiological disorder as a parenting disorder was off the wall, to say the least.

Namaste!


I would have been LIVID about the snide remark about your nephew. Who does this man think he is? I am sorry, but he sounds like he is very ignorant.

I mean no disrespect. If a person wants to raise their children TCS, do it. I personally just do not agree or could raise my children that way.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

UP isn't a TCS book. But AK is where I fall on the relaxed parenting spectrum. AK talks about his children's bedtimes, schools etc. Not TCS. But not mainstream, either.


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

(pretty new to this forum but not discipline discusssions).

TCS/NCP is a parenting theory.

It's one I researched and rejected. I don't agree with the premise or the implementation.

The TCS online community is related to, but sepearate from, the theory. I have found them odd at best and creepy at moments.

It's my experience with watching any radical fringe group that they have a higher percentage of unhealthy people. It's true with PETA, for example. Or radical pro-life groups. Or homeschoolers. Or LLL members. Or attachment parenting. The more extreme/counter-cultural the philosophy, the more less than centered people are attracted to it. That doesn't mean the idea, thought or central thought is wrong, but that there will be a significant percentage of people who are not healthy embracing counter cultural ideas. That can be dangerous. I saw that in my experience with the online TCS community when I was considering it as a lifestyle and parenting paradigm.


----------



## amyamanda (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Of the three TCS families I used to hang with, one had two children (one of whom had Down Syndrome, and the mom was single), one had 4...

Dar, is there any chance you'd be willing to put me in touch with your TCS friend who has 4 kids? I have tried in vain to find practical support for making this work. We are as non-coercive as we can manage, but with four little kids close in age it often seems next to impossible to negotiate a common preference that meets everyone's needs. Their needs are often so immediate and critical, we don't have time to discuss long enough to find a common preference before it's too late. Also lots of needs get shelved while others must take priority, and I hate that but there isn't much I can do about it. I feel like I am always saying "You will have to wait until after I'm done with her, and he will have to wait until after I help you, and she is last in line, and then I need desperately to do X for myself (water, pee, whatever), and that is just the way it has to be"...

I would really love to be able to talk with someone who feels they are successful with TCS who has 4+ kids. If you would PM me, I'd appreciate it - maybe your friend could e-mail me...or if anyone else knows anyone who is TCSing with 4+ kids I would be so grateful to be able to talk with them. I have two friends IRL with 5 kids each, and they are very gentle and positive with their kids, but they are ultimately more coercive than I am, and I need a mentor or a role model or something to share some tricks with me and reassure me that it is do-able! If in fact it is.

Thanks.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HappyHSer*
(pretty new to this forum but not discipline discusssions).

TCS/NCP is a parenting theory.

It's one I researched and rejected. I don't agree with the premise or the implementation.

The TCS online community is related to, but sepearate from, the theory. I have found them odd at best and creepy at moments.

It's my experience with watching any radical fringe group that they have a higher percentage of unhealthy people. It's true with PETA, for example. Or radical pro-life groups. Or homeschoolers. Or LLL members. Or attachment parenting. The more extreme/counter-cultural the philosophy, the more less than centered people are attracted to it. That doesn't mean the idea, thought or central thought is wrong, but that there will be a significant percentage of people who are not healthy embracing counter cultural ideas. That can be dangerous. I saw that in my experience with the online TCS community when I was considering it as a lifestyle and parenting paradigm.

First I want to say it was very brave of you to say this in this forum and I hope that the other readers can take this with a grain of salt and know that it is not us per-se that you are referring to as "unhealthy" but that groups of people who embrace radical ideas (many of whom are very healthy and rational) do tend to attract those who do not.

I have never thought about this myself but after reading your statement I have realized that in my experience also this is true.
I have many times sought belonging in groups whose Ideas I share and been turned off by many of the people I have met. Without realizing it it has been a recurring theme. (just want to add that it is also highly likely that others who share my beliefs think I am a complete nutjob. I am not claiming to represent one side in particular LOL). Until this moment I had not seen the connection.
This may be completely off topic but I want to thank you for mentioning this and tell you that it helps me see some things in a new light.
Joline


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

First I want to say it was very brave of you to say this in this forum and I hope that the other readers can take this with a grain of salt and know that it is not us per-se that you are referring to as "unhealthy" but that groups of people who embrace radical ideas (many of whom are very healthy and rational) do tend to attract those who do not.
Yes, that's why I was very clear about the issue isn't the philosophy or the organization.

I wrote a blog post a long time ago about this dynamic in attachment parenting. I don't think any aspect of AP is unhealthy or permissive. I do think the tools of AP are a place where permissiveness or unhealthyness can manifest.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HappyHSer*
(pretty new to this forum but not discipline discusssions).

TCS/NCP is a parenting theory.

It's one I researched and rejected. I don't agree with the premise or the implementation.

The TCS online community is related to, but sepearate from, the theory. I have found them odd at best and creepy at moments.

It's my experience with watching any radical fringe group that they have a higher percentage of unhealthy people. It's true with PETA, for example. Or radical pro-life groups. Or homeschoolers. Or LLL members. Or attachment parenting. The more extreme/counter-cultural the philosophy, the more less than centered people are attracted to it. That doesn't mean the idea, thought or central thought is wrong, but that there will be a significant percentage of people who are not healthy embracing counter cultural ideas. That can be dangerous. I saw that in my experience with the online TCS community when I was considering it as a lifestyle and parenting paradigm.


So, is "mainstream" *healthy*? Our culture of coercion is *healthy*? Conventional is *healthy*? Sheeple is *healthy*? I guess it depends on what one values. Mainstream, conventional, sheeple don't value thinking for themselves, _in my experience_. And I don't think that is too healthy, imo. Unless one wants them to do what they are told to do.

Pat, very radical fringe, thankyouverymuch.









P.S. TCS/NCP ain't just a theory in our home. (And TCS is an *educational* theory, not a parenting theory) It is a way of living consensually with other humans, even young and inexperienced ones.


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

So, is "mainstream" healthy? Our culture of coercion is healthy? Conventional is healthy? Sheeple is healthy? I guess it depends on what one values. Mainstream, conventional, sheeple don't value thinking for themselves, in my experience. And I don't think that is too healthy, imo. Unless one wants them to do what they are told to do.
Pat, my post was exceedingly clear. It said nothing about mainstream being healthy, better, desirable. There is nothing in my post that suggests being a sheeple as a good choice.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HappyHSer*
Yes, that's why I was very clear about the issue isn't the philosophy or the organization.

I wrote a blog post a long time ago about this dynamic in attachment parenting. I don't think any aspect of AP is unhealthy or permissive. I do think the tools of AP are a place where permissiveness or unhealthyness can manifest.

"Permissiveness" is a concept in the context of authoritarian relationships. Just as my husband isn't "permissive" if I do xyz, neither are parents "permissive" if their child does xyz. The construct of "allowing" doesn't exist in TCS. It is a relationship dynamic based upon equal dignity and autonomy. Not one of a superior *authority* permitting anything.

Pat


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
"Permissiveness" is a concept in the context of authoritarian relationships. Just as my husband isn't "permissive" if I do xyz, neither are parents "permissive" if their child does xyz. The construct of "allowing" doesn't exist in TCS. It is a relationship dynamic based upon equal dignity and autonomy. Not one of a superior *authority* permitting anything.

Pat

Which is why you are more likely to find TCS'ers within an AP philosophy than in a mainstream parenting group.
Pretty much what Happy is saying.
Good example.


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

"Permissiveness" is a concept in the context of authoritarian relationships. Just as my husband isn't "permissive" if I do xyz, neither are parents "permissive" if their child does xyz. The construct of "allowing" doesn't exist in TCS. It is a relationship dynamic based upon equal dignity and autonomy. Not one of a superior *authority* permitting anything.
I'm completely familiar with TCS theory and rhetoric. I didn't call TCS permissive. I wouldn't, if only because I don't want to have that discussion.

However, seeing as I do believe in an authority structure in parenting and excluding TCS/NCP, I do see a higher level of permissivenss in AP circles, both online and in person. *Permissiveness*, however wasn't my point.

My point is that the more extreme the philosophy, the higher percentage of people in it that are not healthy. That's true in the counter cultural groups I'm a card carrying member of. It's an observation.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

:

I also believe that parents need to be the authority figures. Not authoritarian, but authoritative. By reneging on this responsibility, I will go ahead and say that I think TCS is "permissive". Just because this permissiveness is done deliberately and ideologically doesn't mean it is anything less.

Sorry to be so harsh, but after reading countless threads about TCS, I really think people need to speak up against it. I find it to be a dangerous idea, and not just in the you-will-get-hit-by-a-truck sense, but I think it encourages the wrong sorts of things in a child. And rationality isn't one of them. By pretending that young children can be rational, I think an entirely different lesson is being meted out.

Infants, toddlers, and young children are potentially rational, but I don't think you're truly rational til adulthood, and even then it's questionable. Sorry, my dissertation is about how we are ultimately all irrational underneath the rational facade. I am in philosophy, and in this field rationality is fast becoming a code word for those whose ideology is controlling, moralistic, and ego-centered. No one can agree on what is rational, so for someone to call themselves that or others, that is just another way of saying that they are "good" and "just" where everyone else is "bad" and irrational.

But that's getting technical. Young children are motivated by an entirely different set of issues than one of rationality. I don't think it respects the child to ascribe that to him or her, and to have expectations that just does not fit.










Stepping off.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Hmmmm......and it was also said,

yeah:

I also believe *men* to be the authority figures. Not authoritarian, but authoritative. By reneging on this responsibility, I will go ahead and say that I think *men are "permissive".* Just because this permissiveness is done deliberately and ideologically doesn't mean it is anything less.

Sorry to be so harsh, but after reading countless threads about *women being rational*, I really think people need to speak up against it. I find it to be a dangerous idea, and not just in the you-will-get-hit-by-a-truck sense, but I think it encourages the wrong sorts of things in a woman. And rationality isn't one of them. By pretending that women can be rational, I think an entirely different lesson is being meted out.

Infants, toddlers, and young children, women are potentially rational, but I don't think you're truly rational unless you are a man, and even then it's questionable. Sorry, my dissertation is about how we are ultimately all irrational underneath the rational facade. I am in philosophy, and in this field rationality is fast becoming a code word for those whose ideology is controlling, moralistic, and ego-centered. No one can agree on what is rational, so for someone to call themselves that or others, that is just another way of saying that they are "good" and "just" where everyone else is "bad" and irrational.

But that's getting technical. Women are motivated by an entirely different set of issues than one of rationality. I don't think it respects a woman to ascribe that to her, and to have expectations that just does not fit.










Stepping off

Yep, authoritarian ideology sounds the same no matter who says it. But then who says what is or isn't rational? If you disagree with another's "motivations", they must be 'irrational'? Or just "because I said so"? Another time honored authoritarian reasoning......


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HappyHSer*
I'm completely familiar with TCS theory and rhetoric. I didn't call TCS permissive. I wouldn't, if only because I don't want to have that discussion.

However, seeing as I do believe in an authority structure in parenting and excluding TCS/NCP, I do see a higher level of permissivenss in AP circles, both online and in person. *Permissiveness*, however wasn't my point.

My point is that the more extreme the philosophy, the higher percentage of people in it that are not healthy. That's true in the counter cultural groups I'm a card carrying member of. It's an observation.

HappyHSer, I would agree, to an extent, but I would also argue that the more radical members are also usually much more visible, as they are more involved, passionate, etc. So the percentage of non-radicals could be very, very high, but the ones who are really LIVING for the cause, as opposed to just being interested/involved, skew the perception. Or not?

I could see how TCS could get dangerous, or at least unhealthy, as in the example of Hunsberger's being negated or blamed on an authoritarian family. But I'm not sure I understand how assuming children are rational could be dangerous. Could you elaborate, Mommay?


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

HappyHSer, I would agree, to an extent, but I would also argue that the more radical members are also usually much more visible, as they are more involved, passionate, etc. So the percentage of non-radicals could be very, very high, but the ones who are really LIVING for the cause, as opposed to just being interested/involved, skew the perception. Or not?
Yes, I can agree with that.


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

Men and women are both fully grown adults responsible for theirselves. It is a humongous stretch of the imagination to equate the relationship between two adults with the relationship between an adult and their child.
I know that there are a few who have made that leap. But the metaphor just has no meaning for those of us who havent.
joline


----------



## HappyHSer (Nov 1, 2005)

Quote:

Men and women are both fully grown adults responsible for theirselves. It is a humongous stretch of the imagination to equate the relationship between two adults with the relationship between an adult and their child.
I know that there are a few who have made that leap. But the metaphor just has no meaning for those of us who havent.
Yes. It's the same reason the "real world" arguement against GD (or homeschooling, for that matter) hold no merit for me.

The parent/child relationship is unique and analogies made that compare it to adult interaction are therefore limited in usefulness to me.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Scubamam,







Huh? I think I understood you to be saying that I was being authoritarian, but without the extensive quotes, can you explain how I was being authoritarian? I'm not trying to be cheeky. I need the men thing and women thing explained.

Obviously, I don't agree with TCS and I stated my opinions without blunting it, which maybe was rude. But does that make me authoritarian? I don't consider opinions authoritarian. Only when it's used to control or limit the free will of others do I find it authoritarian. But I don't expect TCS'ers to speak only when they agree with me, just as I am free to voice my opinion even when it doesn't agree with TCS. So again, am I being authoritarian or am I just disagreeing with TCS?

Nietzsche once talked about the "tyranny of the weak". A phenomenon in which some group is so fanatically opposed to a show of assertiveness that forced "tameness", a dull equality, and total submissiveness prevails. But to whom would everyone submit? Nietzsche thought this phenomena was motivated by a fear of our natural powers, and brought on by a society gone too far in the way of artifice. I usually don't defend Nietzsche, but was reminded of him.


----------

