# Alfie Kohn blasts "Supernanny"



## A&A

http://teachers.net/gazette/JUN08/kohn/

"We might just laugh off the implausibility of these programs except that they're teaching millions of real parents how to raise their real kids. To that extent, it matters that they're selling snake-oil."


----------



## lolalola

It sounds like Kohn is envious of Supernanny's success! LOL

And, a few links to studies would be warranted, here:

Quote:

In the course of researching a book about parenting, I discovered some disconcerting research on the damaging effects of techniques like the "naughty corner" (better known as time-out), which are basically forms of love withdrawal. I also found quite a bit of evidence that parents who refrain from excessive control and rely instead on warmth and reason are more likely to have children who do what they're asked - and who grow into responsible, compassionate, healthy people.

Seriously.


----------



## minkajane

I agree with a lot of what he says.

Quote:

She has no reservations about power as long as only the big people have it. Kids are the enemy to be conquered.

Quote:

The point is enforcement and order, not teaching and reflection. Thus, rather than helping a child to think about the effects of his aggression on others, he is simply informed that hitting is "unacceptable"; reasons and morality don't enter into it.

Quote:

if relying on bribes and threats succeeds in making children obey, then there's no need to ask, "But for how long does it work? And at what cost?"

Quote:

The little girl in one family is accustomed to having Mom lie down next to her at bedtime. Forget it, says Supernanny, and the tradition is ended without warning or explanation. When the girl screams, that only proves how manipulative she is. Later, Mom confesses, "I felt like I was almost mistreating her." "Do not give in," urges the nanny, and misgivings soon yield to "It's working; it's getting quieter" - meaning that her daughter has abandoned hope that Mom will snuggle with her.
Supernanny's whole thing is control. Kids are never given reasons for anything. We don't hit because it's against the rules, not because it hurts people. We go to bed because it's time for bed, not because we're tired. Oh, not sleepy? Too bad, it's bedtime, and if you cry you're just being manipulative.

The naughty spot is another thing she just loves. Plop the kid where you've decided they have to go when they misbehave. Don't give them any explanation beyond "You were naughty, so you have to sit here." If they get up and move, drag them back to the spot. If they cry, ignore them, they're just being manipulative. When they've worn themselves out crying, they'll stop. Then they'll apologize so they can get up. If they don't apologize, back on the naughty spot!

I have big issues with Supernanny.


----------



## SquishyKitty

But you have to keep in mind that supernanny usually shows families with parents who have no control over their kids or their homes.

While for most reasonable families with healthy boundaries, cosleeping is not an issue, an family with a bunch of kids who have no boundaries, no discipline (good or bad) would definitely benefit from the supernanny structure. A normal family with occasional tantrums, but overall order and peace? I doubt supernanny could do much to affect them either way.


----------



## newbymom05

Good for Alfie Kohn. I can't stand Supernanny.


----------



## Mom2Joseph

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newbymom05* 
Good for Alfie Kohn. I can't stand Supernanny.


----------



## cycle

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
It sounds like Kohn is envious of Supernanny's success! LOL

And, a few links to studies would be warranted, here:

Seriously.

I doubt he is jealous of Super Nanny's success...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newbymom05* 
Good for Alfie Kohn. I can't stand Supernanny.









:


----------



## DariusMom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SquishyKitty* 
But you have to keep in mind that supernanny usually shows families with parents who have no control over their kids or their homes.

While for most reasonable families with healthy boundaries, cosleeping is not an issue, an family with a bunch of kids who have no boundaries, no discipline (good or bad) would definitely benefit from the supernanny structure. A normal family with occasional tantrums, but overall order and peace? I doubt supernanny could do much to affect them either way.









:

And I think that supernanny can do a lot of good. She stops parents from yelling at kids, she stops parents from washing their kids' mouths out with soap, she tries to get parents actively involved with their kids (mostly dads who are extremely disconnected from parenting), and helps provide structure for families sorely in need of it.

I don't like how she doesn't have parents explain things to kids and I've seen other things I simply don't agree with. However, in the grand scheme of "bad parenting advice" Supernanny is the least of my concerns. Lets save most of our ire for the Pearls, et al!


----------



## 4evermom

Control over my child is not my goal.

And I'm quite confident my ds would act as apparently unreasonable as the kids on tv in those circumstances.









(Personally I think those kids are behaving perfectly reasonable considering how they are being ordered about by a stranger, having their parents listening to that stranger instead of them, having sudden radical changes made with no warning or explanation.)


----------



## cotopaxi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SquishyKitty* 
But you have to keep in mind that supernanny usually shows families with parents who have no control over their kids or their homes.

Not only no control but they are also typically yelling and screaming at the kids all day, spanking, shaming, threatening, expecting too much of their children for their age, etc. I personally do not use timeouts and don't prefer many of Supernanny's techniques, but at least they're better than what these families had been doing.

For me, UP is a great fit. But I'm not sure if everyone is ready to wrap their mind around it. For those people, I'd rather see age-appropriate routines, calmly and consistently enforced (age-appropriate) rules, and non-violent punishments like time-outs vs. hitting, yelling, inconsistent and inappropriate expectations, and chaos.


----------



## mamazee

I don't think the supernanny uses good discipline techniques, but at least it's an improvement over what the families had going on before. Maybe if her techniques were used as a first step rather than a final ideal it would be better? I don't know. I'm not a fan but obviously I've watched the show several times.


----------



## the_lissa

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newbymom05* 
Good for Alfie Kohn. I can't stand Supernanny.

I agree.


----------



## GuildJenn

I don't mind (in theory) the help Jo Frost gives to certain families who seek it. After all it's their choice to invite her into their homes. I'd invite Alfie Kohn instead.









BUT what I don't like is how televising it does make it "the standard" for childrearing. That's the part I don't like really. I don't mind the parts about routines and even a lot of the behavioural stuff, although it doesn't sit well with me, is ok.

The huge battles where you continually place the child back on the naughty spot or let him or her scream in his or her bed really bother and upset me. I think they are desensitizing to children's distress. I really don't know how people watch the show while the child is screaming on the screen. I find it disturbing.

Reminds me why we don't have cable TV.


----------



## AngelBee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SquishyKitty* 
But you have to keep in mind that supernanny usually shows families with parents who have no control over their kids or their homes.

While for most reasonable families with healthy boundaries, cosleeping is not an issue, an family with a bunch of kids who have no boundaries, no discipline (good or bad) would definitely benefit from the supernanny structure. A normal family with occasional tantrums, but overall order and peace? I doubt supernanny could do much to affect them either way.











I totally agree. Super Nanny is not for all families. But she is WAY better then the abuse that is occuriring in many of the homes.

Can you imagine the inability to even processs something like Alfie Kohn during that kind of turbulence? No way would it work. They would quickly resort back to the abuse.









Super Nanny to me is at least a step in the right direction. I actually find it more of a stage setting for the chance at consentual living.







With the families as they are, there is NOTHING consentual about them. They are unhealthy. Super Nanny simply tries to reztore some balance.

Then it is up to the families to continue to progress. That is where Alfie Kohn can come in to play


----------



## Heavenly

I love Supernanny. I'm all for parents actually being the one in control of the home.


----------



## JamesMama

While I don't 100% agree with Supernanny's discipline style. It is, IMO, a HUGE step in the right direction for parents. At least she's non-hitting. Thats HUGE for some people. I hope that every spanking family in the world could watch a few Supernanny episodes and at least realize there ARE discipline techniques beyond hitting.

While I *love* Alfie Kohn I truly believe that going from hitting to fully non-punitive is truly just too much for many families. SuperNanny provides a nice little middle ground for them to ease into more non-punitive ways of parenting.


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Quote:

Good for Alfie Kohn. I can't stand Supernanny.
I agree.

But also...

Quote:

I totally agree. Super Nanny is not for all families. But *she is WAY better then the abuse that is occuriring in many of the homes*.

*Can you imagine the inability to even processs something like Alfie Kohn during that kind of turbulence? No way would it work. They would quickly resort back to the abuse.*

Super Nanny to me is at least a step in the right direction. I actually find it more of a stage setting for the chance at consentual living. With the families as they are, there is NOTHING consentual about them. They are unhealthy. Super Nanny simply tries to reztore some balance.

Then it is up to the families to continue to progress. That is where Alfie Kohn can come in to play
I agree with that as well. Especially the highlighted bits! I have friends who are the average mainstream 'normal' when it comes to how they 'raise' their children. Nothing as bad as the stuff you see coming from the families on Supernanny...and they even have a hard time trying to process something like Alfie Kohn







lol


----------



## glendora

I'm just trying to imagine how Alfie Kohn would have dealt with last night's SuperNanny family...


----------



## newbymom05

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
IThe huge battles where you continually place the child back on the naughty spot or let him or her scream in his or her bed really bother and upset me. I think they are desensitizing to children's distress. I really don't know how people watch the show while the child is screaming on the screen. I find it disturbing. .

That's it exactly. I've never watched a whole show but stopped on it while flipping around and it's always been either a mom crying, a dad totally checked out or a screaming and/or crying child. Who wants to see that? And there's Nanny Jo, the cause of the televised emotional crisis, who's going to solve everyone's problems that have developed over years in 30 minutes or less. Blech!!!


----------



## the_lissa

Well the thing is there isn't just 3 options- abuse, supernanny, or Alfie Kohn.

I agree Alfie Kohn is not for everyone, but I think Supernanny is awful.


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Before I had my DS - I used to watch it and tell DH that I was learning and preparing for when we had a terrible two year old.

Then I had my child.

We try to live consensually...so very far from anything you see on Supernanny! lol

I cant even stand to watch it now. It is far too distressing. The last time I watched it, it made me cry. I just couldnt do it.


----------



## MtBikeLover

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DariusMom* 







:

And I think that supernanny can do a lot of good. She stops parents from yelling at kids, she stops parents from washing their kids' mouths out with soap, she tries to get parents actively involved with their kids (mostly dads who are extremely disconnected from parenting), and helps provide structure for families sorely in need of it.

I don't like how she doesn't have parents explain things to kids and I've seen other things I simply don't agree with. However, in the grand scheme of "bad parenting advice" Supernanny is the least of my concerns. Lets save most of our ire for the Pearls, et al!

Big ditto to that!


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
It sounds like Kohn is envious of Supernanny's success! LOL

Or maybe he just disagrees with her?

I know I do. And I'm not the least bit envious of her.


----------



## Helen_A

Argh!

I'm just so so sorry that you lot in the US have this awful woman as well now....

She is just awful. She has no qualifications, and was barely 'experienced' as a 'nanny' when she got the TV series here in the UK. Lets just say that UK based peeps with proper qualifications who are anything but crunchy think that the things she espouses are simply bad ideas in the main.

And if your series is edited in anything like the way that the series here is edited... you are seeing only the 'best' of her and the 'worst' of the families...

Personally - and I have talked to my children about this - I would rather a parent ranted, raved and had a yell; than a parent withdrew from their child. Moving your child to the 'naughty' step is *not* a gentle process (and an early show here had the child lifted really rather roughly and taken to said step and then held down. There were complaints and we were told that it would not happen again. All that happened was that we were not shown it being done like that again, it continued just the same just that now its edited....)

And the 'results' simply don't last. There have been families here who have been used and chewed and then spat out by the programme makers. The results were filmed, and there was/is no follow up. The children in these families are hung out to dry, the programme publicity sees them spread across the tabloid press etc etc etc and being on the programme follows them for years. People remember, to the extent that families have had to move, or ended up with SS involvement (sorry, our CPS) on the extent of what was seen on screen (remember a highly edited, highly storyboarded view of them). Families have no rights to view the programme before broadcast, to have changes made where they are pictured inaccurately... the only recourse they have if untruths are depicted are by law (and that will go with the programme makers because its civil law which is extremely expensive to persue in the UK, plus you've signed a contract so bleph! ) or by going to the media themselves (and our tabloid press will see them hung out to dry in public opinion, whatever whatever!).


----------



## cotopaxi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Helen_A* 
I would rather a parent ranted, raved and had a yell; than a parent withdrew from their child.

I've only seen it a couple of times so maybe what I saw wasn't representative, but on the ones I saw she was encouraging the families to play outside together, play games together, read stories, do art projects, etc. rather than just plopping the kids in front of the tv and going about their own lives.


----------



## cotopaxi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
BUT what I don't like is how televising it does make it "the standard" for childrearing.

Yeah, I do agree with this. It becomes "common knowledge" that you "have to" punish children to keep them from becoming wild beasts.
And when I challenge that idea with ideas I've found from well-researched books rather than from a tv show I hear "you read too much.







"


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glendora* 
I'm just trying to imagine how Alfie Kohn would have dealt with last night's SuperNanny family...

what was teh episode?

i love Alfie Kohn...i cant stand supernanny.


----------



## A&A

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
I love Supernanny. I'm all for parents actually being the one in control of the home.

This is a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one or the other.


----------



## lucky_mia

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cotopaxi* 
I've only seen it a couple of times so maybe what I saw wasn't representative, but on the ones I saw she was encouraging the families to play outside together, play games together, read stories, do art projects, etc. rather than just plopping the kids in front of the tv and going about their own lives.

I don't necessarily agree with her discipline techniques but I do think she does what you said. Lots of the parents just seem zoned out and overwhelmed and she encourages them to be more involved.


----------



## glendora

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
what was teh episode?

i love Alfie Kohn...i cant stand supernanny.









Mentally checked out parents, violent children.


----------



## Starflower

I agree with Alfie.

I also appreciate the comments by Helen_A describing the complete UNreality of these supposed "reality" TV shows.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 

Quote:

I love Supernanny. I'm all for parents actually being the one in control of the home.
This is a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

So true! I'm glad you pointed that out.


----------



## Heavenly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
This is a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Hmmm...well, as far as I can tell, most people on Mothering don't believe in the parent being in control of the home. I believe Supernanny teaches good techniques to help the parents get control over their home and their children's behaviour. Obviously, the CL crowd and the no-punishment, no unnatural consequences crowd are not going to like Supernanny.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
Hmmm...well, as far as I can tell, most people on Mothering don't believe in the parent being in control of the home. I believe Supernanny teaches good techniques to help the parents get control over their home and their children's behaviour.

Techniques like telling a mother she can't lie down with her daughter while she's falling asleep? Supernanny seems to buy into the idea that you have to distance yourself from your kids -- which I guess makes sense, as intimate relationships are not about control. In intimate relationships, we feel our loved ones' needs are equal to our own.

So intimacy subdues the desire to get control and have everything exactly the way we want it ... the more intimate we are, the more we find ourselves wanting to understand the other person's point of view, and the more we want to adapt to the other person. The less need we feel to be in control.

Which I guess is bad news according to Supernanny.

Quote:

Obviously, the CL crowd and the no-punishment, no unnatural consequences crowd are not going to like Supernanny.
Obviously!


----------



## turtlewomyn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Helen_A* 
And the 'results' simply don't last. There have been families here who have been used and chewed and then spat out by the programme makers. The results were filmed, and there was/is no follow up. The children in these families are hung out to dry, the programme publicity sees them spread across the tabloid press etc etc etc and being on the programme follows them for years. People remember, to the extent that families have had to move, or ended up with SS involvement (sorry, our CPS) on the extent of what was seen on screen (remember a highly edited, highly storyboarded view of them). Families have no rights to view the programme before broadcast, to have changes made where they are pictured inaccurately... the only recourse they have if untruths are depicted are by law (and that will go with the programme makers because its civil law which is extremely expensive to persue in the UK, plus you've signed a contract so bleph! ) or by going to the media themselves (and our tabloid press will see them hung out to dry in public opinion, whatever whatever!).

Similar things have happened here, there are boards discussing it and the families who are actually on the show have to be careful what they say because they signed a contract and they can be sued.

I do think that she helps in some cases. Areas where parents were hitting their kids or swearing at them, she comes in and stops that. If parents are acting agressively to the kids she stops that too. Last night I was watching one where the dad wasn't spending time with his kids, he said he had no energy. She was getting on him about that. I feel that he was depressed and she should have been getting him to a counselor, but she seemed to be trying to fix it by berating him. At the end they showed him teaching his son to ride a bike, and therefore all was well.

I did get very irritated at the show where she "helped" a mother to wean her 14 month old by having her go cold turkey, switching her to the bottle, and she repeated talked about how any nursing over the age of one is just for the emotional well being of the mom.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *turtlewomyn* 
I did get very irritated at the show where she "helped" a mother to wean her 14 month old by having her go cold turkey, switching her to the bottle, and she repeated talked about how any nursing over the age of one is just for the emotional well being of the mom.

Wow! That's just too bad!


----------



## goodheartedmama

I love alfie kohn, I hate supernanny. If you haven't read unconditional parenting by alfie kohn, you should. It changes the way you see parenting completely. That said, I don't know how effective it would be to start after 6 or 7 years of different parenting. I guess it's doable, but it would be hard if the kids are already out of control. I hate supernanny's attitude that children are beneath adults...not that she says it, but it's the vibe I get.


----------



## PassionateWriter

the few episodes i have been able to watch involved forcing a child out of her parents bedroom....and the child was devastated. she was actually "on her way" out (had a mattress in the hallway) but that wasnt good enough for Supernanny...she had to be rushed out. the practice of putting kids in isolation over and over and over again is just too much for me to watch.

and yeh, there have been a few episodes where SuperNanny just simply said "stop nursing...he/she is too old" period. THAT really gets me.

I do see how these families need help but i dont think it needs to come at the expense of children's self confidence or security (not that all the kids had that to begin w/ but taking away boob and/or bed is taking away a security that may be hard to come by in that home).


----------



## glendora

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
Hmmm...well, as far as I can tell, most people on Mothering don't believe in the parent being in control of the home. I believe Supernanny teaches good techniques to help the parents get control over their home and their children's behaviour. Obviously, the CL crowd and the no-punishment, no unnatural consequences crowd are not going to like Supernanny.

I'd say that "most" MDCers don't believe in _spanking_, but that doesn't mean that most MDCers don't believe that the parents are in charge.

That said, when you've got a situation where there is _violence_ happening in a house, I really don't see how using rewards and non-violent punishment to get to a place where the hitting, kicking and biting is stopping as quickly as possible is all that terrible. Drastic circumstances and drastic measures and all.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Or maybe he just disagrees with her?

I know I do. And I'm not the least bit envious of her.

Obviously, he disagrees with her. I'm assuming that you do not write parenting (and other) books for a living? If he is so against/above competition, why the need to blast someone else for their opinion?

I just don't get why he cares? It's a T.V. show. And, his writing style is very abrasive... sarcastic, really.


----------



## swampangel

The roboticness (is that a word??) of her methods is hard to swallow. It would be great to see her ask the parents what they perceive as the problems and what they want to work on rather than her observing for a day and determining the problems herself. I think folks are much more empowered if they make those decisions...even if they're asking for help in following it all through.

I agree with many here that a lot of what you see is checked out parents who are completely overwhelmed and kids who are shouting out for help for their family.

I dunno, I have been working hard not to pass too much judgement on these things because there's just no one way to do this. I think that's what grates for me about both Alfie Kohn and Jo Frost.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Helen_A* 
Personally - and I have talked to my children about this - I would rather a parent ranted, raved and had a yell; than a parent withdrew from their child.

My mom has mentioned more than once that she often wished her mother would hit her, instead of ignoring her. My grandmother didn't do time outs, as such, and I don't _think_ she had a "naughty spot"...but she was really big on punishing her kids by withdrawing all her affection and attention, sometimes for days at a time. What little I've seen of Supernanny seems like more of the same, albeit on a smaller scale. It gives me the creeps.


----------



## SusanInItaly

I only watch her a few times a year, so this is my take--

While what Jo is doing isn't ideal to most of us, in many situations shown it is better than what was happening. The parents are at least getting some tools and ideas to think about. Perhaps it will be a stepping stone to other ideas.

I'm surprised that some of these households haven't been visited by CPS, some of them were very upsetting/abusive/neglectful.


----------



## KaraBoo

I think SuperNanny's techniques make for "good television" not good parenting.

Team Alfie!


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Obviously, he disagrees with her. I'm assuming that you do not write parenting (and other) books for a living? If he is so against/above competition, why the need to blast someone else for their opinion?

I just don't get why he cares? It's a T.V. show. And, his writing style is very abrasive... sarcastic, really.

I think he cares because parents are often influenced by these things.

Also, since it's obviously a show of interest-for-many, people might be more drawn to read his column if it's about a popular TV show? I don't know that he's totally opposed to _self-motivated_ competition, I think he's just opposed to people pushing other people (i.e. parents pushing children) to be competitive.

I honestly don't think Kohn's comments will hurt the success of Supernanny ... I mean, *he* obviously follows the show -- so others who disagree with Frost are probably just as likely to keep following it.


----------



## eleven

I enjoy Alfie Kohn and Supernanny; they both have some ideas that I identify with and some that I don't. Must be because I was raised by a mother who yelled, ranted, raved *and* ignored me.


----------



## A&A

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
Hmmm...well, as far as I can tell, most people on Mothering don't believe in the parent being in control of the home. .

That's an extreme assumption.

And, what is "control" anyway? Do you consider a baby who needs to co-sleep being "in control" of the sleeping situation? Is a parent who refuses to CIO "out of control"? Or is the parent just recognizing the very human need for socialization? Parents need to know when to "pull rank" and when not to. Seems like S.N. is trying to "pull rank" all of the time.


----------



## AngelBee

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eleven* 
I enjoy Alfie Kohn and Supernanny; they both have some ideas that I identify with and some that I don't. Must be because I was raised by a mother who yelled, ranted, raved *and* ignored me.









I like them both too.


----------



## A&A

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 

I just don't get why he cares? It's a T.V. show. And, his writing style is very abrasive... sarcastic, really.

Because so many people buy into it. That's why he cares.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I think he cares because parents are often influenced by these things.

Also, since it's obviously a show of interest-for-many, people might be more drawn to read his column if it's about a popular TV show? I don't know that he's totally opposed to _self-motivated_ competition, I think he's just opposed to people pushing other people (i.e. parents pushing children) to be competitive.

I honestly don't think Kohn's comments will hurt the success of Supernanny ... I mean, *he* obviously follows the show -- so others who disagree with Frost are probably just as likely to keep following it.

Sure, parents (people) are influenced by many things. You're right --parents would be more apt to read his work if he references a popular TV show.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "self-motivated competition?". I'm serious, because, you have admitted that Kohn likely wrote his piece on 'Supernanny' beause he 'knows' that it will garner publicity. How is that not competitive (in the traditional sense)?


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
Because so many people buy into it. That's why he cares.

So? And, how do you know that "so many" people buy into it?

And again, let's not forget that Kohn *makes a living* selling his opinions.


----------



## prettypixels

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DariusMom* 







:

And I think that supernanny can do a lot of good. She stops parents from yelling at kids, she stops parents from washing their kids' mouths out with soap, she tries to get parents actively involved with their kids (mostly dads who are extremely disconnected from parenting), and helps provide structure for families sorely in need of it.

I don't like how she doesn't have parents explain things to kids and I've seen other things I simply don't agree with. However, in the grand scheme of "bad parenting advice" Supernanny is the least of my concerns. Lets save most of our ire for the Pearls, et al!

Seriously! I totally agree with you. She *prevents* parents from hitting their kids. Disagree with the naughty spot all you like, at least it is not physical abuse. It gives the parents *some* tool to use to maintain some kind of order in their home.

As for the scheduling thing; Kohn's comment about that really, really irritated me. Kids *do* do better when they know what is coming next. It's not so much about forcing them to do something WHEN YOU WANT as it is establishing a routine that is predictable, something which is secure and comforting for most children. Most children will do better through the day if they know what is next. That's why bedtime routines are so important and helpful.

I do see a smidge of jealousy there IMO. I wonder how Kohn would handle his own show? Bet he would jump on it if offered!

Also, I do not think that Jo thinks kids are "the enemy." She clearly *loves* children and works on having the kids show more affection to each other and their parents and vice versa. You always see her hugging and kissing them when she leaves.

ETA: One of the first things I noticed about her show was that she walks in and immediately introduces herself to the children in a friendly, happy way, gets down to their level... I think that is *very* respectful.

I don't agree with everything she does but clearly her goal is to enable the family to live together happily, not so much to destroy the children!


----------



## prettypixels

Quote:


Originally Posted by *4evermom* 
Control over my child is not my goal.

And I'm quite confident my ds would act as apparently unreasonable as the kids on tv in those circumstances.









(Personally I think those kids are behaving perfectly reasonable considering how they are being ordered about by a stranger, having their parents listening to that stranger instead of them, having sudden radical changes made with no warning or explanation.)

But that is not even what happens... do you WATCH the show? Do you see the part where she sits down first with the parents and then with the children and discusses the new "rules" and schedules and things?


----------



## prettypixels

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I don't mind (in theory) the help Jo Frost gives to certain families who seek it. After all it's their choice to invite her into their homes. I'd invite Alfie Kohn instead.









BUT what I don't like is how televising it does make it "the standard" for childrearing. That's the part I don't like really. I don't mind the parts about routines and even a lot of the behavioural stuff, although it doesn't sit well with me, is ok.

The huge battles where you continually place the child back on the naughty spot or let him or her scream in his or her bed really bother and upset me. I think they are desensitizing to children's distress. I really don't know how people watch the show while the child is screaming on the screen. I find it disturbing.

Reminds me why we don't have cable TV.

I actually agree with you on this, except that I think the Supernanny style of parenting is way better as a standard than the "get me my belt" style of parenting. So it's sure not perfect, but IMO a step in the right direction.


----------



## swampangel

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I'm serious, because, you have admitted that Kohn likely wrote his piece on 'Supernanny' beause he 'knows' that it will garner publicity. How is that not competitive (in the traditional sense)?

Good point. I think there is often a lot of hypocricy with these philosophies.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
And again, let's not forget that Kohn *makes a living* selling his opinions.

Again, another great point.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prettypixels* 
As for the scheduling thing; Kohn's comment about that really, really irritated me. Kids *do* do better when they know what is coming next. It's not so much about forcing them to do something WHEN YOU WANT as it is establishing a routine that is predictable, something which is secure and comforting for most children. Most children will do better through the day if they know what is next. That's why bedtime routines are so important and helpful.

Absolutely. I'm not a big scheduler but I know many families who schedule things throughout the day and it works best for them. Again, it's all about what works for a particular family.


----------



## princesstutu

From what I've noticed, Jo got kids out of the parent-bed when the parents wanted it. And, she stopped moms from lying with their kids when it was disrupting a possibility for a peaceful transition into sleep.

I'll never forget this one mom who spent hours lying with her child every night, hating it, but not wanting to stop b/c her kid would become violent and ruin the evening further for the family. I had no qualms about Jo putting an end to the behavior. And, the mom felt a little guilty, but obviously, she was gonna feel guilty no matter what. She had a difficult time enforcing and meeting her own personal need for space. *shrug*

I don't agree with everything Jo does and says, but I don't harbor contempt for her, either. Those families are in need of change and she offers it. You have to get to a point where everyone in a family feels safe before you can go the Alfie way, IMO. That's not where those families are when Jo gets to them.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "self-motivated competition?". I'm serious, because, you have admitted that Kohn likely wrote his piece on 'Supernanny' beause he 'knows' that it will garner publicity. How is that not competitive (in the traditional sense)?

I honestly don't know what Kohn's views are on what I called "self-motivated competition." I just know there are fields (such as the one Kohn's in) where I think you have to be somewhat competitive, in the sense of finding ways to make your particular "product" stand out from all the others and get chosen.

I've heard some people object to Kohn's writing-style ... and yet I imagine that that is partly what draws many of us to read him. A parenting-writer who says, "This just happens to be what works for my family -- but there are many other ways that are probably just as good" doesn't tend to sell.

And frankly, I'm more interested in parenting-writers who really believe in what they're saying.

I see what you mean, though, about the competitiveness seeming to go against the philosophy he's advocating. I definitely think it's wrong to step on others as a means of seeking success.

But I honestly didn't see Kohn's article as stepping on "Supernanny," or as hurting her success in any way. And I don't think Kohn did it with an intent to hurt the show ... he surely knows (like everyone else does), that the more a book/show/idea gets blasted, the more of an urge people have to find out for themselves if it's really that bad.

As an analogy, many religious-leaders blasted _The Davinci Code_ when the book came out, and also have been warning people not to watch the movie now that it's out. I think all the talk (even from the pulpit) just makes people even more eager to see what all the fuss is about. One religious-leader even wrote a book about it for people who didn't want to read the book, but wanted to know enough about it to discuss it intelligently with others who had seen it.

How much do you want to bet that lots and lots of fundamentalist Christians are going to end up breaking down and watching that movie, just to satiate their curiosity? With this in mind, Kohn may actually be "helping" Supernanny more than "hurting" her.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
And again, let's not forget that Kohn *makes a living* selling his opinions.

I think Jo Frost probably gets paid well, too.


----------



## babelsgp

I have tried a supernanny technique, the bedtime thing, it sucks. Here let me act like I will just ignore you until you sleep, sweet dreams honey. It's a little too detached for me.

But other stuff she does, does make sense. She tends to get these parents more active in the children's world, then the kids feel important and act better. I have watched a ton of shows and like Caesar Milan with the dog walking skills show after show, her key element is getting the family involved -togevah (together-my husband will rewind and play and rewind and play just to hear her say it)

I dunno, I think it is conventional, most of the show focuses on a conventional family, struggling with conventional issues. The parents aren't usually very involved with their children. I'm sure they'd flame me. I've only seen a couple of shows that deviate from the norm American society. We watched a season and grew tired of it. After a while I looked up her credentials because things seemed a bit ...well I don't have a good word for it. But I am glad she tells these parents to spend time with their children.

Oh and in the end, when the kids are told to say "thank you, supernanny" for the camera really creeps me out, almost as much as children in TV commercials.

In our house I think Alfie's logical, albeit a little snarky, ways of seeing things help us discipline. And I understand his remarks about the nanny. The way I see it, he wants to impress upon the nation that we need to CHANGE our parenting styles instead of doing what hasn't worked in the past.


----------



## UmmBnB

I like some of SN's ideas, certainly not all. Alfie on the other hand....ummm...crackpot!


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I honestly don't know what Kohn's views are on what I called "self-motivated competition." I just know there are fields (such as the one Kohn's in) where I think you have to be somewhat competitive, in the sense of finding ways to make your particular "product" stand out from all the others and get chosen.

I've heard some people object to Kohn's writing-style ... and yet I imagine that that is partly what draws many of us to read him. A parenting-writer who says, "This just happens to be what works for my family -- but there are many other ways that are probably just as good" doesn't tend to sell.

And frankly, I'm more interested in parenting-writers who really believe in what they're saying.

What bothers me though, is that of the limited exposure I've had to Alfie Kohn's work, there is very little research backing up his opinions. Sure, he may 'really believe' what he is saying, but, where is the 'proof', yk? What does he offer as practical solutions to everyday problems?

Also, his theories on pedagogy seem to lack any emperical evidence (my thinking when I asked you about internal motivation).

Again, I admit that I haven't read extensively, so I may certainly have missed something. But, I truly believe that there isn't only one way to 'parent', so I get easily annoyed by any parenting-writer who claims to have the 'truth'.









But, I agree that Kohn's comments are unlikely to have any negative influence on Supernanny's career.


----------



## PassionateWriter

i dont know..i guess "research" based on ANIMAL BEHAVIORIST TECHNIQUES (vis a vis Pavlov and Skinner) is not the type of research i want to base child rearing on (and thats where "time outs" originated).


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
Absolutely. I'm not a big scheduler but I know many families who schedule things throughout the day and it works best for them. *Again, it's all about what works for a particular family.*

Yes, I totally agree. I can't imagine arguing otherwise.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I think Jo Frost probably gets paid well, too.









Oh, I have no doubt that she does!


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
i dont know..i guess "research" based on ANIMAL BEHAVIORIST TECHNIQUES (vis a vis Pavlov and Skinner) is not the type of research i want to base child rearing on (and thats where "time outs" originated).

Meh...My husband and I use timeouts with our (almost) three year old. We don't have to use them often...usually for hitting and/or pushing his little sister.

We don't treat our son, or think of him as an ANIMAL...we are simply trying to teach him that he cannot be violent towards his sister, and that it will not be tolerated.

If that means a couple minutes away from his sister, alone...oh well, I don't think he'll require therapy because of it.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
i dont know..i guess "research" based on ANIMAL BEHAVIORIST TECHNIQUES (vis a vis Pavlov and Skinner) is not the type of research i want to base child rearing on (and thats where "time outs" originated).

I agree. And in Kohn's book _Unconditional Parenting_, he cites tons of research.

If you (lolalola) mean there's not much empirical evidence regarding the results of unconditional parenting, that may be because it's still fairly new.

Also, I don't know quite how to express this -- but I'm not exactly focused on "getting results." I'm more focused on wanting my girls to feel unconditionally loved and accepted. I do believe this is the best way to foster my children's comfort in their own skins, which I realize is a (long-term) result of sorts.

With hitting, I agree that parents can't just stand by and let one child hurt another. I've sometimes had to take one of my children out of a situation, and talk with her and hold her on my lap until she was ready to play without hurting others.

It's true that I don't want my children to hurt others -- but the result I'm actually aiming for is a child who's happy enough, empathetic enough, and skilled enough that she eventually feels no need, or inclination, to resort to violence.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prettypixels* 
I actually agree with you on this, except that I think the Supernanny style of parenting is way better as a standard than the "get me my belt" style of parenting. So it's sure not perfect, but IMO a step in the right direction.

Maybe it's because "get me my belt" is not the standard around here that I don't see it as a vast improvement. Maybe if it were called "Jo Frost: Abuse prevention"









I really like Barbara Coloroso's writings on behavioural techniques, as a middle ground between Alfie Kohn and Jo Frost.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
Hmmm...well, as far as I can tell, most people on Mothering don't believe in the parent being in control of the home. I believe Supernanny teaches good techniques to help the parents get control over their home and their children's behaviour. Obviously, the CL crowd and the no-punishment, no unnatural consequences crowd are not going to like Supernanny.

I don't want to get too far off topic but if I dare speak for "Mothering" (ha ha I don't actually), I think most people perceive that as parents we BY DEFAULT already have control over the home - I have control over: the home we choose to live in (a house with a yard, right now), the furniture, the decor, the number of breakable objects, the safety of it, the food within it, the vast majority of toys and books within it, the fact that we don't have cable television, etc.

Over my child's behaviour I have many means of control if necessary, but most of the time I choose to influence rather than command. I can afford that choice because I have so many options available.

I guess to bring it back to this discussion that is kind of where I disagree with the Supernanny methods. I find that _some_ of the implementations of the naughty spot I have seen, where there is a 2-3 hr battle over staying on it, are not a thoughtful parent being in control. I see it as the technique in control.


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Meh...My husband and I use timeouts with our (almost) three year old. We don't have to use them often...usually for hitting and/or pushing his little sister.

We don't treat our son, or think of him as an ANIMAL...we are simply trying to teach him that he cannot be violent towards his sister, and that it will not be tolerated.

If that means a couple minutes away from his sister, alone...oh well, I don't think he'll require therapy because of it.

my post was in regard to the roots of time outs. its began as a device for Animal Behaviorists, as a way to train laboratory animals. It was picked up by later psychologists to be used on intellectually and behaviorally impaired children in institutions ("Timeout Duration and the Suppression of Deviant Behavior in Children"). It was soon being used indiscriminately and became the most common discipline procedure for preadolescent children. (from Unconditional Parenting and footnoted but im too lazy to copy the footnotes and this is NOT an exact quote...but a close paraphrase).

i just think everyone should realize the history of the discipline technique.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Also, I don't know quite how to express this -- but I'm not exactly focused on "getting results." I'm more focused on wanting my girls to feel unconditionally loved and accepted. I do believe this is the best way to foster my children's comfort in their own skins, which I realize is a (long-term) result of sorts.

With hitting, I agree that parents can't just stand by and let one child hurt another. I've sometimes had to take one of my children out of a situation, and talk with her and hold her on my lap until she was ready to play without hurting others.

It's true that I don't want my children to hurt others -- but the result I'm actually aiming for is a child who's happy enough, empathetic enough, and skilled enough that she eventually feels no need, or inclination, to resort to violence.

Well, sure. But, I imagine that to be the goal of most parents.









So then, what is Kohn's practical advice for preventing/stopping aggression among siblings who are less than 2 years apart (and 3 and under)?


----------



## glendora

Hey, lola---your pm box is full...


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Well, sure. But, I imagine that to be the goal of most parents.









Probably so.









Quote:

So then, what is Kohn's practical advice for preventing/stopping aggression among siblings who are less than 2 years apart (and 3 and under)?
I don't know ... I think his 2 children are at least 3 or 4 years apart -- I don't know about that either, since my 2 are almost 5 years apart. But I'll bet someone here might have an idea ...


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glendora* 
Hey, lola---your pm box is full...

Emptied...sorry


----------



## glendora

I guess I'm a little confused. So... kids are supposed to be too immature to understand that it's time out from bad behavior, not time out from parental love, *but* they're also supposed to so complex and capable of nuance and reasoning, that they will respond to.... what exactly? Reasoned argumentation? Polite requests? in the midst of emotionally charged situations?

Also, my cat does not respond to my demands to sit in the naughty spot. What should I do?


----------



## rabbitmum

Supernanny has had tragic effects here. Spanking is illegal and rare in Norway, time-outs have long been considered very old-fashioned and not commonly used... now suddenly "everybody" uses time-outs.







A HUGE step in the wrong direction!

The cold, alienating way that she treats children gives me shivers.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Helen_A* 
Personally - and I have talked to my children about this - I would rather a parent ranted, raved and had a yell; than a parent withdrew from their child. Moving your child to the 'naughty' step is *not* a gentle process .









:


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rabbitmum* 
Supernanny has had tragic effects here. Spanking is illegal and rare in Norway, time-outs have long been considered very old-fashioned and not commonly used... now suddenly "everybody" uses time-outs.







A HUGE step in the wrong direction!

*The cold, alienating way that she treats children gives me shivers.*

What was the generally used form of 'discipline' before Supernanny? I find it curious that 'everybody' would suddenly start using a technique that was previously frowned upon.

See, I don't find her cold or alienating at all. Quite the opposite actually.


----------



## rabbitmum

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
What was the generally used form of 'discipline' before Supernanny? I find it curious that 'everybody' would suddenly start using a technique that was previously frowned upon.

See, I don't find her cold or alienating at all. Quite the opposite actually.

Well, yes, I find her extremely cold and "technical". The way she lays down "rules" and enforces them through superiour physical force only, not seeing any need for explaining, other than saying "it's unacceptable behaviour". Encouraging parents to go against their insticts and ignore their crying child.

You seem to assume that everybody needs some kind of "punishment technique" to use against their children, well you simply don't, in my experience. Children are humans and you can communicate with them in a respectful manner. It is not respectful towards a child to threaten with, or enforce, isolation. It is using the child's nature, which tells her/him that she/he needs to be in a loving group, against her/him.

Time-out is a technique that focuses solely on behaviour nd not on what goes on inside the child. In fact it depends on the parent's ignoring of exacty that.

You ask what forms of discipline people used to use? Well, for example my parents never used time-outs (and never spanked us either, obviously). They used to occasionally use rewards to get us to tidy our rooms etc., but usually they just used communication. Friends of mine occasionally got grounded (we never did) for not doing their chores, that means were told they had to come straight home from school and couldn't bring any friends home for one afternoon. My father grew up in a family who didn't use punishments and was against them, but do you know what? We generally did what our parents needed us to do.

I remember thinking that "the naughty corner" was a thing they had a hundred years ago, in old books, together with spanking rods. Now it's back.









It's of course not only Supernanny's fault, I think there's a trend towrds "quick fixes" in society in general. Many people don't spend very much time with their children, and the time they have, they want to be efficient "quality time". Therefore unwanted behaviour has to be eliminated as efficiently as possible.


----------



## littleaugustbaby

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AngelBee* 
I totally agree. Super Nanny is not for all families. But she is WAY better then the abuse that is occuriring in many of the homes.

I agree. Other than the naughty corner, she's actually pretty GD, and she's really big on making sure that parents stay involved with their kids. IMO, Alfie Kohn sounds good in theory, but in practice, most of his teachings are crap. Kids need to be taught boundaries. Sometimes that means that the parents have to be in control.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *glendora* 
I guess I'm a little confused. So... kids are supposed to be too immature to understand that it's time out from bad behavior, not time out from parental love, *but* they're also supposed to so complex and capable of nuance and reasoning, that they will respond to.... what exactly? Reasoned argumentation? Polite requests? in the midst of emotionally charged situations?

The important thing to remember is that everything kids do, they do for a reason. A small child who hits for no apparent reason (i.e. the other child hasn't done anything to her, may be trying to express feelings she doesn't have words for yet.

This has happened a lot with my younger dd, but it's a great deal better now that she's 3. What she understood was that I wasn't going to allow her to hurt others. In her case, it seemed a lot of her aggressive behavior was a means of creating a reaction,and I think she was seeking more intense physical contact.

I was surprised at first, because I've always held and cuddled my kids, never set them down 'til they wanted to get down as babies ... yet what my younger dd craves is a whole lot of rough-housing.

I think what's helping her is her increasing verbal skill, combined with the knowledge that I am responsive and willing to do rough-and-tumble play with her.


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleaugustbaby* 
I agree. Other than the naughty corner, she's actually pretty GD, and she's really big on making sure that parents stay involved with their kids. IMO, Alfie Kohn sounds good in theory, but in practice, most of his teachings are crap. Kids need to be taught boundaries. Sometimes that means that the parents have to be in control.

parents must be involved w/ their children in order to have any sense of a "family". i guess i dont see that as a "benefit" SN brings but its basically the foundation that all families need (yes, maybe the ones she has on TV dont have it and she needs to set it first but its a requirement regardless of method).

have you read Alfie Kohn's books? have you tried his techniques? I have not found his teachings to be "crap" as you state. I have found that when I communicate w/ my children, I get responses. Even w/ my 2 yo who is not very verbal, if I attempt to figure out why he is doing something, and address that situation, things turn out so much nicer than trying to discipline him using any form of punitive punishment. often times natural consequences have nothing to do w/ anything that *I* do or don't do...its just a natural consequence that teaches him a lesson.

i see this need for "control" all the time in parenting. yes, sometimes we need to leave the park NOW in case of an appointment and the kids dont want to but usually, if i have a battle, its my fault for not scheduling ahead of time. I try to eliminate the times when i have to "take control" over my children. I just do not see any benefit in it. none whatsoever.


----------



## waiflywaif

I have read Kohn's books. He doesn't seem to really have any "techniques." He has a lot of philosophy, much of which I agree with. But very short on practical advice.

The families on Supernanny are in crisis (which of course makes for "good" television). They have been either setting no boundaries or reacting with harsh and inappropriate discipline. Basically, they have no freaking clue.

It would be great if they had the werewithal to completely rethink their relationships with their kids, but that's hard to do in a crisis, kwim? I think that's where Supernanny excels: in giving completely-at-sea families some structure, some reminders to HAVE FUN (she emphasizes this a lot), to give kids "time in" and not just "time out." Maybe some of those families can chill on the time-outs once they get their lives back under control.

I see Supernanny's style as just a baseline for people who have none.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
have you read Alfie Kohn's books? have you tried his techniques? I have not found his teachings to be "crap" as you state.

I haven't found Kohn's writings to be "crap," either. I agree with waiflywaif that he doesn't give much practical advice: He seems more focused on getting parents to rethink the ways they think about and relate to their children. Once we think differently, we act differently.

I agree that a huge crisis is not the time when most people are willing to quiet down and think about changing their philosophies. Ideally, it would've been nice if I'd got on-board with Gentle Discipline, and also read Kohn's books, before having children. But at least I made the change fairly early in my parenting career ...

Too bad I didn't hear all this back when I was working in the childcare field ... the director of the center I last worked in (in the late 90's) was talking about some new philosophy, and how timeouts were no longer the thing -- but it seemed too way-out to me at the time.

I guess it was really the beauty of attachment-parenting my own children, that opened me up to allowing my paradigms to be shaken and totally transformed.


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleaugustbaby* 
IMO, Alfie Kohn sounds good in theory, but in practice, most of his teachings are crap. Kids need to be taught boundaries. Sometimes that means that the parents have to be in control.

This is a huge misconception about unconditional parenting, that parents are never in control. The fundamental idea is to allow children to have as much control over their own lives as possible. Don't we already decide 95% of what they do? It's really only the 5% that we're arguing about. I just chose those numbers kind of randomly, but I'm trying to make a point. The average kid gets very little say-so about anything. With UP, you just need to ask yourself, how important is this, and can I give a little here?

The other basic tenet is to teach your child the _why_ of discipline, not just "do it because I told you to." One practical reason for that (if you don't buy into the morality of treating your child with as much respect as an adult) is that if a kid is taught to obey without question, odds are they will continue to do that after leaving your home. Or rebel completely.

LolaLola, I have a 2 yr old and a 4 yr old. I teach "gentle touch, hitting hurts" vs. "stop hitting your brother or you will get a time out." Sometimes I separate them (not time out), a lot of times I stay within arms reach. Distraction and diversion are the biggest tools. But maybe your question was rhetorical and you aren't really looking for an answer?

We practice UP as much as we can around here, and I get comments regularly that my kids are extremely verbal and thoughtful.

Btw, Kohn cites research on virtually every page of UP. Complete citation from scientific literature. He's not just making this stuff up.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rabbitmum* 
You seem to assume that everybody needs some kind of "punishment technique" to use against their children, well you simply don't, in my experience. Children are humans and you can communicate with them in a respectful manner. It is not respectful towards a child to threaten with, or enforce, isolation. It is using the child's nature, which tells her/him that she/he needs to be in a loving group, against her/him.

Time-out is a technique that focuses solely on behaviour nd not on what goes on inside the child. In fact it depends on the parent's ignoring of exacty that.

Huh? First of all, if you re-read my post, I said nothing about a 'punishment technique'; I specifically used the word 'discipline' which, as we are all aware, means 'to teach'.

I also wrote that I am trying to teach my son that physical aggression toward his little sister is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated. I asked how Kohn would address this situation and didn't get an answer.

I am fully aware that 'children are humans'. I also communicate respectfully with all three of my children, but thanks for the assumption that I don't.

I know exactly what's going on with my son when he pushes/hits/slaps his little sister. I am not ignoring anything by addressing his behaviour. And, he is learning that if he wants to part of a 'loving group', he needs to behave as part of a loving group and NOT hurt other members of that group.


----------



## PassionateWriter

i think there have been answers. we have issues with hitting also. we redirect, we speak to the child about being gentle and not hurting each other. we dont isolate and w/draw as a consequence. time outs just lead to resentment IMO and it is definitely a w/drawal of love and comfort.

its difficult when a child is in that hitting stage but i have found Playful Parenting a good read also.


----------



## karina5

What does Alfie Kohn believe and who the heck is he and why haven't I ever heard of him? (I don't read parenting books so maybe that's why I don't know). Anyone up for giving the cliff's notes on him? I'm too tired to google, lol.


----------



## User101

This seems to more a discussion about two different discipline styles rather than a television program, so I moving it to Gentle Discipline. Be nice, please!


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karina5* 
What does Alfie Kohn believe and who the heck is he and why haven't I ever heard of him?

http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.html


----------



## swampangel

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I know exactly what's going on with my son when he pushes/hits/slaps his little sister. I am not ignoring anything by addressing his behaviour. And, he is learning that if he wants to part of a 'loving group', he needs to behave as part of a loving group and NOT hurt other members of that group.

I think how we go about teaching this will look different in every family. You know your children and if separating them or giving one some time alone is fine.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
i think there have been answers. we have issues with hitting also. we redirect, we speak to the child about being gentle and not hurting each other. we dont isolate and w/draw as a consequence. time outs just lead to resentment IMO and it is definitely a w/drawal of love and comfort.

its difficult when a child is in that hitting stage but i have found Playful Parenting a good read also.


I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I've also resorted to time-outs now and again. Sometimes I'm just too tired to be playful, yk? I can't always be "on" or at my best - and I don't think that's good modeling for my kids anyway. But sometimes I resort to having one child removed from the situation. I never feel great about those times but I don't think I'm traumatizing anyone either. I always talk about it with my kids afterward and it doesn't happen that often.

I also really disagree that it's always a love/comfort withdrawal. Plenty of times my child does not want comforting when he's upset or mad. I don't either. We're just too complicated too be deduced down to these kinds of actions and outcomes. That's what bugs me about Kohn is that he generalizes too much. Different kids, adults and families operate differently. I think it's great if we can afford the time to read up on as much as we can and incorporate what works with our particular kids and circumstances.

What I've found from my experienes with my boys is that it mostly has to do with really knowing them...really paying attention to them. That's what is the foundation of discipline - not following so-and-so's techniques or theories.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
*I also really disagree that it's always a love/comfort withdrawal*. Plenty of times my child does not want comforting when he's upset or mad. I don't either. *We're just too complicated too be deduced down to these kinds of actions and outcomes. That's what bugs me about Kohn is that he generalizes too much. Different kids, adults and families operate differently*. I think it's great if we can afford the time to read up on as much as we can and incorporate what works with our particular kids and circumstances.

*What I've found from my experienes with my boys is that it mostly has to do with really knowing my boys...really paying attention to them. That's what is the foundation of discipline - not following so-and-so's techniques or theories*.

I bolded a few sentences that really resonate with me.

I have a real problem with this concept of 'love withdrawl' as it relates to time outs. *I* don't get the philosophy behind it.


----------



## yoginisarah

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 

I have a real problem with this concept of 'love withdrawl' as it relates to time outs. *I* don't get the philosophy behind it.

That's because you aren't a child. Children see things very linearly. They do something "wrong" (AKA completely age appropriate) and mom decides to put them by themselves, away from the family, at a time when they are already feeling overwhelmed or upset to begin with. The idea behind it is that as children, we see almost everything our parents do as a reflection of love. Therefore, mom leaving you in a corner says to the child "I don't love you because you hit your sister." It's irrational to us as adults because we are adults. But to kids, withdrawing the behaviors of affection (talking, playing, hugging, etc) is the same as withdrawing actual affection.
And, really, how is it "loving" to use a time out? It basically says "go sit by yourself, be quiet, and i don't care how you feel about this situation right now."
I can certainly see how it is a better option than completely losing it with a child....but I can also certainly see much better options that are clearly working in our family.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoginisarah* 
That's because you aren't a child. Children see things very linearly. They do something "wrong" (AKA completely age appropriate) and mom decides to put them by themselves, away from the family, at a time when they are already feeling overwhelmed or upset to begin with. *The idea behind it is that as children, we see almost everything our parents do as a reflection of love.* Therefore, mom leaving you in a corner says to the child "I don't love you because you hit your sister." It's irrational to us as adults because we are adults. But to kids, withdrawing the behaviors of affection (talking, playing, hugging, etc) is the same as withdrawing actual affection.
*And, really, how is it "loving" to use a time out? It basically says "go sit by yourself, be quiet, and i don't care how you feel about this situation right now."*

Huh? Are you serious? I'm sorry, but I'm certain that my son does not interpret his time out as "I don't love you because you hit your sister".

He is given warnings after the first offence, before being "isolated" (in the same room, mind you). I know he understands what my expectations are, he simply, sometimes, chooses to ignore them.

It's loving, because I need to both, protect my daughter from being hurt, and teach my son that it is not ok to hit his sister when he is frustrated with what she is doing.

It is loving because I owe it to my kids to teach them how to be good people to live with--'cause people will eat you up, if you let them.


----------



## yoginisarah

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Huh? Are you serious? I'm sorry, but I'm certain that my son does not interpret his time out as "I don't love you because you hit your sister".

He is given warnings after the first offence, before being "isolated" (in the same room, mind you). I know he understands what my expectations are, he simply, sometimes, chooses to ignore them.

It's loving, because I need to both, protect my daughter from being hurt, and teach my son that it is not ok to hit his sister when he is frustrated with what she is doing.

It is loving because I owe it to my kids to teach them how to be good people to live with--'cause people will eat you up, if you let them.

But if you can do that without isolation, why not?
My 2 year old is definitely going through a hitting phase right now with his 4 month old sister. But we are definitely able to handle it and act loving towards both of them without resorting to isolation.
Is it to 'teach' your son or to punish your son? There are definitely ways to teach that don't involve time outs.
I want to teach my son not to hit because it is hurtful....I don't want him to not hit because he doesn't want a time out.


----------



## yoginisarah

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Huh? Are you serious? I'm sorry, but I'm certain that my son does not interpret his time out as "I don't love you because you hit your sister".

He is given warnings after the first offence, before being "isolated" (in the same room, mind you). I know he understands what my expectations are, he simply, sometimes, chooses to ignore them.

It's loving, because I need to both, protect my daughter from being hurt, and teach my son that it is not ok to hit his sister when he is frustrated with what she is doing.

It is loving because I owe it to my kids to teach them how to be good people to live with--'cause people will eat you up, if you let them.

Also, if there is a 'first offense' then isn't that him giving you a warning that something needs to change? There is a reason he's hitting. Remove the reason and the situation is avoided.
I don't know how old your children are. I have an almost 2 year old son and a 'warning' isn't going to help him much. He is impulsive and that is completely appropriate for him developmentally. I've learned that he needs a change of pace and that I need to look at it as a warning from him....not a time for me to start threatening.
Because...let's face it...in the end, no matter how much control parents like to think they have....a child does have free will. What's going to really stop the behavior long term is to teach the real reasons behind not doing something....not to impose a bunch of threats and consequences. This only makes it so the child is acting selfishly to avoid the threat instead of acting empathetically.


----------



## rabbitmum

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I also communicate respectfully with all three of my children, but thanks for the assumption that I don't.

I must remind you that I was talking about Supernanny. I'm not discussing how you communicate with your children, but I have seen that Supernanny uses punishments, isolation, disrespect, actual explicit love withdrawal (I once saw her encouraging a mother to push her crying daughter away from her lap, which the daughter was trying to climb into), and ignoring a child's needs and feelings, as they are sitting in a spot or room especially designated to make them feel bad about themselves, crying for their parents' attention (= love). And that's in the parts that are not edited away.


----------



## emma_goldman

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
parents must be involved w/ their children in order to have any sense of a "family". i guess i dont see that as a "benefit" SN brings but its basically the foundation that all families need (yes, maybe the ones she has on TV dont have it and she needs to set it first but its a requirement regardless of method).

have you read Alfie Kohn's books? have you tried his techniques? I have not found his teachings to be "crap" as you state. I have found that when I communicate w/ my children, I get responses. Even w/ my 2 yo who is not very verbal, if I attempt to figure out why he is doing something, and address that situation, things turn out so much nicer than trying to discipline him using any form of punitive punishment. often times natural consequences have nothing to do w/ anything that *I* do or don't do...its just a natural consequence that teaches him a lesson.

i see this need for "control" all the time in parenting. yes, sometimes we need to leave the park NOW in case of an appointment and the kids dont want to but usually, if i have a battle, its my fault for not scheduling ahead of time. I try to eliminate the times when i have to "take control" over my children. I just do not see any benefit in it. none whatsoever.

Hear, hear.


----------



## mammal_mama

There have definitely been times when my youngest has been aggressive and I've had to physically remove her from a situation (i.e. taking her out of the play area at the park). But I don't isolate her *from me*, I sit and hold her and talk to her.

I hope she doesn't perceive this as punishment or love-withdrawal -- but sometimes I honestly don't know what else to do, because it would certainly be wrong for me to allow her to keep hurting other children. It would be a wrong to her as well as to the other children.

lolalola, I also never meant to imply that you're not respectful to your children. I used to believe in timeouts, too. And I honestly don't know what it's like to have children as close in age as yours.









I imagine it would be challenging at places like the park, with small children close in age. I'm able to focus more on my youngest when she needs it, because my oldest is 5 years older, so can play fairly independently with me just keeping an eye on her.


----------



## SquishyKitty

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
my post was in regard to the roots of time outs. its began as a device for Animal Behaviorists, as a way to train laboratory animals. It was picked up by later psychologists to be used on intellectually and behaviorally impaired children in institutions ("Timeout Duration and the Suppression of Deviant Behavior in Children"). It was soon being used indiscriminately and became the most common discipline procedure for preadolescent children. (from Unconditional Parenting and footnoted but im too lazy to copy the footnotes and this is NOT an exact quote...but a close paraphrase).

i just think everyone should realize the history of the discipline technique.

While it's origins might not be picture perfect, I think that, if used correctly, time outs are not a bad thing and can really work. Mostly it depends on the child. Time outs for us really worked well when we just removed DS from the situation, and then talked about it afterwards. We didn't "Withhold love" from him, we were right there with him. It gave him time to realize that whatever behavior we stopped was not okay, and then we talked about it afterwards.

I really don't get the vilification of time outs, where everybody who practices it are all of the sudden witholding love or dragging their children to a dark corner and ignoring them.


----------



## llamalluv

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rabbitmum* 
Well, yes, I find her extremely cold and "technical". The way she lays down "rules" and enforces them through superior physical force only....

I thought that was a GD technique that I've seen here repeatedly. Sometimes referred to as the "get off your [butt] parenting" method (i.e. taking a reluctant child by the hand to lead them to the tub for bath time).

I've seen an episode where a mom was LAYING on top of her kid to keep them on the "naughty rug" and SN was aghast.


----------



## monkey's mom

Go Alfie!

I've watched lots and lots of Supernanny. It fascinates me.

I do like how she wants parents to play and engage with their children.

But so much of her dealings with problematic kid behavior seems rooted in the attempt to simply break the kid's will. The HOURS of dragging kids back into the naughty spot until they just give up and relent is insane to me. The hours of cry it out (where, ironically, Jo comforts and reassures the crying ADULT and they all ignore the crying child) until the child just gives up and goes to sleep. The way she instructs the parents to robotically say the same things over and over again and avoid eye contact--it's all seemingly designed to give the parent the upper hand in winning these power struggles, that from my view, could be avoided in the first place with a little thought and creativity.

Yeah, it's not hitting, but isn't the root of GD (as defined here anyway) that one addresses the underlying cause rather than the symptom? I think the connection part of Jo's message could be magnified and garner the same desired results of kids who are "acting right." But it would be b/c they are "feeling right" and not simply wishing to avoid punishment.


----------



## KBecks

I like Supernanny, and I think it's all about balance.

We use time outs sparingly in our house, and I don't consider them "love withdrawal". Our kids know they are loved, they get tons of love from us. We use Supernanny's technique of giving a clear warning, and when we give the warning, we explain what the problem is. The time outs are followed by a hug and a kiss and a return to a loving relationship.

I think adults do have the power in the family. Adults are the ones who define and model what is OK and what is not OK.

We are not super-strict, I think of our family as following gentle discipline and we've found a balance that works for us.

The thing with Supernanny is that she goes into homes that are really broken down, families have a lot of resentment and parents have given up and aren't giving their kids any love or anything beyond negative attention. The thing I like about the show is that she also gets the parents and kids to play together and start to enjoy their relationship again. I think she wants the families to have love.

I know she does a lot of reward charts, etc. And I know Alfie Kohn doesn't get into that. We do not do reward charts, and I tend to agree with Kohn. That said, it's a tool that may be useful in some situations. I'm not going to delcare that I will never use a rewards chart or removal of priveleges. If we feel it's appropriate, we may give that kind of technique a try.

I've always thought there is no one "right way" to parent, but there are lots of ways, and different kids and parents have different needs.


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I've also resorted to time-outs now and again. Sometimes I'm just too tired to be playful, yk? I can't always be "on" or at my best - and I don't think that's good modeling for my kids anyway. But sometimes I resort to having one child removed from the situation. I never feel great about those times but I don't think I'm traumatizing anyone either. I always talk about it with my kids afterward and it doesn't happen that often.

I also really disagree that it's always a love/comfort withdrawal. Plenty of times my child does not want comforting when he's upset or mad. I don't either. We're just too complicated too be deduced down to these kinds of actions and outcomes. That's what bugs me about Kohn is that he generalizes too much. Different kids, adults and families operate differently. I think it's great if we can afford the time to read up on as much as we can and incorporate what works with our particular kids and circumstances.

What I've found from my experienes with my boys is that it mostly has to do with really knowing them...really paying attention to them. That's what is the foundation of discipline - not following so-and-so's techniques or theories.


Ive been thinking about your post all night b/c I do realize that often times messages online get misconstrued.

As far as resorting to time outs sometimes, or any other parenting technique that one may know is not the "best one" over the long term and not in line w/ one's true parenting theory, i think we have ALL BTDT. I have raised my voice at my children, on more than one occassion. I have been short w/ my children on more than one occassion. I have actually given myself time outs from my children, on more than one occassion. Raising 3 boys and another on the way is exhausting at times and my energy level, etc. etc. is just at its END at times.

The point I was attempting to make in this thread was that there are 2 entirely different philosophies going on w/ Kohn and SN....they are just fundamentally different. And we as parents are not robots who follow one certain technique/philosophy 100% of the time but at some point I think we do have to figure out which side of the fence we are on.

I think that many here probably use time out techniques that are a bit different than SN's (though i dont know). I've seen SN's time outs...the kid is put in the naughty chair or on the bottom of a stair and put there again and again and again and again until he/she learns to stay. That has taken hours before on SN (w/ time elapsed of course). During that time, the child can not be spoken to and can not speak. that just seems to increase the stress level in the home. Of course, you will get compliance from such a kid if you do that over and over...who wants to endure that again???? You would get compliance from me in prison if the punishment is solitary confinement, etc. etc.

My issue w/ time out is really about the origins.....it was developed to train animals to modify their behavior....originally pigeons and rodents. I just do not consider that an appropriate discipline/teaching mechanism.

This is not to say that I do not believe separation is never a good thing. My 2.5 yo LOVES to hit his 10 year old brother. Not just hit him per se, but he loves to rough house. If, like lately, he has not gotten enough outside activity, this rough house increases in the evening, close to bed time. Last night was one of those nights (im 35.5 weeks right now and finding physical activity difficult). He would NOT stop and he was hurting his brother. In order to get him to stop, I MADE him sit beside me, completely against his wishes. He finally fell asleep beside me. Its not what I would theoretically do but I too had just had enough and was too exhausted to do the Playful Parenting techniques. I was NOT feeling playful.

I guess to sum this up, my point was not that anyone here is perfect and does things that fall in perfect harmony w/ a certain parenting theory....but that there are alternatives that do work the majority of the time short term and lead to much better long term effects than the time out theorists...and that I have a huge problem with using a parenting technique that was developed by animal behaviorists.

when i state love/comfort w/drawal, that is what time outs are meant to achieve. however, it seems that your children and yourself do not want to be physically close at times. I have one son who is like that...if he gets upsets, he storms upstairs to his bedroom. He does not want to talk or be touched. I do not send him to his room...but thats where he wants to go. Its not a time out...its his time to cool down and be able to talk to me later. Again, i dont think that most here use time outs in the same manner as SN or as recommended by most mainstream books.

I do know how you feel about the "time to read". I have several books that I am trying to get through. I was trying to get some of them from the library but I cant read them fast enough for that.







Reading during the day is difficult; reading at night and I usually fall asleep w/in 3 pages. You can see how that is difficult, lol!


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I bolded a few sentences that really resonate with me.

I have a real problem with this concept of 'love withdrawl' as it relates to time outs. *I* don't get the philosophy behind it.

its pretty simple. Classic time out involves "deliberately ignoring a child or enforcing a separation". When you do either of these, you are withdrawing your loving presence from your child.

I guess I don't get how you can ignore a child or enforce separation and not withdraw your love at the the same time. You (general you) may not feel that you are w/drawing anything but thats what it feels like to the child.

Time outs are a method of control. The "benefit" of time outs is to force obedience to act (or not act) in a certain way. time outs, in and of themselves, do not go deeper than that.


----------



## sweetmama3

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane* 
I agree with a lot of what he says.

Supernanny's whole thing is control. Kids are never given reasons for anything. We don't hit because it's against the rules, not because it hurts people. We go to bed because it's time for bed, not because we're tired. Oh, not sleepy? Too bad, it's bedtime, and if you cry you're just being manipulative.

The naughty spot is another thing she just loves. Plop the kid where you've decided they have to go when they misbehave. Don't give them any explanation beyond "You were naughty, so you have to sit here." If they get up and move, drag them back to the spot. If they cry, ignore them, they're just being manipulative. When they've worn themselves out crying, they'll stop. Then they'll apologize so they can get up. If they don't apologize, back on the naughty spot!

I have big issues with Supernanny.


This is not wholly true, Supernanny does give reasons for the child being on timeouts. She doesnt just have parents say, "because you were naughty"
she has them state the reason for the timeout. It is not as harsh as you make it seem.


----------



## monkey's mom

Yes, PassionateWriter. And, for me, I find it particularly troubling in an AP context, b/c I know the lengths that so many of us have gone to to build and create the attachment. I don't think AP parents want to do things which could damage that bond, or use it to "hold over" their kids. I think, like folks have said, they just don't see how that's the case. And that's where I think Kohn's work is so great, b/c he shows again and again how in the studies of children it really is being perceived and the effects of it. For *me* it doesn't pass my litmus test: Is this building attachment?

Even when I'm *watching* Supernanny, I'm all "in" the power struggle relating to adult, and I can feel how much I want to "up the ante" to get the upper hand. And I can also relate to the kids and feel the anger and resentment and powerlessness. Those aren't places I want to go to get closer to my children--even if I thought they would magically end "bad behavior," which I don't think they do.


----------



## Dr.Worm

I have never read Alfie Kohn's books but he sounds like someone I would like. I was watching Supernanny last night and wondering why I watch this crap. Yes, she doesn't believe in hitting and she gets parents to spend time with their kids..these are good things. Obviously some people on here believe in time outs and some don't. I personally don't use them but that's just me. What made me upset last night was watching the little girl cry and tell her mother she loved her and the mother feeling bad and Supernanny telling her why she should ignore her kid. It just bothers me when I see this stuff. The mother's natural reaction to her child calling for her is to want to comfort her child. Supernanny's response is always to ignore your instincts and do what we decided..child sleeps on her own. After 2 hours the poor kid falls asleep and Supernanny is all..yaaah...you did it. If it were me, I'd wonder what I did..I got my child to scream herself to sleep because I wouldn't comfort her. What makes me mad is that kids are supposedly so manipualtive because they want things like their mother to lay with them at night. My dd is 8 and she still sometimes likes me to lay with her at night. I can hear Supernanny's shocked voice "OH NO! YOU SHOULD HAVE STOPPED THAT YEARS AGO!" Well, I'm glad I didn't. That is the time when my dd is relaxed and wants to talk to me...sure, I could be watching Oded Fehr as Ardeth Bay in The Mummy and dreaming of him taking me back to his tent but I lay with my child and Ardeth just has to wait. I guess SN thinks when my child is 15 she will still want me to come and lay with her at night..I can only hope.


----------



## phathui5

I'm a fan of Supernanny because every time I've watched her show, she ends up improving relationships in the family, getting both parents and children to treat children with more respect and teaching everyone to handle things in a calmer way. She's against spanking and chewed someone out for putting soap in their child's mouth.

Quote:

This is not wholly true, Supernanny does give reasons for the child being on timeouts. She doesnt just have parents say, "because you were naughty"
she has them state the reason for the timeout. It is not as harsh as you make it seem.
Absolutely. She has them tell the child at the beginning of the time out what the reason is. Then afterwards you tell them again why they needed a time out, have hugs and kisses and let them know that you love them but not the behavior they were using.


----------



## monkey's mom

For me, watching dozens (hundreds?







I've watched this show a LOT) of kids do the forced "sorry" and hugs at the end of those time outs, I've seen the same body language and tone over and over again to know that that is not the sort of dynamic that I want to set up with my kids. The kids don't make eye contact, they mumble, they look off in the distance while they are hugging, they do it fast after a while b/c they know it the motions not the feeling, etc.

I don't recall seeing ONE child come out and genuinely look the parent in the eyes in a connective moment and give a hearfelt apology. And then reconnect in a genuine and loving embrace and kiss. Not once.

And when I put myself in the place of the child, I can *totally* understand why that wouldn't happen.

I have, however, watched my kids (and other AP/GD kids) re-connect and re-focus after a time-in, or a break to get a drink or nurse, or a brief convo about what is *really* going on or a discussion of what to do differently next time.


----------



## captain crunchy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dr.Worm* 
I have never read Alfie Kohn's books but he sounds like someone I would like. I was watching Supernanny last night and wondering why I watch this crap. Yes, she doesn't believe in hitting and she gets parents to spend time with their kids..these are good things. Obviously some people on here believe in time outs and some don't. I personally don't use them but that's just me. What made me upset last night was watching the little girl cry and tell her mother she loved her and the mother feeling bad and Supernanny telling her why she should ignore her kid. It just bothers me when I see this stuff. The mother's natural reaction to her child calling for her is to want to comfort her child. Supernanny's response is always to ignore your instincts and do what we decided..child sleeps on her own. After 2 hours the poor kid falls asleep and Supernanny is all..yaaah...you did it. If it were me, I'd wonder what I did..I got my child to scream herself to sleep because I wouldn't comfort her. What makes me mad is that kids are supposedly so manipualtive because they want things like their mother to lay with them at night. My dd is 8 and she still sometimes likes me to lay with her at night. I can hear Supernanny's shocked voice "OH NO! YOU SHOULD HAVE STOPPED THAT YEARS AGO!" Well, I'm glad I didn't. That is the time when my dd is relaxed and wants to talk to me...sure, I could be watching Oded Fehr as Ardeth Bay in The Mummy and dreaming of him taking me back to his tent but I lay with my child and Ardeth just has to wait. I guess SN thinks when my child is 15 she will still want me to come and lay with her at night..I can only hope.

Wow, what a great post.

I think supernanny has good intentions, but you know what they say about good intentions and what road is paved with them.

I blame the parents ultimately though. It is one thing to reach out for help -- we should all do that when we feel overwhelmed. However, it is quite another to parade your children on camera against their will, hand your parenting and apparently, your instincts and better judgment, over to a television personality for the sake of a "family harmony" that is the result of good editing and short-term quick fix solutions that not only scare and shame children but cause (imo) a further detachment from the parent/child bond which is most of what caused the issues in the first place. I don't buy the whole, "but they were DESPERATE" argument -- then get an actual therapist, not a television personality to help your family









It is nonsensical. Does Jo even have children? If so, God help them and if not, I am very leary taking parental advice from someone who has not even experienced parenthood other than babysitting a few rich folks' kids.


----------



## Polliwog

Has anyone seen the new show on TLC, The Take Home Nanny. It's, in my professional and personal opinion, worse than Supernanny. Nanny Emma is harsher and tends to do more stepping in. She'll put the child in time out. She'll scold the child. Eventually the parents are doing it but there's a lot of her doing it herself.

The apologies are even more forced after a time out and there was one episode in which the child was forced to hug the father when she was saying sorry.

Ick.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
its pretty simple. *Classic time out involves "deliberately ignoring a child or enforcing a separation". When you do either of these, you are withdrawing your loving presence from your child.*
I guess I don't get how you can ignore a child or enforce separation and not withdraw your love at the the same time. You (general you) may not feel that you are w/drawing anything but thats what it feels like to the child.

Time outs are a method of control. The "benefit" of time outs is to force obedience to act (or not act) in a certain way. time outs, in and of themselves, do not go deeper than that.

Ok, to the bolded--'withdrawing your loving presence' seems a tad extreme, to me. I mean really, will my child wither and die because I put him or her in time-out *in the same room?*









I don't know about you, but I've enforced separations as a parent , out of necessity -work, for 'me time' -closing the bathroom door so I can have a bath...etc. So, I guess I have 'deliberately ignored' my children, at various points in their lives.

I guess I don't get how you (general), can't fathom that mothers can and do, REALLY LOVE their children even as they 'discipline' as gently as they possibly can. 'cause, see, I don't stop loving my children even when they piss me off.


----------



## monkey's mom

I think Kohn's focus is more on the child's perception of the act rather than the intent of the parent. If that helps you understand any better.


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Ok, to the bolded--'withdrawing your loving presence' seems a tad extreme, to me. I mean really, will my child wither and die because I put him or her in time-out *in the same room?*









I don't know about you, but I've enforced separations as a parent , out of necessity -work, for 'me time' -closing the bathroom door so I can have a bath...etc. So, I guess I have 'deliberately ignored' my children, at various points in their lives.

I guess I don't get how you (general), can't fathom that mothers can and do, REALLY LOVE their children even as they 'discipline' as gently as they possibly can. 'cause, see, I don't stop loving my children even when they piss me off.

as i have posted before (in this thread) that is the definition of time out (actually paraphrased from UP).

i have never said that a child would "wither and die" from time outs. however, i think there are several issues that really need to be well thought out before a parent resorts to time out as a disciplinary technique that "works for our family" (as i often see stated).

you are comparing apples to oranges. going to work, or to the bathroom, or just taking a break from your child is not the same as the classic time out as recommended in many mainstream parenting books and by SN.

i have NEVER said that i do not understand that mothers love their children and discipline them. i think the difference, in this thread at least, and in debating the use of time outs, is whether time outs are an effective discipline measure to be used consistently and whether it is consistent with one's general parenting model. For us, its not.

For some parents, the thought of questioning time outs has never occurred to them (and it didnt to me until i read a lot of books about 3 years ago). For those who understand the implications and the negative consequences of time outs, and still chose to use them, then more power to you (general you).

Im not posting to change anyone's mind that already understands the "negative consequences" of time outs and has determined that those are acceptable for them. My posts are simply to convey the idea that there are some serious issues to think about before resorting to time outs as a consistent discipline.,.and maybe someone else will realize that there are some things that just do not fit THEIR family model and theory. To each his own but I do think education about all disciplines is very important.

I don't think however that anyone needs to be snarky to each other and i have attempted not to be to the best of my ability. If any of my posts have come across as judgmental, I apologize..that was certainly not my intent.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I think Kohn's focus is more on the child's perception of the act rather than the intent of the parent. If that helps you understand any better.









Sure, and that's the classic psychological 'school of thought' focus on mother/child relationships.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Sure, and that's the classic psychological 'school of thought' focus on mother/child relationships.









I'm sorry, I don't really understand this.

I don't believe Kohn's a psychologist. He's an author who writes about education and parenting.

??


----------



## whalemilk

I cannot stand Kohn. I think he and his ilk are responsible for all too many cases of maternal depression and burnout. Also, I see all too many people trying to do the "unconditional" parenting thing, or the constant "playfulness" and then BOOM they snap. Better to find a middle ground where you're not constantly smiling madly on the verge of losing your mind.


----------



## kittywitty

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whalemilk* 
I cannot stand Kohn. I think he and his ilk are responsible for all too many cases of maternal depression and burnout. Also, I see all too many people trying to do the "unconditional" parenting thing, or the constant "playfulness" and then BOOM they snap. Better to find a middle ground where you're not constantly smiling madly on the verge of losing your mind.

I think you've completely missed the point. Have you ever even read his works?


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I'm sorry, I don't really understand this.

I don't believe Kohn's a psychologist. He's an author who writes about education and parenting.

??

What research does he base his parenting theories on (sorry, I don't have the book to check for myself)?


----------



## whalemilk

Yeah I have. I didn't get out of it what you got out of it, doesn't mean I "missed the point." I just disagree with him. I disagree with a lot of the currently in vogue discipline stuff, and I'm not even anywhere near what most people would consider traditional, authoritarian, or a hardass.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whalemilk* 
I cannot stand Kohn. I think he and his ilk are responsible for all too many cases of maternal depression and burnout. Also, I see all too many people trying to do the "unconditional" parenting thing, or the constant "playfulness" and then BOOM they snap. Better to find a middle ground where you're not constantly smiling madly on the verge of losing your mind.

"He and his ilk?" Considering his supporters include folks like Dr. Sears, Adele Faber, Barbara Coloroso, and probably Mothering, itself, I'm pretty surprised to read this here.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whalemilk* 
Yeah I have. I didn't get out of it what you got out of it, doesn't mean I "missed the point." I just disagree with him. I disagree with a lot of the currently in vogue discipline stuff, and I'm not even anywhere near what most people would consider traditional, authoritarian, or a hardass.

Nope, you cannot disagree


----------



## swampangel

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I think Kohn's focus is more on the child's perception of the act rather than the intent of the parent. If that helps you understand any better.









That's the generalizing that drives me a bit batty with this. How in the world can he (or anyone but the person who is in relationship with them) know a child's perception?? Sure, there are certain circumstances and adult behavior that leads to perceptions that we can generalize about. But saying that time outs mean a love withdrawal from the perception of the child seems a bit presumptuous to me.

I think the way Supernanny does it is a battle of wills and breaking the child down. I totally disagree with it. I would imagine most of us wouldn't engage in hours of picking up our child and placing them back in a corner. I find that to be madness but I see why she does it - to get the child to comply and do the time out in the future. I get it but don't agree with it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whalemilk* 
I cannot stand Kohn. I think he and his ilk are responsible for all too many cases of maternal depression and burnout. Also, I see all too many people trying to do the "unconditional" parenting thing, or the constant "playfulness" and then BOOM they snap. Better to find a middle ground where you're not constantly smiling madly on the verge of losing your mind.

I think you make a wonderful point. I wouldn't go so far as to say I hate him, but I've seen a dear friend of mine finally break after 5+ years of constantly being with her kids and putting their needs ahead of her own - every time. It's just not a good system. I think kids benefit greatly from learning (when it's developmentally appropriate) that the world does not revolve around them. It doesn't have to be a mean lesson, but one that is available to them when mom or dad consider themselves as well.

Finding that middle ground is really good advice.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whalemilk* 
Yeah I have. I didn't get out of it what you got out of it, doesn't mean I "missed the point." I just disagree with him. I disagree with a lot of the currently in vogue discipline stuff, and I'm not even anywhere near what most people would consider traditional, authoritarian, or a hardass.

ITA that if you don't agree with UP or the more extreme end of AP or GD it doesn't mean that you automatically fall into the opposite parenting extreme.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
What research does he base his parenting theories on (sorry, I don't have the book to check for myself)?

I don't have my copy handy either. Sorry!

Lots and lots of footnotes and citations, though not sure the exact nature. Probably many from psychology. I'm guessing you're not a fan of that field?


----------



## whalemilk

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Nope, you cannot disagree


















Silly woman, liberation is for kids!


----------



## littleaugustbaby

Why is it that if anybody criticizes Alfie Kohn, everyone assumes that they haven't read his stuff?


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
That's the generalizing that drives me a bit batty with this. How in the world can he (or anyone but the person who is in relationship with them) know a child's perception?? Sure, there are certain circumstances and adult behavior that leads to perceptions that we can generalize about. But saying that time outs mean a love withdrawal from the perception of the child seems a bit presumptuous to me.

Well, I guess like most bodies of work, he's looked at research and studies where children have been questioned or evaluated and he's drawn his conclusions. Obviously, statistics don't apply to individuals, but I think one can certainly gather enough "trends" or liklihoods from a certain treatment to make generalizations about it. Like how *most* rape victims will respond/feel. How most olympic winners will respond/feel.







Etc. Enough, anyway, to consider or reconsider whether one wants to engage in that treatment, you know?


----------



## PrennaMama

I skimmed the thread, ladies, sorry to have not read it all... just wnated to add my .02.

My folks used punishment, corporal and otherwise. Time-outs, go to your room, etc...

And I DID feel that love was being withdrawn.

My mom told me (when I asked her about what she thought of SuperNanny, and this thread...) that one day she listened outside my room as I talked to my invisible friend (I was 4) about being punished... "It's like she loves and then she hates me, and then she loves me and then she hates me again...! I wish she would just pick one..."

As she spoke I remembered that day vividly and those feelings. Although, at the time, she explained that she still loved me, even when she was mad and I was 'in-trouble', I can honestly say I never fully trusted her. I still don't in some ways...

I hvae spoken with friends whose folks used the same tactics and they felt the same way... that their folks didn't love them in that moment, or even that the love was endangered somehow.

We have a listening spot. I go there sometimes... I have thrown "penalty flags" (usually a paper towel on the floor) for dh when he barks and grouses and sent him to the listening spot, and dd is encouraged to use it... anyone needing a moment to collect themselves so they can be calm and consult without yelling etc uses it.

We model it as a "time for reflection" or meditation... not a time out... tho perhaps it serves the purpose some folks intend when they use the time out.

Supernanny is an attempt to generalize parenting into a one-size-fits-all technique allowing folks to gain control. But she doesn't teach about what that control means. I often tell dd "I see you're having a hard time controlling your body/words" Then I ask her, "I have a hard time listening to that... Do you need to take a break til you're ready to speak to me in a way that makes it easier to listen to you?" I have told her I'M having a hard time staying in control of MYself. That's control folks can get their heads around. But Supernanny seems to strive for a familial culture of _domination_ rather than self-control.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Of course you can speak to that, you're a mother







.

Ha! No, I just meant that I don't really know what you're talking about, in that I don't really think I've noticed that or experienced that.


----------



## whalemilk

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleaugustbaby* 
Why is it that if anybody criticizes Alfie Kohn, everyone assumes that they haven't read his stuff?

I don't know, but missionaries also seem to think I've never read the bible.


----------



## PrennaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whalemilk* 
I don't know, but missionaries also seem to think I've never read the bible.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Ha! No, I just meant that I don't really know what you're talking about, in that I don't really think I've noticed that or experienced that.

It's ok. You'll know it when you experience it


----------



## I-AM-Mother

I am amazed at the number of women who give birth to three and four children after attaining three and four degrees, earning great salaries and are still unable to have their children follow *simple* directions. It's priceless. Mothering is not a new.

Supernanny places the responsibility back into the parents hands and while her methods and techniques may be a bit PG-13, she is just a television personality. *And she has the word "nanny" in her title, for heavens sake.*

It's embarrassing to me that we live in a society where an Alfie Kahn or Supernanny is needed and whose teaching methods are even being considered by the families and parents of people with children. Can anyone tell me if Alfie or Supernanny have any children of their own? This matters to me a great deal.

My take on parenting is that it is just like breastfeeding -very natural. The only thing that has changed over the course of time is the amount of emotional and physical support we get from other mothers. We live in our houses closed off from one another. How many of you get together to go to the grocery store, cook a meal, crochet, etc. And I am not talking about once a month.

If mothers did more things as a real group parenting would be much easier, and less stressful, but most importantly many SAHM would not feel so alone and take on the pressure of being a Supermother.

Now like all of you I have really thought this gift of being a mother through, and the conclusion I came to is this; I am a woman who has the ability to give birth -and this is not new. It's really as old as the earth itself. we may evolve but the one thing that stays the same is a mothers love for her child.

It's really as simple as that, for me. If I gave birth to five children I will figure out what each of my children need from me. It is my job to get them ready for the world. My role is unmatched. My love is unconditional....and it is necessary for each of my children to listen. Period.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
but I've seen a dear friend of mine finally break after 5+ years of constantly being with her kids and putting their needs ahead of her own - every time. It's just not a good system. I think kids benefit greatly from learning (when it's developmentally appropriate) that the world does not revolve around them. It doesn't have to be a mean lesson, but one that is available to them when mom or dad consider themselves as well.

In Unconditional Parenting, Kohn's advice does not include ignoring the needs of the parents, at all. He reminds us of children's developmental abilities, and sites research that shows negative results because of rewards and punishment. He encourages reason and morality. I don't understand how anyone can consider this "ilk".


----------



## PrennaMama

Quote:

Origianlly posted by *I-AM-Mother*
_I am amazed at the number of women who give birth to three and four children after attaining three and four degrees, earning great salaries and are still unable to have their children follow simple directions. It's priceless. Mothering is not a new.

Supernanny places the responsibility back into the parents hands and while her methods and techniques may be a bit PG-13, she is just a television personality. And she has the word "nanny" in her title, for heavens sake.

It's embarrassing to me that we live in a society where an Alfie Kahn or Supernanny is needed and whose teaching methods are even being considered by the families and parents of people with children. Can anyone tell me if Alfie or Supernanny have any children of their own? This matters to me a great deal.

My take on parenting is that it is just like breastfeeding -very natural. The only thing that has changed over the course of time is the amount of emotional and physical support we get from other mothers. We live in our houses closed off from one another. How many of you get together to go to the grocery store, cook a meal, crochet, etc. And I am not talking about once a month.

If mothers did more things as a real group parenting would be much easier, and less stressful, but most importantly many SAHM would not feel so alone and take on the pressure of being a Supermother.

Now like all of you I have really thought this gift of being a mother through, and the conclusion I came to is this; I am a woman who has the ability to give birth -and this is not new. It's really as old as the earth itself. we may evolve but the one thing that stays the same is a mothers love for her child.

It's really as simple as that, for me. If I gave birth to five children I will figure out what each of my children need from me. It is my job to get them ready for the world. My role is unmatched. My love is unconditional....and it is necessary for each of my children to listen. Period._
Hmmm... I'm not really sure what you're reply means in the context of this thread. Mothering, parenting, is as old as time for sure, but so is abuse. So is murder. So are anger, fear, and desire... three things that often drive a person to thoughtlessly act in their own interest. As societies, we created laws to govern these drives. And those laws started as ideas. Ideas proposed by individuals who believed that their ideas would be of help in delineating "right" from "wrong".

By that token, we tend (as social animals) to look to others for inspiration. When we're out of ideas, we go to the "experts".

People like Kohn, Faber and Mazlish, Dr. Sears, and others offer us _thier_ expertise in those times when we flounder for answers in a world where we _don't_ get together communally much. They amass information and ideas in ways that many of us would not otherwise be able to.

And in our world, TV is a big presence in some folks' lives. With shows like Supernanny on, it's easy for folks to lose sight of the editting and the underlying messages... or lack thereof, and see these tv personalities as "experts".

It's good to have the strength of character to say "I don't need anyone's input", or whathaveyou. But some folks do need input...

I do. I would not be half the mommy I am were it not for the gems I have found in books like Raising a Secure Child: Creating an Emotional Connection Between You and Your Child by Zeynep Biringen, Ph.D., How to Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids WIll Talk by Faber and Mazlish, The Virtues Project, or the Sears books. As an abused child myself, I might have just kept perpetuating the abuse... Thankfully, I have had some awesome advice and great support.

Not everyone does... and some turn to their tv instead of friends, family, or books.


----------



## PrennaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
<snip>*And she has the word "nanny" in her title, for heavens sake.*

What does that mean, btw?


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
By that token, we tend (as social animals) to look to others for inspiration. When we're out of ideas, we go to the "experts".

People like Kohn, Faber and Mazlish, Dr. Sears, and others offer us _thier_ expertise in those times when we flounder for answers in a world where we _don't_ get together communally much. They amass information and ideas in ways that many of us would not otherwise be able to.

And in our world, TV is a big presence in some folks' lives. With shows like Supernanny on, it's easy for folks to lose sight of the editting and the underlying messages... or lack thereof, and see these tv personalities as "experts".

It's good to have the strength of character to say "I don't need anyone's input", or whathaveyou. But some folks do need input...

I do. I would not be half the mommy I am were it not for the gems I have found in books like Raising a Secure Child: Creating an Emotional Connection Between You and Your Child by Zeynep Biringen, Ph.D., How to Talk So Kids WIll Listenand Listen So Kids WIll Talk by Faber and Mazlish, The Virtues Project, or the Sears books. As an abused child myself, I might have just kept perpetuating the abuse... Thankfully, I have had some awesome advice and great support.

Not everyone does... and some turn to their tv instead of friends, family, or books.

okay.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
What does that mean, btw?

never mind.


----------



## PrennaMama

Did you want to clarify or anything?


----------



## PrennaMama

I asked because I was a nanny.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
.Supernanny is an attempt to generalize parenting into a one-size-fits-all technique allowing folks to gain control.

hmmm...interesting but the people need something. She is not visiting the homes of poor people, she is needed in the homes of middle class families.

And we should remember that the lifestyles of the rich and famous rolls downhills. We mimic the ways of the rich -whether we'd like to think that way or not. Yoga. Vegan. Organic. Fashion. If those individuals with some money can not reason with their children pretty soon it will roll downhill. In fact, I've seen more AP mothers unable to control their kiddos in the aisle of target, trader joes, and farmers markets than I care to mention. i know this is not the case for all AP mothers but certainly for a large enough number where we'll eventually see this same type of parenting being perpetuated by our children. I want the next generation of daughters to be confident in their roles as mothers -however they see fit to approach it- not to one day look back at us and say "you truly had no idea what you were doing."

My point is -if your household is in need of a supernanny- all of that negotiating, talking, sharing, reasoning, and compromising with your children obviously wasn't working. And to be honest by that time it's usually -but not always- too late.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Did you want to clarify or anything?









no. the statement speaks volumes.


----------



## PrennaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
no. the statement speaks volumes.

Ah, but you _did_ clarify... thank you!

So, it seems like what you're saying is: you take issue with parents getting help from people they perceive as experts instead of just using their natural abilities as parents to keep their kids in check. Is that right? And you mentioned economic class... would it be more permissable or palatable if Supernanny only went to the homes of the poor?


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Ah, but you _did_ clarify... thank you!

So, it seems like what you're saying is: you take issue with parents getting help from people they perceive as experts instead of just using their natural abilities as parents to keep their kids in check. Is that right? And you mentioned economic class... would it be more permissable or palatable if Supernanny only went to the homes of the poor?

prennamama,

this is not my fight... i have a lot of problems but getting my children to listen is not one.

let's move on, shall we.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
So, it seems like what you're saying is: you take issue with parents getting help from people they perceive as experts instead of just using their natural abilities as parents to keep their kids in check. Is that right?

I'd like to clarify this...no, that is NOT what I am saying. It's really much deeper than that.


----------



## PrennaMama

Okay. But move on from where? I was attempting to understand your post. It seemed out of context, but possibly full of inspiration. I'm still not clear on what your actual take is. Except that you said your take on parenting is: "that it is just like breastfeeding -very natural. The only thing that has changed over the course of time is the amount of emotional and physical support we get from other mothers. "

I have no beef with you, and never questioned whether your children listen. Sincerely, I wondered what your point of view was.

So far, you just seem to have disdain, possibly for nannies, maybe for Kohn, and potentially me. Still wondering what your intent was originally.

Peace.


----------



## St. Margaret

Jumping in here-- I really, really like UP-- I guess Kohn just clicks with my instincts, and that's what his ideas are about: freeing yourself from societal mores about "good parenting" (ie rewards/praise/punishments/control) to follow your instincts. I find that what we do, which is pretty UP, really responds to my needs and feelings. I'm allowed to be a whole person, and relate to my DD as a whole person, not as an administrator and a set of behaviors. I find UP very freeing, very focused on getting back to each member of our family, mom, dad, toddler, as people and as a group. I think our society sets us up to be too controlling. The whole premise of control is not something we buy into, as a family. And yet, we are teaching DD the ways we can do things to get along and meet everyone's needs. The values and habits that make everyone happy and fufilled. I just like how Kohn reminds parents to really ask, what is the goal, long term? And also to remember that kids are people right now, too, not just adult people in the making. Nice balance.

Sorry to be so rambling. I just read this thread the day it was posted and never got around to replying! But I appreciated the link


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Reread my responses if you would like to get a better understanding of what I was talking about.


----------



## PrennaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *St. Margaret* 
Jumping in here-- I really, really like UP-- I guess Kohn just clicks with my instincts, and that's what his ideas are about: freeing yourself from societal mores about "good parenting" (ie rewards/praise/punishments/control) to follow your instincts. I find that what we do, which is pretty UP, really responds to my needs and feelings. I'm allowed to be a whole person, and relate to my DD as a whole person, not as an administrator and a set of behaviors. I find UP very freeing, very focused on getting back to each member of our family, mom, dad, toddler, as people and as a group. I think our society sets us up to be too controlling. The whole premise of control is not something we buy into, as a family. And yet, we are teaching DD the ways we can do things to get along and meet everyone's needs. The values and habits that make everyone happy and fufilled. I just like how Kohn reminds parents to really ask, what is the goal, long term? And also to remember that kids are people right now, too, not just adult people in the making. Nice balance.

Sorry to be so rambling. I just read this thread the day it was posted and never got around to replying! But I appreciated the link

















Mmm-hmm... I totally see what you're saying. I also really like the way Kohn's approach encourages the parent to honor the individual that a child is... children aren't just a set of statistics. What works for some doesn't work for others. I like the way he really high-lights listening to our children as a means to facilitate their communication skills, in order to better navigate thru the times when communication gets tricky...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
Reread my responses if you would like to get a better understanding of what I was talking about.

Hmm, yeah, I did... a couple of times... It's cool if you don't want to just explain what you meant. You really seemed to be saying something profound, but if it's not important to you to be clear, I'm ok with not knowing what your point of view was. Take care. Thanks anyway!


----------



## shantimama

Some posts have been removed from this thread for violating the User Agreement we all agreed to uphold when we became members of MDC.

Quote:

Through your direct or indirect participation here you agree to make a personal effort to maintain a comfortable and respectful atmosphere for our guests and members.
Please refrain from the sarcastic comments or the thread will be removed and not returned again.

Thank you,
Shantimama


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whalemilk* 
I cannot stand Kohn. I think he and his ilk are responsible for all too many cases of maternal depression and burnout. Also, I see all too many people trying to do the "unconditional" parenting thing, or the constant "playfulness" and then BOOM they snap. Better to find a middle ground where you're not constantly smiling madly on the verge of losing your mind.

i dont know. i have felt burned out before (in 18 years of parenting) but not from utilizing Kohn's theories. I have felt burned out prior to learning about GD when I have found myself at home, after a long day at work, w/ a child or children that I did not understand and could not get to do what I wanted. Since learning about UP, I have been much more relaxed and happy b/c I have very much limited my struggles w/ my children.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
What research does he base his parenting theories on (sorry, I don't have the book to check for myself)?

I wish i could scan then but i cant. The References at the end of the book over 12 pages long (single spaced, small type, not sure how small). Most of the references are to psychology articles and books. The footnotes for the book (the paper back edition) is 22 pages long (same type as References i believe).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
In Unconditional Parenting, Kohn's advice does not include ignoring the needs of the parents, at all. He reminds us of children's developmental abilities, and sites research that shows negative results because of rewards and punishment. He encourages reason and morality. I don't understand how anyone can consider this "ilk".

I have also found this to be the case. I have simply learned, from reading UP, why my children are struggling through something (if they are). It has helped me to understand them better and to be able to negotiate (in a stronger position than previously) their needs w/ mine, or others. I have found it very empowering...not as some have said...disempowering.


----------



## cotopaxi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
My folks used punishment, corporal and otherwise. Time-outs, go to your room, etc...

And I DID feel that love was being withdrawn.

My mom told me (when I asked her about what she thought of SuperNanny, and this thread...) that one day she listened outside my room as I talked to my invisible friend (I was 4) about being punished... "It's like she loves and then she hates me, and then she loves me and then she hates me again...! I wish she would just pick one..."

PrennaMama, I have a very similar memory. My parents rarely, rarely used corporal punishment (I have no memory of them doing so, but my mother has told me that I was spanked maybe twice - and she keeps apologizing for it







). But I was sent to my room for time outs.

I remember role playing with stuffed animals with a friend; we were the moms and the stuffed animals were the "kids." We were punishing the animals for various things, and we'd "send them to their rooms" and tell them "Stay there - don't come out no matter what - we don't care if you get sick or die or anything." My mom overheard and was SHOCKED and said something like "Oh, no! But that's not very nice! We don't treat you that way!"

And *obviously* now I realize that of course they would care if I was sick, or 'really' needed something while in time out, and would have taken care of me. But apparently, in my four-year-old black-and-white-seeing mind, I didn't perceive it that way. I don't know why I have such a clear memory of that day - I think it was just my utter confusion as to why she'd be so shocked since in my mind I was just playing out what I thought was happening, you know?

Anyway, the memory has stuck with me for whatever reason, and I'm grateful for the little window of insight into my young child's mind.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
My take on parenting is that it is just like breastfeeding -very natural.

Right. That's cool that it's all been so instinctual for you. I was glad to have some help getting started breastfeeding ... I'm also glad for how La Leche League, and later the Sears, and later sites like MDC and Gentle Christian Mothers, as well as writers like Kohn, Sandra Dodd, Sarah Fitz-Clarigde, WuWei, etetera, etcetera, helped me begin a new journey of re-thinking my parenting philosophy.

I'm sorry if it's embarrassing to you to live in the same society with someone who feels a need to read and discuss and re-think ... someone who sees herself as a continual journeyer -- who never feels that she's "arrived."

In fairness to me, it seems to be part of my "natural instinct" to read and discuss and devour ideas (and digest, digest, digest). It doesn't feel very natural to me, to do much of anything without talking about it. And, uhm, maybe my house is so messy 'cause I can't find enough people who want to psychoanalyze cleaning my toilets with me.









So, I guess we're all just following our instincts, huh? -- unless we're not. Now that's profound -- but I'm not sure if I understand enough of what I really meant to clarify, Prennamama!


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
*I want the next generation of daughters to be confident in their roles as mothers -however they see fit to approach it- not to one day look back at us and say "you truly had no idea what you were doing."*

My point is -if your household is in need of a supernanny- all of that negotiating, talking, sharing, reasoning, and compromising with your children obviously wasn't working. And to be honest by that time it's usually -but not always- too late.

I really love this...really, really love it.

"Authentic" mothering only happens when we, as mothers, listen and follow our own instincts...ignoring, or rebelling against the many who would have us believe that we're not good enough.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
"Authentic" mothering only happens when we, as mothers, listen and follow our own instincts...ignoring, or rebelling against the many who would have us believe that we're not good enough.

I think that this is an interesting statement in the context of this conversation. It's a beautiful one in my humble opinion, and I agree with it.
As a first time mother who wasn't planning on having children, I had never really thought of parenting until faced with pregnancy. Then I was confused and frightened because the conventional methods of disciplining felt wrong to me. They went against my intuition and instinct. I didn't know what to replace convention with, in many regards. Such as cosleeping, child-led weening, cloth diapering, exclusive breastfeeding, delaying solids, gentle discipline, not vaccinating etc. I feel that having read certain books opened my eyes to alternatives, that actually rang true with my "gut". I had no idea what attachment parenting was, but when I read about it I thought "right, of course, that's perfect for me". The same is true for me with Unconditional Parenting. Perhaps I would be parenting the same way had I not read such insightful materials, but I don't think I would be as self-assured in it. Especially given the parenting that was modeled to me.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
So then, what is Kohn's practical advice for preventing/stopping aggression among siblings who are less than 2 years apart (and 3 and under)?

My interpretation of his advice would be to instill a sense of morality and empathy. He writes how time-outs often leave the child angry and focusing on the punishment instead of thinking about what got them punished. For example, when a child hits a sibling a parent might say "it really hurts sibling when you hit him, see how sibling is crying? it made sibling sad" or something along those lines.


----------



## emma_goldman

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
My interpretation of his advice would be to instill a sense of morality and empathy. He writes how time-outs often leave the child angry and focusing on the punishment instead of thinking about what got them punished. For example, when a child hits a sibling a parent might say "it really hurts sibling when you hit him, see how sibling is crying? it made sibling sad" or something along those lines.

we did this when we were having problems with my 18 m.o. hitting. It seemed to work. We would practice the emotions with dollies, etc. and talk about how it felt (and we would act it out). If we saw it happening with others (on the playground, etc.) we would stop to talk about it and revisit the subject later.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
"Authentic" mothering only happens when we, as mothers, listen and follow our own instincts...ignoring, or rebelling against the many who would have us believe that we're not good enough.

Well, my instincts are to rage and hit and get into power struggles where I win and get to be in control.

In my opinion, someone--anyone--should tell me that that's not good enough. Because it's not. That's the cycle of abuse.

Alfie Kohn's paradigm helps me shift away from that win/lose, me/them, control/be controlled thought process that is my "go-to" response. When I'm not trying to win a power struggle, there is no need for me to feel like I have to up the ante. There is no ante.

Supernanny, on the other hand, feeds into that instinct to control and win and make the child "do." That's a real slippery slope for me, and I can't imagine how playing out shades of that dynamic in my house isn't going to result in kids who have shades of that instinct when they grow up, too.

If needing the insight and redirection of others makes me not authentic, then that's OK. But left to my own devices? Not so hot.







I'll take all the help I can get.


----------



## babygrace

what i am getting from I-AM-Mother's post is that in the absence of a collective wisdom passed down from generations of mothers/parents, it's all too easy to fall into 'particular schools of parenting', if you will. it's really not about what alfie kohn (or super nanny) thinks how someone should parent (or not parent), but, observing, listening and responding to a child's innate and very individual nature. no one has yet written a 'one size fits all children and households' manual yet. i think.


----------



## Devaya

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Well, my instincts are to rage and hit and get into power struggles where I win and get to be in control.

In my opinion, someone--anyone--should tell me that that's not good enough. Because it's not. That's the cycle of abuse.

Alfie Kohn's paradigm helps me shift away from that win/lose, me/them, control/be controlled thought process that is my "go-to" response. When I'm not trying to win a power struggle, there is no need for me to feel like I have to up the ante. There is no ante.

Supernanny, on the other hand, feeds into that instinct to control and win and make the child "do." That's a real slippery slope for me, and I can't imagine how playing out shades of that dynamic in my house isn't going to result in kids who have shades of that instinct when they grow up, too.

If needing the insight and redirection of others makes me not authentic, then that's OK. But left to my own devices? Not so hot.







I'll take all the help I can get.









:


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
My interpretation of his advice would be to instill a sense of morality and empathy. He writes how time-outs often leave the child angry and focusing on the punishment instead of thinking about what got them punished. For example, when a child hits a sibling a parent might say "it really hurts sibling when you hit him, see how sibling is crying? it made sibling sad" or something along those lines.









We did this, too. Now, virtually every time one of my kids hurts the other, they seem genuinely remorseful afterward. They apologize, hug, and kiss. We never force apologies, and I haven't seen my kids look resentful or detached afterward. We stay connected to them, and they stay connected to us and to each other.

I also haven't seen it mentioned here that time outs are _not_ more effective than UP methods. It's not like one time out will stop bad behavior in it's tracks. The hope is that eventually it will sink in with the child that hitting means time out, and the hitting will stop. Well, talking to your kids accomplishes the same thing. Every time there is hitting, we talk to them, and the message sinks in that hitting hurts, and there are better ways to express your anger or frustration.


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cotopaxi* 
PrennaMama, I have a very similar memory. My parents rarely, rarely used corporal punishment (I have no memory of them doing so, but my mother has told me that I was spanked maybe twice - and she keeps apologizing for it







). But I was sent to my room for time outs.

I remember role playing with stuffed animals with a friend; we were the moms and the stuffed animals were the "kids." We were punishing the animals for various things, and we'd "send them to their rooms" and tell them "Stay there - don't come out no matter what - we don't care if you get sick or die or anything." My mom overheard and was SHOCKED and said something like "Oh, no! But that's not very nice! We don't treat you that way!"

And *obviously* now I realize that of course they would care if I was sick, or 'really' needed something while in time out, and would have taken care of me. But apparently, in my four-year-old black-and-white-seeing mind, I didn't perceive it that way. I don't know why I have such a clear memory of that day - I think it was just my utter confusion as to why she'd be so shocked since in my mind I was just playing out what I thought was happening, you know?

Anyway, the memory has stuck with me for whatever reason, and I'm grateful for the little window of insight into my young child's mind.


This is what I like about Kohn as well. He points out that it really is important how the children view it, not just how we as parents think they should take the message. I know so many parents who (well every other parent I know tbh!) practice the use of punishments, threats, rewards/charts, praise...etc... They are only looking at it through their eyes. But Kohn helps us look at it through the child's eyes. Of course we love our children! We will always love them. But its important that the children know this and see and feel that we love them unconditionally and that using such parenting tactics can really screw this message up because do a 4 year old, the world really is black and white!


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Well, my instincts are to rage and hit and get into power struggles where I win and get to be in control.

In my opinion, someone--anyone--should tell me that that's not good enough. Because it's not. That's the cycle of abuse.

Alfie Kohn's paradigm helps me shift away from that win/lose, me/them, control/be controlled thought process that is my "go-to" response. When I'm not trying to win a power struggle, there is no need for me to feel like I have to up the ante. There is no ante.

Supernanny, on the other hand, feeds into that instinct to control and win and make the child "do." That's a real slippery slope for me, and I can't imagine how playing out shades of that dynamic in my house isn't going to result in kids who have shades of that instinct when they grow up, too.

If needing the insight and redirection of others makes me not authentic, then that's OK. But left to my own devices? Not so hot.







I'll take all the help I can get.

This is the same with me.
In theory, mothers natural instinct is all well and good....like communism...in theory, it sounds great!...But in practice, not always so.
Unfortunately for some, our 'instincts' have been conditioned. This is why our society needs people like Kohn and Pam Leo, etc...
I was raised in foster care. I was raised in abusive homes. What comes 'natural' to me - I know to be conditioned. What comes natural to me is to shout and to hit, etc...I have had enough therapy to know that this is not a good thing and to know that this is not how I want my son (or any other children I may have!) to be raised!
From an anthropological point of view, even with someone who grew up in a 'normal' home with a 'happy' life, etc...I view a lot of things as 'natural' to our society that even I do not agree with. Such as bottle feeding, putting babies in a cot in their own room at a month old, using pushchairs/prams, ignoring a small childs feelings, using size and strength and age in a bully manner against the children, etc...This isnt natural though!...or course its not!... But this is what a lot of parents find come to them through pure instinct because this is what they have been conditioned with. The natural instinct of other cultures can clearly be seen compared to our 'western world'. But even mothers of the massi have to ask the older generation sometimes for advice I am sure. Sure, a lot of this was conditioned as well though.
Some of us are able to step outside of that box and question it. Without much else around to give us the alternative, we turn to books and research and websites such as MDC.
Some of us may have even been lucky though. My son will be the lucky one - I know this. He will turn to his instinct when he has a child of his own. But curiosity being a natural human instinct as well, he will also probably read some books.


----------



## Smalls181

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I really love this...really, really love it.

"Authentic" mothering only happens when we, as mothers, listen and follow our own instincts...ignoring, or rebelling against the many who would have us believe that we're not good enough.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Well, my instincts are to rage and hit and get into power struggles where I win and get to be in control.

In my opinion, someone--anyone--should tell me that that's not good enough. Because it's not. That's the cycle of abuse.

Alfie Kohn's paradigm helps me shift away from that win/lose, me/them, control/be controlled thought process that is my "go-to" response. When I'm not trying to win a power struggle, there is no need for me to feel like I have to up the ante. There is no ante.

Supernanny, on the other hand, feeds into that instinct to control and win and make the child "do." That's a real slippery slope for me, and I can't imagine how playing out shades of that dynamic in my house isn't going to result in kids who have shades of that instinct when they grow up, too.

If needing the insight and redirection of others makes me not authentic, then that's OK. But left to my own devices? Not so hot.







I'll take all the help I can get.

I think the difference is "instinct" and "conditioning". I feel like the need to control, win, and do things to the child are things that we are taught. It was done to us, so we feel we need to do it to them. But in my experience, when I do that to kids, this is where the instinct part kicks in. It doesn't feel right. That is what makes me so grateful for Alfie Kohn and his insights. He validated for me that no, it wasn't right, and it isn't okay, and gave me an alternative way to think about, act towards, and interact with my daughter and all children that I come in contact with.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
My point is -if your household is in need of a supernanny- all of that negotiating, talking, sharing, reasoning, and compromising with your children obviously wasn't working. And to be honest by that time it's usually -but not always- too late.

I'll admit that I've only seen one episode of Supernanny -- but judging by that one episode, as well as what I've heard on this thread about the families that call on Supernanny -- it doesn't sound like these parents are doing a ton of negotiating, talking, sharing, reasoning, and compromising with their children.

It's true that whatever they've been doing doesn't seem to be working -- but I haven't heard anyone on this thread imply that what they were doing was Unconditional Parenting.

Another thing: It's interesting to me that there's criticism of Kohn for not giving more practical advice -- and at the same time there's criticism of Kohn's readers for not following their instincts. Of all the parenting authors I've read, Kohn definitely leans more toward allowing parents room to figure out the specifics.

He challenges us to re-think our parenting philosophy -- then it's pretty much up to us to figure out where we go from there. So in a sense we're developing new instincts and following them.


----------



## donttrustthesystem

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
It sounds like Kohn is envious of Supernanny's success! LOL

And, a few links to studies would be warranted, here:

Seriously.

There are many links to studies in his books. His research is well documented. I would recommend reading them before judging him negatively. In fact, I'm amazed that some people discount his ideas without having read his work.


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I'll admit that I've only seen one episode of Supernanny -- but judging by that one episode, as well as what I've heard on this thread about the families that call on Supernanny -- it doesn't sound like these parents are doing a ton of negotiating, talking, sharing, reasoning, and compromising with their children.

It's true that whatever they've been doing doesn't seem to be working -- but I haven't heard anyone on this thread imply that what they were doing was Unconditional Parenting.

Another thing: It's interesting to me that there's criticism of Kohn for not giving more practical advice -- and at the same time there's criticism of Kohn's readers for not following their instincts. Of all the parenting authors I've read, Kohn definitely leans more toward allowing parents room to figure out the specifics.

He challenges us to re-think our parenting philosophy -- then it's pretty much up to us to figure out where we go from there. So in a sense we're developing new instincts and following them.


Thats another good thing about kohn IMO. ...and thats somethign he points out in his books as well. He pretty much says in UP that his book is not a 5 point plan on how you should parent your child and that there is not going to be step by step advice on how to deal with behaviour. He puts across the parenting philosophy and suggests how we can ease ourselves into it and then leaves it open to us to figure out how that will work and look in our own family setting. Its not a book that says: if your child does this, do this and if your child behaves like this, do this and if your child and at 3PM do this and this....XYZ...etc.. That is exactly what he is trying to steer away from because he realises that all children and all families are different. This is one of the main features that makes his book different. Its not a step by step plan parenting book.


----------



## bente

I have not read the thread, just the op, and I do like Alfie alot







:

The reality television wawe has hit Norway too, where I live. They did start a norwegian supernanny show, but after one season it was banned here. Not for the methods used (which were about the same - maybe a little gentler. Spanking is illegal here). It was taken off the air because it was decided that for the children it was a human rights violation. Children that young have no say so and they have no idea how being on television is going to affect their lives. They are not acting, so filming their private lifes was deemed unethical. I think it was based on som guidlines from Unicef. I was happy when it was taken off the air. And it felt good that the popularity (it was popular) did not "win" over childrens rights.


----------



## PassionateWriter

i find this whole nature vs nurture argument here interesting, yet it begs the question.

we live in a society that for the most part does not respect children.


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bente* 
I have not read the thread, just the op, and I do like Alfie alot







:

The reality television wawe has hit Norway too, where I live. They did start a norwegian supernanny show, but after one season it was banned here. Not for the methods used (which were about the same - maybe a little gentler. Spanking is illegal here). It was taken off the air because it was decided that for the children it was a human rights violation. Children that young have no say so and they have no idea how being on television is going to affect their lives. They are not acting, so filming their private lifes was deemed unethical. I think it was based on som guidlines from Unicef. I was happy when it was taken off the air. And it felt good that the popularity (it was popular) did not "win" over childrens rights.


wow...thats telling


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
wow...thats telling

Yeah, too bad children do not have the same rights here in the USA.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Think of Winter* 
Yeah, too bad children do not have the same rights here in the USA.









I second that emotion!


----------



## rmzbm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *4evermom* 
Control over my child is not my goal.

And I'm quite confident my ds would act as apparently unreasonable as the kids on tv in those circumstances.









(Personally I think those kids are behaving perfectly reasonable considering how they are being ordered about by a stranger, having their parents listening to that stranger instead of them, having sudden radical changes made with no warning or explanation.)

Seriously.

I don't value blind obediance. So supernanny isn't for me. We're raising children, not training dogs...


----------



## mamaofthree

i haven't read everything yet but i felt compeled to post (maybe this has already been touched on)

i think (in general) most people like SN because it makes them feel superior... ie at least my family isn't that messed up. AND because the techniques she uses are the easy way out. it takes alot of work to do unconditional parenting. it takes being present for your children and throwing out all your old thoughts on children. it takes listening to them, really listening to them, putting their needs ahead of your own at times. it means modeling the behavior you want them to do not just popping them in time out when they don't do what you want the way you want it.
as for the co-sleeping and ebf... who is to say what those families really felt like about that. that is all edited so it looks a certain way. i know the families ask her to come in and help but what we see and reality are 2 vastly different things.
when i read alphie kohn's stuff at first i always get defensive because what he says is almostly the exact opposite of what mainstream society is telling us. it is nothing most of us grew up with and no one ever taught us this. it is also something some (if not most) people come to after they have parented a different way for awhile. it is hard to do it, but it is worth it.
you can't zoom down what kohn teaches in to a 30 minute show. he could work with one family for a whole season it takes time and an investment in your children to raise them well. peiople just don't want to take that time. they want quick easy fixes.

h


----------



## rmzbm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree* 
i haven't read everything yet but i felt compeled to post (maybe this has already been touched on)

i think (in general) most people like SN because it makes them feel superior... ie at least my family isn't that messed up. AND because the techniques she uses are the easy way out. it takes alot of work to do unconditional parenting. it takes being present for your children and throwing out all your old thoughts on children. it takes listening to them, really listening to them, putting their needs ahead of your own at times. it means modeling the behavior you want them to do not just popping them in time out when they don't do what you want the way you want it.
as for the co-sleeping and ebf... who is to say what those families really felt like about that. that is all edited so it looks a certain way. i know the families ask her to come in and help but what we see and reality are 2 vastly different things.
when i read alphie kohn's stuff at first i always get defensive because what he says is almostly the exact opposite of what mainstream society is telling us. it is nothing most of us grew up with and no one ever taught us this. it is also something some (if not most) people come to after they have parented a different way for awhile. it is hard to do it, but it is worth it.
you can't zoom down what kohn teaches in to a 30 minute show. he could work with one family for a whole season it takes time and an investment in your children to raise them well. peiople just don't want to take that time. they want quick easy fixes.

h


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree* 
i haven't read everything yet but i felt compeled to post (maybe this has already been touched on)

i think (in general) most people like SN because it makes them feel superior... ie at least my family isn't that messed up. AND because the techniques she uses are the easy way out. it takes alot of work to do unconditional parenting. it takes being present for your children and throwing out all your old thoughts on children. it takes listening to them, really listening to them, putting their needs ahead of your own at times. it means modeling the behavior you want them to do not just popping them in time out when they don't do what you want the way you want it.
as for the co-sleeping and ebf... who is to say what those families really felt like about that. that is all edited so it looks a certain way. i know the families ask her to come in and help but what we see and reality are 2 vastly different things.
when i read alphie kohn's stuff at first i always get defensive because what he says is almostly the exact opposite of what mainstream society is telling us. it is nothing most of us grew up with and no one ever taught us this. it is also something some (if not most) people come to after they have parented a different way for awhile. it is hard to do it, but it is worth it.
you can't zoom down what kohn teaches in to a 30 minute show. he could work with one family for a whole season it takes time and an investment in your children to raise them well. peiople just don't want to take that time. they want quick easy fixes.

h

Yeah, ok.

I disagree with the "oh, we watch supernanny because we like to feel superior" line. If you (general) dislike Supernanny, why watch?

Also, I am irritated by the implication that because I use TO with my son, I am "not invested" in being a parent. Different strokes...as they say.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rmzbm* 
Seriously.

We're raising children, not training dogs...

Funny, I haven't consulted the 'reputable' dog trainers in the area, yet...


----------



## mamaofthree

i don't watch supernanny at all... that being said why else would you watch some family falling apart unless you felt like "Man at least I am not that bad".

and yes I do believe that if you use time out you are not trying to get to the root. why is LO smacking the heck out of older child? don't care at this time ... in time out you go. It takes a long hot time in the kitchen to get the beans just right... you have to put in the time LOADS of it, again and again. i think over all as a society we don't want to take that time. it is a new concept i think to really invest yourself in your kids. i am sure most of us here were not listened to very much, were hit or yelled at or sat in a corner or all three. and lots of people say "I turned out OK." But that time out is a withdrawl of love whether you mean it to be or not. I believe that we are telling our kids when we put them in TO that "I don't want to be with you..." and they see/hear "I don't love you" why else would they cry? Try and get out again and again?
and why on earth does everyone need so many studies to tell them that what they are doing is damaging if you "know" inside that you feel bad doing it?

h


----------



## paquerette

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
what i am getting from I-AM-Mother's post is that in the absence of a collective wisdom passed down from generations of mothers/parents, it's all too easy to fall into 'particular schools of parenting', if you will.

I think that many people have a perception that that was how things were in "the good old days" before modern society ruined everything. I see this a lot as a student of history; people have gotten a certain idea about how everything was "back then", ie any time prior to the twentieth century (women always had long hair and long skirts and were oppressed, men were hardworking, children were obedient, etc). The thing is, the more you look at history the more you realise that there's nothing new under the sun. Everything cycles, the pendulum is always swinging, it's all been done before. Even parenting fads have been coming and going for centuries.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree* 
i don't watch supernanny at all... that being said why else would you watch some family falling apart unless you felt like "Man at least I am not that bad".

I watch it because I'm interested in discipline and way our culture treats children and I'm fascinated by the glimpse into other people's lives/homes/outlooks. I also like to be able to have a concrete understanding of what exactly the "mainstream" culture is advocating/practicing so when I discuss it or contemplate it I have specific examples to draw from.....not just some vague notion that "children aren't heard," or "treated respectfully."

Sometimes it gets into my head, though, and reaffirms those, "They just need to listen," tapes and that messes up what I'm trying to do with my family. So I take breaks from watching it.


----------



## KaraBoo

I agree that Kohn's way doesn't make for "good television." (Did I post this already? LOL) But SuperNanny's way isn't "good parenting," imo.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
what i am getting from I-AM-Mother's post is that in the absence of a collective wisdom passed down from generations of mothers/parents, it's all too easy to fall into 'particular schools of parenting', if you will. it's really not about what alfie kohn (or super nanny) thinks how someone should parent (or not parent), but, observing, listening and responding to a child's innate and very individual nature. no one has yet written a 'one size fits all children and households' manual yet. i think.

sort of.

i think, what i have been seeing overall in some of the most "crunchy" mothers is a total lack of confidence or control over her children and her home.

in my quest to connect with mothers and women like me, i've attended more than a few groups, meetings and classes on natural parenting. however, it seems like this new style of parenting has caused lots of mothers to doubt themselves and trust the experts ---which i have NO problem with ---but when will they buy the books *and* believe in themselves.

all i hear are a bunch of "i have no clue...."

and the really sad thing --for me, is the number of children who are now saying things like "i don't want to have any children because they are hard to handle."

a child who suckles at your breast is "hard to handle?"

i think my main point is that I see the same problems occurring in the homes of AP as those who choose other methods, which is really sad because the philosophy behind natural parenting is wonderful and much more nurturing to the spirit of a child than spanking, yelling, and threatening.

because when it comes down to it, I just don't understand the lack of respect some of the most breast-fed, organic eating, co-sleeping, baby wearing, home birthed children are showing their parents especially their mothers, especially their mothers.

and what bothers me the most is the denial that is taking place in the minds of the parents. the enabling, and justifying that is going on when you bring up some of these issues.

i had to "call out" the facilitator and speaker of a natural parenting group i was attending one day when her six year old son knocked a sesame cracker out of my hand. of course, she spoke to him and afterwards gave a 10 minute lecture about how he didn't understand this and that.

i listened...but so did her son and i saw in his that he understood exactly what he had done.

not even 10 minutes later, her son walked over to where i was sitting on the floor, looked at his mother and made a swinging motion with his hand, like he was going to smack me.

i stood up, he looked straight into the eyes and said, "if you smack something else from out of my mouth, or put your hand in my face again, we are going to have a problem."

like my grandmother use to say "a stern word has never killed anyone."


----------



## mbravebird

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
What research does he base his parenting theories on (sorry, I don't have the book to check for myself)?

Hi, it's sort of random that I'm on this thread, as I don't hang out here much anymore, but I noticed that noone addressed this question, and it's a good question...

Kohn's book is one of the most well-researched out there when it comes to parenting. Which might not make a difference, because that's not how most of us choose our parenting style, but I did want to state that he cites extensive research. I knew about some of that research when I was in graduate school, and was so glad when he came out with the book, because it brought the research more into the mainstream, instead of just in the psychology world.

There really are so many studies that it's impossible to re-type all the citations here. Each chapter has several accompanying pages of research notes, in addition to 11 pages of citations in the final references section. If you're into research, it's really an interesting read.

Again, doesn't mean that you have to agree with it, but it is *very* well researched and supported by research. Studies as recent as 2007 continue to replicate the results gotten from studies that Kohn cited.

That said, it doesn't necessarily fit each family, which is completely appropriate, IMO. We all have our own best path, and only each family is really in the position to know what that is.

HTH with the discussion.


----------



## lolalola

Thanks for addressing my question, I appreciate it.

I don't doubt that his books are well-researched. I am just curious about his theoretical framework with respect to psychology. I can't seem to find anything on-line.

Thanks for your perspective


----------



## PrennaMama

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*


<snip>
So, I guess we're all just following our instincts, huh? -- unless we're not. Now that's profound -- but I'm not sure if I understand enough of what I really meant to clarify, Prennamama!




















Quote:



Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*


<snip>
If needing the insight and redirection of others makes me not authentic, then that's OK. But left to my own devices? Not so hot.







I'll take all the help I can get.










Mm-hmm. I was abused, and the instinct is there... to reach out and smack, or grab... to scream, threaten, and coerce. Many in generations before us suffered far worse, and I believe that in some of our lineage, that abuse has dwindled and diluted. But for some of us, it's there, like a shadow haunting what should be pleasant memories that guide us in our parenting.

So I read like a mad-woman and attend workshops and classes just to stay ahead of that inclination and squash it in my generation. And I've watched SN. I watched it when nothing better was on, I was bored, and intrigued. As a former nanny, I thought, "Huh! Well that's what folks called _me!_ This'll be good..."

I watched it about 5 times, maybe? I was pretty shocked and appalled at most of what I saw and it didn't jibe with what I was learning from the 'experts', so I was confused. I never nannied like that... and this chick got a freakin' _show??_ Of course someone like Kohn would blast her!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *babygrace*


what i am getting from I-AM-Mother's post is that in the absence of a collective wisdom passed down from generations of mothers/parents, it's all too easy to fall into 'particular schools of parenting', if you will. it's really not about what alfie kohn (or super nanny) thinks how someone should parent (or not parent), but, observing, listening and responding to a child's innate and very individual nature. no one has yet written a 'one size fits all children and households' manual yet. i think.


And as a matter of fact, I sometimes encounter parents who DO get into this sort of _subscription_ mentality. That once they subscribe to this or that philosophy or approach, that's it... it's the Word, and any false idols ought to be ignored. I think it _can_ be easy for some folks to kinda pick sides, as it were.

But I try to give most folks the benefit of the doubt that if they have it 'together' enough to pick up reading books on parenting-approaches, then they have it together enough to work out what's best for their family. And take it from as many or as few sources as they need... Take what you like, leave the rest.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bente*


I have not read the thread, just the op, and I do like Alfie alot







:

The reality television wawe has hit Norway too, where I live. They did start a norwegian supernanny show, but after one season it was banned here. Not for the methods used (which were about the same - maybe a little gentler. Spanking is illegal here). It was taken off the air because it was decided that for the children it was a human rights violation. Children that young have no say so and they have no idea how being on television is going to affect their lives. They are not acting, so filming their private lifes was deemed unethical. I think it was based on som guidlines from Unicef. I was happy when it was taken off the air. And it felt good that the popularity (it was popular) did not "win" over childrens rights.


I find that incredible and impressive. Go Norway!!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Think of Winter*


Yeah, too bad children do not have the same rights here in the USA.




















Quote:



Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother*


<snip> i think, what i have been seeing overall in some of the most "crunchy" mothers is a total lack of confidence or control over her children and her home. <snip>

i think my main point is that I see the same problems occurring in the homes of AP as those who choose other methods, which is really sad because the philosophy behind natural parenting is wonderful and much more nurturing to the spirit of a child than spanking, yelling, and threatening.


Any home with _children_ in it is going to have a lot of the same things going on. AP and natural parenting isn't some cure-all snake oil. There isn't a promise on the back of the AP packaging that promises Attachment Parenting will heal children of that which ails them, make them controllable, or make them listen and behave. Control isn't the point of parenting... is it?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother*


because when it comes down to it, I just don't understand the lack of respect some of the most breast-fed, organic eating, co-sleeping, baby wearing, home birthed children are showing their parents especially their mothers, especially their mothers.

and what bothers me the most is the denial that is taking place in the minds of the parents. the enabling, and justifying that is going on when you bring up some of these issues.


Kohn's approach, and others as well, (even Supernanny's) speak directly to respect. However, repsect is a concept. A big one. And it is best taught (in my observation and experience) by showing it. It can't be explained, diagrammed, or outlined for your typical child. We use the Virues Project a LOT these days (actually I posted a thread about it here in GD) and it's amazing the change in dd's demeanor since we started speaking about virtues such as respect, acknowledging her when I see her 'using her respect', and helping to facilitate leaps in her understanding of such a concept when things go wonky, like when she tests to see if my unconditional love and acceptance will hold when she threatens to totally bug out on some nice unsuspecting parent at a *P*arents*A*s*L*earners meeting. (She's met with a a respectful request to excuse herself, as it's not okl to walk into a meeting and disrupt, generally followed by me excusing myself to walk her out, but sometimes met with 'compliance')

But *I-AM*, I have seen some of what you posted about... AP moms at their wits end, just like (or more so even, than) the mainstream moms, being blatantly, _wontonly_ *dis*respected and walked on by their children. It's extremely frustrating to see that. But it's all in how we react to it. ALL kids test. Some kids get a spanking for it, and have revenge fantasies that over-ride any lesson that may have been learned about the behavior. Some kids get widely lectured for it, and at the end, are bored and resentful. Some kids get a turn the other cheek reaction, and mom looks wishy-washy because she didn't disgrace, punish, or shame her child for it, but rather honored the person that child is by saying, "I love you anyway. I choose not to be part of this power-struggle..." etc.

Which children would you rather _your_ kids kick it with? The bored resentful one, the angry vengeful one, or the one who has seen respect first hand?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother*


i had to "call out" the facilitator and speaker of a natural parenting group i was attending one day when her six year old son knocked a sesame cracker out of my hand. of course, she spoke to him and afterwards gave a 10 minute lecture about how he didn't understand this and that.

i listened...but so did her son and i saw in his that he understood exactly what he had done.

not even 10 minutes later, her son walked over to where i was sitting on the floor, looked at his mother and made a swinging motion with his hand, like he was going to smack me.

i stood up, he looked straight into the eyes and said, "if you smack something else from out of my mouth, or put your hand in my face again, we are going to have a problem."

like my grandmother use to say "a stern word has never killed anyone."












No, but stern words to often rob a child of their trust, security, and joy.

As a mom who has reacted in a possibly inappropriate manner to another woman's child who was _trying_ to get my goat _and_ her mother's, I gotta say it.... that was probably not a moment that either Kohn, Supernanny, nor any other 'expert' would endorse.

Peace.

Sincerely.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Any home with _children_ in it is going to have a lot of the same things going on. AP and natural parenting isn't some cure-all snake oil. There isn't a promise on the back of the AP packaging that promises Attachment Parenting will heal children of that which ails them, make them controllable, or make them listen and behave. Control isn't the point of parenting... is it?

^Yeah, what she said!

Quote:

like when she tests to see if my unconditional love and acceptance will hold when she threatens to totally bug out on some nice unsuspecting parent at a *P*arents*A*s*L*earners meeting.
And I have to wonder if this is what was happening with the 6yo at I-AM-Mother's meeting. The mother was the speaker, right?

Quote:

But it's all in how we react to it.
Exactly!

Quote:

ALL kids test. Some kids get a spanking for it, and have revenge fantasies that over-ride any lesson that may have been learned about the behavior. Some kids get widely lectured for it, and at the end, are bored and resentful. *Some kids get a turn the other cheek reaction, and mom looks wishy-washy because she didn't disgrace, punish, or shame her child for it, but rather honored the person that child is by saying, "I love you anyway. I choose not to be part of this power-struggle..." etc.*
Bolding mine. Yes, it says a lot for a mama, when she cares more about her connection with her child than she does about looking like she has it "together" to all the onlookers, especially during embarrassing moments such as having your child act up while you're the speaker at a parenting meeting.


----------



## chfriend

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i stood up, he looked straight into the eyes and said, "if you smack something else from out of my mouth, or put your hand in my face again, we are going to have a problem."


What would you have done if he did?


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
What would you have done if he did?

You know, while I don't agree with the other poster's criticism of the mom, I don't necessarily think it's wrong for us to set boundaries with someone else's child who's getting into our space. I wouldn't be threatening about it -- but a simple, "Hey, this is *my* space!" or something should suffice.

I probably wouldn't say anything the first time someone else's child knocked something out of my hand -- I wouldn't even call it to the parent's attention. But if the child kept bumping into me and stuff, I probably would just quietly say something to the child. Not "If you do this again, we're going to have a problem" -- but "Hey, you keep bumping into me! Please watch where you're going."

I generally don't want other people "disciplining" my children -- but I don't have a problem with someone making a comment like that to my child ... just to get opinions -- would anyone else be offended by that? A few weeks ago, I was visiting with a friend at the park and didn't notice that my 3yo was pressing her foot down on my friend's son's hand.

She quickly said something and my 3yo stopped. I suppose she could've called my attention to it, but it would have meant that her child felt the pain for a moment longer. I had no problem with that mother stopping her child's pain. And I wouldn't have a problem with someone protecting her own space and belongings from my child, either. As long as she wasn't violent or threatening to my child.


----------



## monkey's mom

Stating a boundary or like or dislike, requesting to stop, asking for something--no problem whatsoever. Isn't that what we do with anyone?

Threatening would be a big problem. I would be taken aback if I heard that exchange--especially at an AP event.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i think my main point is that I see the same problems occurring in the homes of AP as those who choose other methods, which is really sad because the philosophy behind natural parenting is wonderful and much more nurturing to the spirit of a child than spanking, yelling, and threatening.

because when it comes down to it, I just don't understand the lack of respect some of the most breast-fed, organic eating, co-sleeping, baby wearing, home birthed children are showing their parents especially their mothers, especially their mothers.

and what bothers me the most is the denial that is taking place in the minds of the parents. the enabling, and justifying that is going on when you bring up some of these issues.

i had to "call out" the facilitator and speaker of a natural parenting group i was attending one day when her six year old son knocked a sesame cracker out of my hand. of course, she spoke to him and afterwards gave a 10 minute lecture about how he didn't understand this and that.

i listened...but so did her son and i saw in his that he understood exactly what he had done.

not even 10 minutes later, her son walked over to where i was sitting on the floor, looked at his mother and made a swinging motion with his hand, like he was going to smack me.

i stood up, he looked straight into the eyes and said, "if you smack something else from out of my mouth, or put your hand in my face again, we are going to have a problem."

like my grandmother use to say "a stern word has never killed anyone."

The fact is that kids test and act up. Whether a child is "good" or not often depends on the day and the situation much more than the parenting.

What a parenting philosophy or framework seeks to do is to response to that reality. And yes, some philosophies are very focused on control, and some are not.

I think where AP _philosophy_ differs is that it frames discipline in terms of both appropriate developmental capability and connection. So I think in general terms an "AP approach" to discipline seeks to steer the development of a child's social skills and self-discipline in the context of an attached and connected family.

Ignoring a child's misbehaviour is to me actually a failure of AP because a connected, engaged adult will be "off their butt" parenting and guiding and redirecting the child.

At the same time, I think a connected, engaged family doesn't always have to frame every misdeed as a colossal failure of respect.

I think sometimes AP (temporary) failures are common at ages where children are less motivated by connection - 3.5 - 4.5 sort of being the key transition where parents may be playing catch up on how connection works when it's not as symbiotic as it is in babyhood and early toddlerhood.

I don't think I personally would have made the leap from "this child is having a problem" to "this child has no concept of respect and will never learn it." 6 year olds often test random adults the way 3.5 year olds test their mothers. I think it was fine for him to learn that it would upset you; that's kind of what that random testing of social conventions is all about.

But I don't think it means his parents failed. I'm not sure where you make the leap from the way the mother handled it to denial, etc.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Also, I am irritated by the implication that because I use TO with my son, I am "not invested" in being a parent. Different strokes...as they say.

I just got back to this thread, and I just wanted to say that for me personally I like the bar that Barbara Coloroso sets - any technique that works that preserves the dignity of the parent and the child is okay.

I have seen implementations of time out that clearly did that. We have one in our house "You hit, you sit" (straight out of Coloroso).

The ones on Supernanny often don't to me though, when they are 3 hour protracted battles.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
But *I-AM*, I have seen some of what you posted about... AP moms at their wits end, just like (or more so even, than) the mainstream moms, being blatantly, _wontonly_ *dis*respected and walked on by their children. It's extremely frustrating to see that.

yes, you are right!

i post about what i do as a mother, and what i see as a person/mother/woman/friend. that's all there is to do on this site. we share with other woman and mothers our experiences with AP, we vent, we criticize, we support, ect. but, i see and hear more horror stories first hand.

after my middle child was born and i move back into the us, i stopped going to AP groups because more women came into the weekly meeting ready to cry, fighting with their child, and it was hard to hear the books being suggested, the cd's being recommended, the latest technique that actually worked for one of us. it was too much going on.

Should I not be disgusted and a bit surprised?

for the record, i don't watch supernanny because as one of the other ladies said i won't watch a family in shambles. i have watched it with one of my neighbors before, and she really enjoyed it.

i must say i have found my balance.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
What would you have done if he did?

i wasn't worried about that.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Threatening would be a big problem. I would be taken aback if I heard that exchange--especially at an AP event.









i was not threatening her son. in fact, i used the SAME EXACT words his mother did. (it's a trick i have learned)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I don't think I personally would have made the leap from "this child is having a problem" to "this child has no concept of respect and will never learn it." 6 year olds often test random adults the way 3.5 year olds test their mothers. I think it was fine for him to learn that it would upset you; that's kind of what that random testing of social conventions is all about.

But I don't think it means his parents failed. I'm not sure where you make the leap from the way the mother handled it to denial, etc.

okay, i re-read my last post and should clarify that his mother was not as all in denial. i should have finished the rest of the story.thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Control isn't the point of parenting... is it?

i don't see the point in discussing with parents the point of parenting.... but to answer your question, No!

however, parents especially mothers need to have much more confidence in their ability to raise their children.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i was not threatening her son. in fact, i used the SAME EXACT words his mother did. (it's a trick i have learned)

Sorry, standing up (over a child) and speaking sternly with those words sounds like threatening and intimidation to me. Both in language and in the manner you describe.

Maybe it looked a lot different in person....I don't know.

Kohn would want to know how the kid perceived it.









I'm all for telling a strange kid, "Stop! Please don't do that." But I can't get behind much else of what you've written.


----------



## Enudely

I want to read this thread later


----------



## chfriend

So you said exactly what the mother said and it "worked." But the mom is an example of someone without the confidence to control her children and home?

I'm still confused on your point.

I have lots of confidence in my ability to parent my children. But, just from what I can tell from your posts, a much higher opinion of other gentle mothers.

I'm assuming our experiences of other gentle mothers are different.

I'm glad Mr. Kohn spoke up. I agree with Norway's stance on children participating in reality programs. I wish the US networks would voluntarily adopt that standard.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
after my middle child was born and i move back into the us, i stopped going to AP groups because more women came into the weekly meeting ready to cry, fighting with their child, and it was hard to hear the books being suggested, the cd's being recommended, the latest technique that actually worked for one of us. it was too much going on.

Should I not be disgusted and a bit surprised?

Just so long as you realize that in *every* family (yours included), some behaviors are bound to surface that will get a "disgusted and surprised" reaction from onlookers!

Speaking for myself, I think a lot of my family's issues stem from me doing an about-face in many of my parenting-views *after* becoming a mother. Before marriage, dh and I agreed on using spanking and other punishments to "discipline" our children.

It all seemed so simple back then. But through mothering, as well as through reading various ideas that backed up my instinctual feeling that it was wrong to harden myself against my children and start separating "wants" from "needs," etcetera -- well, to sum it all up, I stopped seeing the family as a battleground where Mommy and Daddy are supposed to present a "united front" against the beloved "enemy," their children.

Dh and I have been having lots of dialogs, and he's been moving more and more into the Gentle Discipline way of looking at things. But I think he often feels like I'm siding with our girls against him. Which means our homelife often looks less peaceful to onlookers (and feels less peaceful to our children) than it likely would if I'd stuck with my original agreement and presented a united front with dh.

It also looks less peaceful than it likely would if dh and I had both studied up and embraced Gentle Discipline before having children.

It's just where we are right now. It's a reality that I deal with, the knowledge that my children haven't been growing up totally enveloped in Unconditional Parenting and Gentle Discipline -- and not just because of dh not being on the same page -- but because it's taken *me* a while to get on this page as well, and to become more consistent, or integrated, within myself.

I'm not trying to generalize about "all" UP/GD/AP families -- but I think a great many are dealing with similar inconsistencies to the ones I've just shared about -- within their marriages/partnerships, as well as within themselves. I don't know about families of the past -- but I'm guessing that our modern culture has a much greater exchange of ideas, with an accompanying tendency toward one person making more rapid changes within his or her own lifetime.

Meaning, people tend to look "inconsistent," even while they're actually on the journey toward becoming more consistent and integrated, people of integrity. The key is to get in-tune and stay in-tune with our children, because this inconsistency is very hard on them. This is a big concern of mine as I continue on my journey toward integrity.


----------



## liz-hippymom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
I love Supernanny. I'm all for parents actually being the one in control of the home.

i agree. and the article was written by someone who hasn't watched many episodes, because she is saying that ms. frost never looks into the deeper reasons as to why the parents parent as they do, and she certainly does! especially this last season. she works with some pretty messed up situations and taylors her approach to work for each family. I







: jo!


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I just got back to this thread, and I just wanted to say that for me personally I like the bar that Barbara Coloroso sets - *any technique that works that preserves the dignity of the parent and the child is okay*.

I have seen implementations of time out that clearly did that. We have one in our house "You hit, you sit" (straight out of Coloroso).

The ones on Supernanny often don't to me though, when they are 3 hour protracted battles.

I'd agree with this. It sounds like a good balance between extremes.

I don't enjoy watching the time out battles a la Supernanny; the level of frustration is palpable. However, I've read about mamas here, spending hours 'negotiating' with their four year olds over 'going/leaving someplace, getting into a carseat, putting on shoes....etc'. I fail to understand how that cannot be interpreted as a battle of sorts (just more of an inward one for mom).

I mean, if the end result is the same...how is it more respectful (and less exhausting) towards a child to spend hours negotiating with them to get them to do what you want, than it is to outline specific expectations for their behaviour? Serious question.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I mean, if the end result is the same...how is it more respectful (and less exhausting) towards a child to spend hours negotiating with them to get them to do what you want, than it is to outline specific expectations for their behaviour? Serious question.

What it does for me is help me to hone down my list of what it's really important to "get" someone to do.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I'd agree with this. It sounds like a good balance between extremes.

I don't enjoy watching the time out battles a la Supernanny; the level of frustration is palpable. However, I've read about mamas here, spending hours 'negotiating' with their four year olds over 'going/leaving someplace, getting into a carseat, putting on shoes....etc'. I fail to understand how that cannot be interpreted as a battle of sorts (just more of an inward one for mom).

I mean, if the end result is the same...how is it more respectful (and less exhausting) towards a child to spend hours negotiating with them to get them to do what you want, than it is to outline specific expectations for their behaviour? Serious question.

Well just speaking for myself, I don't spend hours negotiating. But I will negotiate or compromise sometimes, I just make my mind up faster than hours.









For example... if my son really has to come with me or we really have to go outside, then there is really no negotiating on those particulars.

I might see if reminding him that we'll hit the playground after the doctor (or whatever) helps. I might let him go shoeless into the car. I might let him scream and yell and express his anger. I might ask him if getting a toy (that he already has) to bring along would help.

If he is saying he doesn't want to go and we don't have to go, I make a decision about that quickly too. Then the negotiations are over and he's "won," and I think that's fine.

Over time (and of course we're still at the early stages of it) I have found that when I do "give in" when I can, it actually seems to work better when I can't. (I am explicit about both.)

This is what I think the "parents must maintain control at all costs" environment kind of misses at times. That sometimes - actually more often than not, in my admittedly limited experience - giving in is just fine. I guess I have faith that it models the behaviour I actually want, which is for him to compromise too.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Well just speaking for myself, I don't spend hours negotiating. But I will negotiate or compromise sometimes, I just make my mind up faster than hours.









For example... if my son really has to come with me or we really have to go outside, then there is really no negotiating on those particulars.

I might see if reminding him that we'll hit the playground after the doctor (or whatever) helps. I might let him go shoeless into the car. I might let him scream and yell and express his anger. I might ask him if getting a toy (that he already has) to bring along would help.

If he is saying he doesn't want to go and we don't have to go, I make a decision about that quickly too. Then the negotiations are over and he's "won," and I think that's fine.

Over time (and of course we're still at the early stages of it) I have found that when I do "give in" when I can, it actually seems to work better when I can't. (I am explicit about both.)

This is what I think the "parents must maintain control at all costs" environment kind of misses at times. That sometimes - actually more often than not, in my admittedly limited experience - giving in is just fine. I guess I have faith that it models the behaviour I actually want, which is for him to compromise too.

Ditto! I like that!




































:







:


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
This is what I think the "parents must maintain control at all costs" environment kind of misses at times. That sometimes - actually more often than not, in my admittedly limited experience - giving in is just fine. I guess I have faith that it models the behaviour I actually want, which is for him to compromise too.

In fairness, with respect to Supernany, the families she deals with seem to have no control over their childrens behaviour. So it's not so much about 'parents maintaining control at all costs', but actually (re) establishing a healthy relationship/connection between parents and children.

Most families that I know (ours included) give in, at times. And, I agree that modelling the behaviour I want, does in fact produce great results.


----------



## Just1More

You people always keep me up all night reading something... (c:

But, I'm finally done with this thread and I have a few things to say.

1.) Definitions really, really matter. When I say "time out", and you say "time out" we may have VERY different meanings. When I say "blue boat", and you think "blue boat" it is almost a guarantee (unless we were both just on a blue boat together, I suppose), that our mental images are not even remotely similar. So, until you know FOR SURE what a "time out" looks like in someone else's home...how do you KNOW that it FOR SURE is a withdrawl of love, and a casting away of the child? Impossible... (however, for the record, I don't use time outs, shaming, etc.)

2.) And now that the bit about definitions is out there, it's not fair to use the word "gentle discipline" to decribe what you are doing...(and this has been bugging me for some time). It IMMEDIATELY confers the image of violence on anyone who disagrees with you. Well, things are not always as they seem. I'm not claiming to know who is and who is not truly "gentle" to and with their children, but it annoys me to the hilt that as soon as someone claims "gentle discipline" the other party has to defend why they are NOT violent. That's silly and unproductive.

I do have an honest question though...if you don't spank (I'm NOT advocating!), time out, punish, etc...how do you MAKE a child do something it doesn't want to do? Like, the part where someone mentioned you then take the child by the hand and lead them to the bathtub? So, your 5 old (those can be pretty big boys, right?) throws himself down and refuses to go when you tell him to take a bath. So you take his arm and what? drag him down the hallway? And then, while he's kicking and screaming you strip him of his clothes and toss him in? I'd like to think the answer is "obvioiusly NOT". That seems awful to me. The kid has already not had a bath for 2 weeks because you've not been pushing the issue. You could get really creative and start visiting a pool daily for the sake of the water and the chlorine, and call it good, I suppose, but in both cases, what is it the child learns? One, might makes right, and the other...only my will matters and I can make others do what I want by any means possible. I guess, at some point, your children will HAVE to do something they don't want to do, no matter how CL you try to be. So, how do you MAKE them?

Whatever the case, and however you choose to discipline your children, the PP was right that there is a BIG problem out there. I know A LOT of VERY WILD children who are growing up to be VERY WILD teenagers, and it's just getting worse. When you hear of things like an 8 year old nearly choking his teacher to death at school...and then learn there were 2 other instances in nearby school the same week....that's a problem. Or when you know that in a particular public school Kindergarden class in small town America, a FIVE YEAR OLD has needed (according to the school) a PHYSICAL TAKEDOWN (for his violence to the teacher and other students, and his total outburts...he had to be physically restrained and removed for the sake of safety) of more than 1 teacher daily for the space of a month before different school arrangements could be made...that's a problem. When my dd can't make new friends because ALL the children her age are so VIOLENT and ANGRY, she isn't safe among them...that's a problem. And when I talk to my friends and look around me, that's not an isolated problem. We, as Americans, are doing something wrong. And, I guess, I'm just glad that anyone is trying to help. I think more than doing it "right" or even "ideally", more importantly is that you just DO something deliberatly and not just muddle along. Have a plan and work your plan, even if you tweak it along the way.

I have some things to say about "time outs", but I can't get the words right, and it's getting later by the second. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.

(c:


----------



## nichole

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree* 
you can't zoom down what kohn teaches in to a 30 minute show. he could work with one family for a whole season it takes time and an investment in your children to raise them well. peiople just don't want to take that time. they want quick easy fixes.

h

That would be a neat show.

One thing I don't like about super nanny is that she is a nanny, not a parent. What nannies do is valuable and hard work. BUT it is not the same thing as being a parent so I have trouble relating. She can't know what it is like to wake up with your own child vomiting in the middle of the night, worried sick. She can't know what it is like to obsess over the decision to vaccinate or what school to send her child to. She can't know what it is like to take a delicious nap with her sweet baby. She can't know what it is like to forget the power struggle and just have an all out fun wrestling or chasing match in the living room. So it is difficult for me to take her advice when she just sweeps in there for a few day (hours?) and puts a bandaid on a few problems.

She uses techniques that might be better than what the parents were doing before, but they are just techniques in a vacuum, not the big picture. Parenting is a journey. We are going to make mistakes. But I guess I prefer a documentary where the parenting is real and something that works for that family.

The show is about sensationalism and editing, not how to be a good parent.


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
I think that many people have a perception that that was how things were in "the good old days" before modern society ruined everything. I see this a lot as a student of history; people have gotten a certain idea about how everything was "back then", ie any time prior to the twentieth century (women always had long hair and long skirts and were oppressed, men were hardworking, children were obedient, etc). The thing is, the more you look at history the more you realise that there's nothing new under the sun. Everything cycles, the pendulum is always swinging, it's all been done before. Even parenting fads have been coming and going for centuries.

that was not my point. what i am trying to say, is that, even today there are many old cultures around the world where women can tap into wisdom gleaned from those in the immediate family and extended community for much of pregnancy, labor, birth and parenting related issues. so there is a varied pool of experiences to share and relate to. quite different than experts touting a specific way/brand of parenting and parents seeing different results based on particular family dynamics.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
that was not my point. what i am trying to say, is that, even today there are many old cultures around the world where women can tap into wisdom gleaned from those in the immediate family and extended community for much of pregnancy, labor, birth and parenting related issues. so there is a varied pool of experiences to share and relate to. quite different than experts touting a specific way/brand of parenting and parents seeing different results based on particular family dynamics.

OH, that's what you were saying. YES, that's EXACTLY what I WAS saying but i didn't get all of that from your previous post. please forgive me, i don't know what i was doing when i read it but i didn't get that at that time...which is why i said "sort of."

it was the the "school of parenting" that confused me.

but, yes that is what i was saying was missing for us here. we are not really truly connected to other mothers.


----------



## waiflywaif

Quote:

She uses techniques that might be better than what the parents were doing before, but they are just techniques in a vacuum, not the big picture. Parenting is a journey. We are going to make mistakes. But I guess I prefer a documentary where the parenting is real and something that works for that family.
This was my point earlier, though. The parents on the show have NO techniques. NONE. They are in serious crisis mode. They need just to get through the day.

She does talk about love and connection. It seems to me that once the child is less angry and not making everyone else's life a living hell with the acting-out behaviors, the true journey can begin.

I am not a huge fan, and I don't use her techniques. But it seems unfair to judge her show for not being a different show (your above-mentioned "documentary"). That would be cool, but that's not what it is and not what it is meant to be either.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I'd agree with this. It sounds like a good balance between extremes.

I don't enjoy watching the time out battles a la Supernanny; the level of frustration is palpable. However, I've read about mamas here, spending hours 'negotiating' with their four year olds over 'going/leaving someplace, getting into a carseat, putting on shoes....etc'. I fail to understand how that cannot be interpreted as a battle of sorts (just more of an inward one for mom).

I mean, if the end result is the same...how is it more respectful (and less exhausting) towards a child to spend hours negotiating with them to get them to do what you want, than it is to outline specific expectations for their behaviour? Serious question.

I've been hanging out in this forum for years and I have never seen anyone say they have spent "hours" negotiating the things you mention. If that really is the case, then I would suggest that that is faaaaar from the norm of what most moms here do.

In any event, there is nothing that says one can't outline specific expectations for behaviour and negotiate without punishment. I tell my kids all the time what the situation is and what's going to be appropriate and what my patience level is and all sorts of expectations. None of that precludes discussion or negotiations.

And, really, I'm not negotiating with them "to get them to do what I want," so much as I'm negotiating with them so that we all get a say and feel heard and, in as much is possible, we all get to do what we want.


----------



## cotopaxi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I've been hanging out in this forum for years and I have never seen anyone say they have spent "hours" negotiating the things you mention. If that really is the case, then I would suggest that that is faaaaar from the norm of what most moms here do.

Oh, I have, although I'm sure it is by far the exception - I think people are driven to post about those experiences precisely because they're like ACK- HELP - I have a big issue!- here rather than the other 100 interactions that went great. I remember one thread in particular about getting into the carseat, and a number of mamas reported hanging out for 1-2 hours in the parking lot because they couldn't get their kids into the carseat. So, she's not making things up, lol.

But:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just1More* 
if you don't spank (I'm NOT advocating!), time out, punish, etc...how do you MAKE a child do something it doesn't want to do?
...
your 5 old (those can be pretty big boys, right?) throws himself down and refuses to go when you tell him to take a bath. So you take his arm and what? drag him down the hallway?
...
You could get really creative and start visiting a pool daily for the sake of the water and the chlorine,

Happily it rarely comes to this, IME. Disclaimer - I'm mainly talking about nannying/babysitting experience here, as my LO is only one. But I have 20 years of experience as a nanny and babysitter, and I _never_, not once have had to punish a child, even with a time-out, nor have I yelled or shamed or threatened. And we always got at least the essentials taken care of as far as hygiene and safety. Approaching the situation creatively and with good humor goes miles - nearly every child I worked with responded well to making a hated task into a game, to patient and gentle explanations of why the task was important, working out a compromise after finding out what in particular the child objected to, and/or to getting help with the task.

With the bathtime example - I often brought colored bath tablets along (with the parents' okay). I don't recall ever caring for a 5-year-old who wasn't so flipping excited to use them that he refused the bath that night. Or sometimes if I asked sincerely and patiently, I learned that what the child really didn't want was to get soap in her eyes, so we'd work on a way to do the shampoo more carefully.

Not that there is never a situation where these techniques don't work in the moment. And in those cases, yes, sometimes someone went to bed stinky. But never for 2 weeks straight. And to me going to bed stinky once is okay, compared to using threats/punishment etc. or as you say physically dragging a child down the hall.

ETA: Now, very very occasionally there's a situation of immediate danger where I've had to use physical force, like intercepting a child from running into the street, climbing onto something dangerous, or throwing a heavy object at his sister's head, but at that point I'm not using it as a discipline technique, just an emergency reaction.


----------



## rmzbm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Funny, I haven't consulted the 'reputable' dog trainers in the area, yet...









Maybe try Suppernanny then, I'd say she qualifies.


----------



## karina5

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
*I've been hanging out in this forum for years and I have never seen anyone say they have spent "hours" negotiating the things you mention. If that really is the case,* then I would suggest that that is faaaaar from the norm of what most moms here do.
.


I don't even post that much these days but I can think of 2 examples of this off the top of my head. Yes, there are people here that will negotiate for hours. This is why I am not an extreme CL type of parent. I just don't have time for that, lol.


----------



## Dr.Worm

Thank you, captain crunchy! And that saying about the road to h-e double hockey sticks has always been one of my favorite sayings because it is so very true!!!!


----------



## paquerette

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just1More* 
what is it the child learns? One, might makes right, and the other...only my will matters and I can make others do what I want by any means possible.

But if the child refuses to get in the bath of his own free will, that does not follow that he can make others do what he wants. Whose body is getting bathed, or not, here? He's not making anyone do anything. He's maintaining control of his own person.

I think that in that scenario, first thing is to find out why he doesn't want the bath and to address that. Is he scared of going down the drain? Is it boring? Does the tub have yucky-looking rust stains? Does he have a neat temporary tattoo he doesn't want washed off? Is he trying to put off bedtime? And if the root of the problem is found and addressed and he still doesn't bathe, start talking about natural consequences, like skin infections; and logical consequences, like he can't go anywhere in public until he's clean and smells nice. And beyond that, I guess I'm having trouble imagining none of that working.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just1More* 
2.) And now that the bit about definitions is out there, it's not fair to use the word "gentle discipline" to decribe what you are doing...(and this has been bugging me for some time). It IMMEDIATELY confers the image of violence on anyone who disagrees with you. Well, things are not always as they seem. I'm not claiming to know who is and who is not truly "gentle" to and with their children, but it annoys me to the hilt that as soon as someone claims "gentle discipline" the other party has to defend why they are NOT violent. That's silly and unproductive.

I'm not sure if you were referring to me here. When I use words like "gentle discipline" to describe my parenting-style, I'm talking about a philosophy that I'm endeavoring to live out -- I'm not claiming that I always do it perfectly or that I'm always gentle, though gentleness is my goal.

By the way, Unconditional Parenting and Consensual Living (which I also endeavor to practice) -- while on the Gentle Discipline spectrum -- are not embraced by everyone who practices Gentle Discipline.

From my understanding, Gentle Discipline (undoubtedly someone else has a better definition, you should probably see the sticky for this forum) simply means that we see our children as good people who truly want to succeed in life and get along with others, but who need parental help developing the tools, especially the empathy, to do this.

It runs counter to Behaviorist philosophy, which is based on the assumption that we're all born bad (or possibly neutral), and have no intrinsic desire to get along with others, so we need extrinsic motivation -- rewards and punishments (and rewards go hand-in-hand with punishments, as it's not a "reward" without the accompanying threat that you won't get it, and will essentially be punished by its absence, if you fail to toe-the-line).

Since this is a Gentle Discipline forum, and not a Behaviorist forum, it stands to reason that those who use behaviorist techniques might feel on the defensive here, in the same way that I might feel "criticized" if I went and posted about my ideals on a more mainstream parenting forum. I might be welcome there -- but I'm sure I'd meet with lots of disagreement, too.









Quote:

I do have an honest question though...if you don't spank (I'm NOT advocating!), time out, punish, etc...how do you MAKE a child do something it doesn't want to do? Like, the part where someone mentioned you then take the child by the hand and lead them to the bathtub? So, your 5 old (those can be pretty big boys, right?) throws himself down and refuses to go when you tell him to take a bath. So you take his arm and what? drag him down the hallway? And then, while he's kicking and screaming you strip him of his clothes and toss him in? I'd like to think the answer is "obvioiusly NOT". That seems awful to me. The kid has already not had a bath for 2 weeks because you've not been pushing the issue.
I'll be honest that neither of my girls has gone for 2 weeks without wanting to take a bath. I'm not saying they always want to do it everytime I suggest it, at that exact moment -- but they do want to at some point over a 2 or 3-day time-period.

Now, they've both had broken arms -- so in the interests of keeping the cast dry, we have avoided bathing for a few weeks at a time until the cast came off. I've discovered that a warm wet washcloth will suffice for both body and head (and that's good to know for the child who goes through a phase of not liking her hair washed).

Quote:

You could get really creative and start visiting a pool daily for the sake of the water and the chlorine, and call it good, I suppose, but in both cases, what is it the child learns? One, might makes right, and the other...only my will matters and I can make others do what I want by any means possible.
Or maybe the child who isn't enjoying baths is learning that there are myriad ways to keep himself clean, and that parents are willing to work with him in developing hygienic practices that he can live with and be happy with!

It's interesting that you connect working with a child and helping him get what he wants, with him learning he "can make others do what he wants by any means possible." We're talking about *the child's* personal hygiene, not *the parent's*: the parent is free to continue bathing or showering, or whatever works for her.









Quote:

I guess, at some point, your children will HAVE to do something they don't want to do, no matter how CL you try to be. So, how do you MAKE them?
For one thing, the more I grow in this area (and, again, not all GD parents embrace CL), the less I feel that specific situations warrant me needing to use force. Seriously, the more I try stepping back and looking at things from my children's perspective, the more I see that things I previously thought *had* to happen, *now*, weren't necessarily that urgent.

The world won't fall apart if a child prefers brushing her hair at bedtime and not in the morning, for instance. And if she doesn't like brushing it at all, then maybe there's a hairstyle she'll like where regular brushing is no longer necessary -- whether it's a short style or braids or what-have-you.

Quote:

Whatever the case, and however you choose to discipline your children, the PP was right that there is a BIG problem out there. I know A LOT of VERY WILD children who are growing up to be VERY WILD teenagers, and it's just getting worse. When you hear of things like an 8 year old nearly choking his teacher to death at school...and then learn there were 2 other instances in nearby school the same week....that's a problem.
I agree that it's a problem -- but are you really sure that lack-of-punishment is the root-cause?


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nichole* 
One thing I don't like about super nanny is that she is a nanny, not a parent. What nannies do is valuable and hard work. BUT it is not the same thing as being a parent so I have trouble relating. She can't know what it is like to wake up with your own child vomiting in the middle of the night, worried sick. She can't know what it is like to obsess over the decision to vaccinate or what school to send her child to. She can't know what it is like to take a delicious nap with her sweet baby. She can't know what it is like to forget the power struggle and just have an all out fun wrestling or chasing match in the living room. So it is difficult for me to take her advice when she just sweeps in there for a few day (hours?) and puts a bandaid on a few problems.

Maybe that is her appeal to mothers. I mean for years nannies WERE in charge of the physical needs of children. They woke up in the mornings with the children, cooked meals, picked out their clothing, loved the children, spanked the children, and cleaned the house. And although only the wealthy were able to afford a governess, almost everybody could afford "help."


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mbravebird* 
Hi, it's sort of random that I'm on this thread, as I don't hang out here much anymore, but I noticed that noone addressed this question, and it's a good question...

i tried to address this earlier, as far as how many pages of references are in his book. i was too lazy to type out the reference list though.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Yes, it says a lot for a mama, when she cares more about her connection with her child than she does about looking like she has it "together" to all the onlookers, especially during embarrassing moments such as having your child act up while you're the speaker at a parenting meeting.









i think this is really important. i dont know how many ppl i have heard say something to the effect of "you should have seen this kid at the store" (referring to another kid) or "omg he did that right in front of everyone". It really doesnt matter to me what other ppl think about my child's behavior. I am not parenting so that I can make other ppl comfortable..i am parenting my child in order to hopefully develop self confidence in their bodies and their ability to make decisions and to understand that i love and honor them and their desires. No, they dont get what they want all the time and yes, i lose my patience at times..but its the GOAL that im working toward and I do find that GD is working much better for us than any of the alternatives of the past (ive been a parent for nearly 18 years so Ive gone through some of the alternatives).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 

I have lots of confidence in my ability to parent my children. But, just from what I can tell from your posts, a much higher opinion of other gentle mothers.

I'm assuming our experiences of other gentle mothers are different.

I'm glad Mr. Kohn spoke up. I agree with Norway's stance on children participating in reality programs. I wish the US networks would voluntarily adopt that standard.

i wish this later were true also.

i do feel i have confidence in my parenting. i think its a harsh judgment to believe that if ppl come here and ask for advice, that means they are not confident. if things were the way they used to be as far as community, etc. etc. we mothers probably wouldn't have as many issues as we do. As it is, most of those on this board are the "odd ones" in our communities. There are some really great crunchy communities out there but thats not where most of us live.







So our support network is very small in comparison.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
. However, I've read about mamas here, spending hours 'negotiating' with their four year olds over 'going/leaving someplace, getting into a carseat, putting on shoes....etc'. I fail to understand how that cannot be interpreted as a battle of sorts (just more of an inward one for mom).

I mean, if the end result is the same...how is it more respectful (and less exhausting) towards a child to spend hours negotiating with them to get them to do what you want, than it is to outline specific expectations for their behaviour? Serious question.

I have never spent hours negotiating with my children (over something like shoes, etc. etc.). If something is important (i.e., we need to get in the car seat or we need to put shoes on b/c we are going into a store and i dont want to battle a "no shoes no service" policy, then I do spend a few minutes if there is resistance.

having said that, i have spent times before w/ a mom who spent nearly an hour negotiating w/ a 2 yo about a car seat. I wanted to leave but didnt want to be rude. If I had been that mom, I would have reacted differently...perhaps me and my child may not have gone on the trip, perhaps i would have apologized that we had to get in the car seat (did this recently to my son when we had to leave....our friends were leaving and staying was not an option. I spent about 10 minutes attempting to get him in and then the enough was enough. I don't think GD is about staying alone in a driveway for an hour waiting for a kid to want to do what i want him to do. I do think though, that he realizes I cared about how he felt but that we had to leave and that need trumped his at the time. As I have posted previously, though, the role of a parent is to minimize the times when those battles have to occcur. And honestly, that episode was really unnecessary. We had dropped something off and our friends were leaving. He wanted to play with his friend and couldn't and didn't understand why we went there and couldn't play for awhile. For a 2.9 yo, that made no sense. I think understanding how HE felt was what Kohn would consider...as opposed to SN, who would only consider that mom needed to leave and babe needed to get in car seat and OMG you are spending 10 minutes negotiating w/ him?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Well just speaking for myself, I don't spend hours negotiating. But I will negotiate or compromise sometimes, I just make my mind up faster than hours.









For example... if my son really has to come with me or we really have to go outside, then there is really no negotiating on those particulars.

I might see if reminding him that we'll hit the playground after the doctor (or whatever) helps. I might let him go shoeless into the car. I might let him scream and yell and express his anger. I might ask him if getting a toy (that he already has) to bring along would help.

If he is saying he doesn't want to go and we don't have to go, I make a decision about that quickly too. Then the negotiations are over and he's "won," and I think that's fine.

Over time (and of course we're still at the early stages of it) I have found that when I do "give in" when I can, it actually seems to work better when I can't. (I am explicit about both.)

This is what I think the "parents must maintain control at all costs" environment kind of misses at times. That sometimes - actually more often than not, in my admittedly limited experience - giving in is just fine. I guess I have faith that it models the behaviour I actually want, which is for him to compromise too.

I completely agree with this position. And I think one of the difficult things about a discussion like this online is that we are not seeing each other's parenting techniques. Although I disagree w/ another person's issue with teh definition of GD, I do agree that definitions and real life experiences are very important here. How you (general you) describe "time out" and the way i describe "time out" may be very different. We do engage in "time ins" and I believe that many ppl on this board use the term "time ins" for "time outs".

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just1More* 

2.) And now that the bit about definitions is out there, it's not fair to use the word "gentle discipline" to decribe what you are doing...(and this has been bugging me for some time). It IMMEDIATELY confers the image of violence on anyone who disagrees with you. Well, things are not always as they seem. I'm not claiming to know who is and who is not truly "gentle" to and with their children, but it annoys me to the hilt that as soon as someone claims "gentle discipline" the other party has to defend why they are NOT violent. That's silly and unproductive.

I do have an honest question though...if you don't spank (I'm NOT advocating!), time out, punish, etc...how do you MAKE a child do something it doesn't want to do? Like, the part where someone mentioned you then take the child by the hand and lead them to the bathtub? So, your 5 old (those can be pretty big boys, right?) throws himself down and refuses to go when you tell him to take a bath. So you take his arm and what? drag him down the hallway? And then, while he's kicking and screaming you strip him of his clothes and toss him in? I'd like to think the answer is "obvioiusly NOT". That seems awful to me. The kid has already not had a bath for 2 weeks because you've not been pushing the issue. You could get really creative and start visiting a pool daily for the sake of the water and the chlorine, and call it good, I suppose, but in both cases, what is it the child learns? One, might makes right, and the other...only my will matters and I can make others do what I want by any means possible. I guess, at some point, your children will HAVE to do something they don't want to do, no matter how CL you try to be. So, how do you MAKE them?

I know A LOT of VERY WILD children who are growing up to be VERY WILD teenagers, and it's just getting worse. When you hear of things like an 8 year old nearly choking his teacher to death at school...and then learn there were 2 other instances in nearby school the same week....that's a problem. Or when you know that in a particular public school Kindergarden class in small town America, a FIVE YEAR OLD has needed (according to the school) a PHYSICAL TAKEDOWN (for his violence to the teacher and other students, and his total outburts...he had to be physically restrained and removed for the sake of safety) of more than 1 teacher daily for the space of a month before different school arrangements could be made...that's a problem. When my dd can't make new friends because ALL the children her age are so VIOLENT and ANGRY, she isn't safe among them...that's a problem.
(c:

The fact of the matter is that this forum is "gentle discipline" so i think use of the term for those of us who are trying to practice GD is fair. I think if you wanted to start another thread challenging the name of the forum, there would be a really great discussion of that.

And I really do not think these kids who are going to school w/ guns and knives are the product of GD techniques. I really really don't.

ive posted about this before (on this thread) about he concept of "making" children do what we want. unless its a safety issue, i think its detrimental to have the attitude that MAKING kids do something is the goal of parenting. others have addresssed the bath tub issue very well though.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 

And, really, I'm not negotiating with them "to get them to do what I want," so much as I'm negotiating with them so that we all get a say and feel heard and, in as much is possible, we all get to do what we want.

exactly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
But if the child refuses to get in the bath of his own free will, that does not follow that he can make others do what he wants. Whose body is getting bathed, or not, here? He's not making anyone do anything. He's maintaining control of his own person.

I think that in that scenario, first thing is to find out why he doesn't want the bath and to address that. Is he scared of going down the drain? Is it boring? Does the tub have yucky-looking rust stains? Does he have a neat temporary tattoo he doesn't want washed off? Is he trying to put off bedtime? And if the root of the problem is found and addressed and he still doesn't bathe, start talking about natural consequences, like skin infections; and logical consequences, like he can't go anywhere in public until he's clean and smells nice. And beyond that, I guess I'm having trouble imagining none of that working.

well said.


----------



## newcastlemama

About making children do things--Some questions I am asking myself a lot more now that we have embraced gentle discipline are:

"Why am *I* being so _controlling_ about this situation?"

"How would I feel if my husband made me.......comb my hair a certain way, take a shower against my will, forcibly put me to bed, did not consider my feelings, yelled orders at me, threatened to punish me ect"

"Would I treat my disbaled grandmother this way?" (Because she is dependent on others to meet many of her needs yet she is an adult..Hope that makes sense!) Would I ever leave her in a room crying out for love, for example?

I am suprised how many situations are _not_ life and death/safety oriented where I am trying to be controlling for really no good reason. Here is a safety example though-Sometimes my 4yo does not want to buckle into his car seat, but he usually tell me because he is hot or too tired to. So instead of punishing for not obeying, I just turn on the car's AC and buckle him in myself...all of that takes about 45 seconds







When ds does not want to go to bed or put on shoes I try and explain the fun that will follow these activities. If you go to sleep you will feel good enough to go to the park tomorrow and call grandma! I you get your shoes on then we can go to the store and you can give the cashier the money! (Of course things are not always easy for us, but this generally has us all cooperating and feeling good about the situation together...and we are _all_ very "spirited" in my little family!)

Jennifer


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
About making children do things--Some questions I am asking myself a lot more now that we have embraced gentle discipline are:

"Why am *I* being so _controlling_ about this situation?"

"How would I feel if my husband made me.......comb my hair a certain way, take a shower against my will, forcibly put me to bed, did not consider my feelings, yelled orders at me, threatened to punish me ect"

"Would I treat my disbaled grandmother this way?" (Because she is dependent on others to meet many of her needs yet she is an adult..Hope that makes sense!)

Jennifer

the main difference is that you are not raising your grandmother and your role is clearly defined as a helper and caregiver. with kids it's a little more complicated than that, as i am sure, you'll agree!

i do agree with you about not turning non-issues in to issues and getting in to power struggles.


----------



## chfriend

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
Maybe that is her appeal to mothers. I mean for years nannies WERE in charge of the physical needs of children. They woke up in the mornings with the children, cooked meals, picked out their clothing, loved the children, spanked the children, and cleaned the house. And although only the wealthy were able to afford a governess, almost everybody could afford "help."

Now I'm sure our experiences are different.







This doesn't describe my families' experiences, wealthy or non-wealthy, for many generations back.

In my life, I've never personally know anyone with a nanny (besides meaning a daytime babysitter of children under school age) or a governess. The only "help" I've seen in action were folks who helped clean as a living(including my grandma)

Where and when are you describing that nannies were in charge of children?


----------



## newcastlemama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
the main difference is that you are not raising your grandmother and your role is clearly defined as a helper and caregiver. with kids it's a little more complicated than that, as i am sure, you'll agree!

i do agree with you about not turning non-issues in to issues and getting in to power struggles.

I use it to remind myself that just because a person is less powerful/younger/more dependent than I am I still son't have the right to ignnore their feelings/mistreat them. Does that make sense? I thinka lot of times we treat children in a way that we would never treat an adult. Well, it works in my head anyways









Jennifer


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
I use it to remind myself that just because a person is less powerful/younger/more dependent than I am I still son't have the right to ignnore their feelings/mistreat them. Does that make sense? I thinka lot of times we treat children in a way that we would never treat an adult. Well, it works in my head anyways









Jennifer

i understand what you are saying. just want to add my thoughts on the matter...treating an adult as though he/she were a child would be considered patronizing simply because we credit adults with a mature outlook. by the same token, we cannot treat children as adults due to the obvious reason they aren't yet adults and need to be related to at different levels depending on the nature and cognition level of the child.


----------



## mammal_mama

babygrace, look at the examples newcastlemama was giving when she talked about the idea of treating children with the same respect we'd treat adults with --

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
"How would I feel if my husband made me.......comb my hair a certain way, take a shower against my will, forcibly put me to bed, did not consider my feelings, yelled orders at me, threatened to punish me ect"

I see your point that it's not respectful to treat a child "the same as" an adult. If a 3yo said, "I'm hungry!" -- how "respectful" would it be for a parent to expect her to cook her own dinner?

That's why it's important to show the same degree of *respect* -- and respect will often keep us from giving the same treatment, having the same expectations, and so on, that we would with an adult.


----------



## mammal_mama

As an example of how respecting children often results in treating them differently than we would adults -- I think of how often other adults fault parents for "making excuses" for their children's crankiness.

"Oh, so if I (as an adult) am 'tired,' I suppose it's okay for me to throw a screaming fit in the grocery store checkout line!?"

Comments like this are what get me: Often the folks who advocate adults getting more respect than children, are the same ones who advocate punitive consequences for children's misbehavior, regardless of extenuating circumstances.

I'm not saying anyone on this thread is advocating that -- just making observations about comments I've heard from other people, similar to, "The police officer doesn't care how mad dh made me just before I ran that red light, and our kids need to learn to live in the real world and take the consequences for their actions."

(And yet, I think most police officers won't write a ticket in certain circumstances -- such as a parent rushing an injured child to the emergency room, or a husband whose wife is in labor ... so it's not really accurate to say that adults never get a break!)


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
that was not my point. what i am trying to say, is that, even today there are many old cultures around the world where women can tap into wisdom gleaned from those in the immediate family and extended community for much of pregnancy, labor, birth and parenting related issues. so there is a varied pool of experiences to share and relate to. quite different than experts touting a specific way/brand of parenting and parents seeing different results based on particular family dynamics.

I'll give you an example of this. During the time I lived in Germany, I befriended a few women. One of these woman, I am going to visit in December (if my passport is back by then, I renewed it in July) and I noticed that they had a large support team of other woman/mothers. We have lost that here in America, and mothers have a lot more on their plate.

Let me explain... if a three year old little boy refused to listen to his German mother after she asked him to sit down the other women would support her, and back her up. Below is an example dialogue-

"Joe, sit down." <------mother

"Joe, your mother told you to sit." <--------grandmother

"You must listen to your mother." <---------neighbor with two children

"Are you being naughty?"<-----------boy's aunt

This group of women/mothers are backing the mother and the child begins to sense this. Someone in that room will get Joe to listen and some of the times it is NOT his mother. It's a community of women raising children and that means less stress on our mothers. More confident woman. Less text book ways of raising children. This does a great deal for the mother-child bond. It always has and always will.

Another example right here in this country is there is a local community laundromat several miles from where I live. Once when I went to give my comforters a good washing, I noticed a family of Mexicans using the laundromat. About 5 children ages 3-12, three mothers in their late twenties and two older more mature women.

At the same time there was another mother in the laundromat by herself with three of her own children. They ran that place into a hole, except her youngest boy who seemed like his only desire was to play with the Mexican children. He rarely moved from his mother waist side, he just stared at the others.

To make a long story short, the 5 Mexican children were also running wild. the difference is, I watched the mother who was alone with her three children, walk in smiling and leave snarling. She was a really good mother though.

What seems to have been the difference was how the discipline was spread out amongst all of the mexican parties. Everyone seemed to play a part in the children's well being as they played, ran and scooted across the floor. I speak no spanish but am very observant, and saw that normally whenever one of the three mothers or two older woman said something to one of the children, they stopped doing something. In fact, I remember at one time, I sat in a chair was trying to determine which child belonged to which woman and could not figure out until I asked. It seemed to me the children were comfortable with each of the ladies.

mothers need support from other women/mothers.

and last, we must realize all AP/GD/NP are, are a bunch of techniques taken from hunter-gatherers and with a modern day twist. All that is missing is the community.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 

mothers need support from other women/mothers.

Sure they do, they just don't want it. I wonder why.


----------



## Just1More

Allright...

So, I apparently should have made it absolutely CLEAR that I was playing devil's advocate. (Oh, and actually trying to come to the defense of some of the other mama's I felt were getting kinda trashed for "time outs" or what have you.) My bad, totally. (So, my comments weren't intended to start a fight, and they DO fit in this thread.) And the taking a bath wasn't the only example...it was just one someone else had used earlier. (I'm well aware most kids can be convinced to do most things...humor me.)

But, the responses are kinda what I thought I'd get. See...I understand that fundamentally there are the "gentle discipline methods" and the "behavorist" methods. But why are they mutually exclusive?

Again...I'm playing devil's advocate here...don't assume I'm a "behavorist"...

For the record, I abhor reward charts and "punishments", etc. I NEVER shame my children. I don't use time outs. In fact, I don't even really use "time ins". I just find "caging" of any sort repulsive. I spend a good deal of time getting to know my children and trying to seek out the root of the problem. We spend a lot of time talking and observing how the world works.

But, I see that in a lot of the other posts other mamas are doing those things, too...but as soon as they mention a "time out"...suddenly they couldn't possibly be ALSO trying to talk with, explain, nuture, give way to needs and feelings, etc. It IS possible to be VERY loving and caring and nurturing AND occasionally give a time out! One does NOT necessarily HAVE to rule out the other. Does that make better sense?

Again, I understand the fundamental difference. What bugs me is NOT that you (general) are using the words "gentle discipline." It's that whoever started the labeling (some guy who wrote a book a long time ago, I'm sure) picked the word "gentle", as if everybody else were violent. And then, when I see people arguing about "gentle discipline" vs. "whatever else" it just comes across as if anyone who uses a time out or whatever is violent and couldn't possibly be "gentle". (remember...I'm NOT a behavorist...I'm just trying to cut other people some slack, and to encourage everyone to better explain what they mean when they use a word...and not to assume that because someone used a tactic not considered GD that they are no longer capable of being "gentle". I just can't believe the methods have to be mutually exclusive.)

And then about what a child learns...
Obviously taking a bath is really and truly about the child and not about others, but there are many, many situations when a child who is "left to himself" (again...not GD here...we're talking about the ones that constitute this big problem the SN is attempting to relieve) is grossly violating the rights and needs of others. So, when a child is allowed to do that on a regular basis...I do believe the child is being encouraged to NOT consider the right and needs of others. However...I also agree that when my child (actually, my 15mo last night) bursts into tears and tries to climb out of his carseat when I put him in...when I cuddle him a bit and sympathize about knowing he was having such a good time and doesn't want to go yet, I'm NOT teaching him anything but that his mama cares and that he's a people, too.

As for the problem I mentioned of "out-of control children". That was not a jab at GD. That was, in fact, kudos to the "supernanny" for trying to do SOMETHING. Because, although she gives me the creeps, too (I've only seen a few shows...at other people's houses; we don't watch TV), and I know a good deal of it is for ratings and money...trying to help people solve a tremendous problem in their home isn't something to be snotty about. I also agree that it's awful those poor children are on TV...definately exploitation IMO. And while the original intent of this thread was to comment on what AK thought of the supernanny...it's turned significantly. Perhaps a better direction for this thread at this point would be about how since the supernanny uses methods that are repulsive to most of us, what can WE do to better get the word out about better ways to handle various situations. In fact, I also think it's more important to help people change philosophies than to give them a manual of "what to do when your child ____". We are all different people (our children included) with different situations, so all the PP are right that a "one size fits all", uhm, doesn't fit.

Fast forward to the present in the thread...

Yes! Mothers do need support from other mothers.

(Which, I guess is kinda my point about the whole gentle/violent thing...it's not productive to accuse a mother who's doing all she can of not being gentle, etc. That's silly and not helpful. Rather...let's encourage her and gently guide her, perhaps only be example, to bigger and better things.)


----------



## monkey's mom

Support comes in all different flavors. Some people like a soft approach where they are told that no matter what they're doing it's OK as long as it works for them. Some people like a more direct approach that says, "Hey, respectfully, I think you could have done better there. Here are some ideas...."

Someone posted a scenario of a mother getting support from her friends and family that she felt was terrific and a model of what could be. That scenario doesn't really fit for me.

I kind of don't understand this "women don't want support from other women" notion b/c this forum is all about that. One of our members published a wonderful book using the advice and contributions found in this forum. It was published by La Leche League--one of the premiere organizations of "mother to mother support." I think we may not have the face-to-face contact that may have existed in previous times, but the internet has provided a wonderful medium for sharing and supporting. I get most of my parenting ideas and support that way and it is very fulfilling to me. Loves my online village!


----------



## Jade's Mom

I haven't read most of the posts yet, but I wanted to say this before I forget...my apologies if this has already been discussed....

Did anyone see the show "Shalom in the Home" when it was on? I only saw it a couple of times, but it was great. The Rabbi's contention was that there are no bad kids. If the kids are having behavior issues, it's the parents that need work, not the kids. He would look at the parents, and the emotions and history behind how they relate to their children and each other. He did everything in a loving and compassionate way. He would work with the parents to change their behavior towards the kids and each other. He would also do bonding exercises to get the family to bond and have fun and peaceful moments.

There was one episode I remember where he had to teach the mother that she didn't need to be perfect in front of her daughter. Her daughter was having self-esteem issues, which he discovered were because she thought her mother was perfect, and since she wasn't, she wasn't good enough. He had to teach the mother to show her imperfections to her daughter. One of the ways he did this was to have the whole family out on the front lawn and they had a shaving cream fight. He encouraged them to be really silly, and when they were really messy, he shouted somthing like, "We don't care what people think of us, we're having fun" or something like that.

The show was so increadible. I really wish it was still on. It was a much better model for making changes in the family when the family isn't working well.


----------



## Jade's Mom

mammal_mama;12094053
Bolding mine. Yes said:


> http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]


I agree with you, but I'm not sure that's what she meant. I read her earlier post about out of control and disrespectful kids as there are some AP parents who think that AP parenting means never saying no to your child, that the child must always be happy and given in to and therefore the parents don't set boundries for their kids. These kids can have some behavior issues and issues with respect. Then AP parenting gets a bad wrap as being permissive. AP parenting isn't the problem. In fact, this kind of parenting isn't really AP. AP does not mean giving in to your child's every whim. But that's what it can become.

And you're not showing your child respect by not teaching boundries. And, you aren't earning your child's respect, either.

My friend is having this issue. As sn observer it sometimes appears like the only acceptable emotion is happy. So she gives in to her son rather than teaching him he can't always have his way. Sometimes he is going to have to do things he doesn't like (like waiting for mom before jumping into the swimming pool...he's 2), and teaching him that it's ok if he doesn't like that and how to handle those emotions.

Because she's my friend, I haven't brought it up because I don't want to hurt her feelings, and because she hasn't asked for my opinion...I'm trying to be less judgemental and less of a know-it-all







If she brings the conversation up, I'll try to find a delicate way to do so, but not until then...I don't think.


----------



## Jade's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Stating a boundary or like or dislike, requesting to stop, asking for something--no problem whatsoever. Isn't that what we do with anyone?

Threatening would be a big problem. I would be taken aback if I heard that exchange--especially at an AP event.









I agree, and my previous post in no way was meant to endorse that behavior, but explain a previous post. If I heard someone talk to my child that way, she and I would be having a real problem!


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just1More* 
I do have an honest question though...if you don't spank (I'm NOT advocating!), time out, punish, etc...how do you MAKE a child do something it doesn't want to do?

I think that this is the central reason that punishment is so mainstream. But it assumes something that is false, that punishment, if you do it right, will make your child comply. That is just not true.

Quote:

Whatever the case, and however you choose to discipline your children, the PP was right that there is a BIG problem out there. I know A LOT of VERY WILD children who are growing up to be VERY WILD teenagers...
There's an implied connection here, perhaps unintentional, between giving your child some control over themselves, and getting a teenager who is out of control. "If I can't control their behavior now, how will I do it when they're teens?" UP advocates teaching kids why we do things, or don't do them, and letting them decide. If you teach a child to make good decisions and allow them some freedom to do that, they'll _have_ the skills when they're bigger.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Sure they do, they just don't want it. I wonder why.

I'd definitely love more support from other like-minded mothers -- but that doesn't mean I'd love for 3 different women to chime in every time I'm talking with my child about something. And I definitely wouldn't want someone calling my child "naughty."

If some of us seem not to want "support" in-real-life -- maybe it's because most of the people we know in-real-life don't share our parenting philosophy.

Most of the people I know believe in punishment, and for someone like that to involve herself in my relationship with my children -- that's not support, and it's not going to do wonderful things for our bond, either.


----------



## mammal_mama

Just1More -- I agree that an occasional "behaviorist" behavior doesn't make one a behaviorist. I've already said that Gentle Discipline is something I *aspire* to -- not that I've arrived. And I agree that it's best to focus on changing philosophy -- not to spell out a step-by-step, one-size-fits-all approach for dealing with everything. This is one reason I like Kohn so much!


----------



## PassionateWriter

this thread seems to have so many misperceptions in it. i have not seen any bashing of mothers who are using time outs..simply definitions of what time outs DO and how they make children FEEL.

i think we can all PRESUME good intent here...which of course is the cornerstone of GD/PD philosophy. I am actually still in the process of learning what the difference between Gentle Discipline and Positive Discipline is. I have been told in no uncertain terms taht they are NOT the same but i have yet to figure out the differences.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Support comes in all different flavors. Some people like a soft approach where they are told that no matter what they're doing it's OK as long as it works for them. Some people like a more direct approach that says, "Hey, respectfully, I think you could have done better there. Here are some ideas...."

Someone posted a scenario of a mother getting support from her friends and family that she felt was terrific and a model of what could be. That scenario doesn't really fit for me.

I kind of don't understand this "women don't want support from other women" notion b/c this forum is all about that. One of our members published a wonderful book using the advice and contributions found in this forum. It was published by La Leche League--one of the premiere organizations of "mother to mother support." I think we may not have the face-to-face contact that may have existed in previous times, but the internet has provided a wonderful medium for sharing and supporting. I get most of my parenting ideas and support that way and it is very fulfilling to me. Loves my online village!









i was thinking this earlier. this board is a great source of support, when you can find it. I don't often post my issues here b/c I do not find it supportive so much of the direction I am going; however, there are places online that I do look to in order to find answers. And I have been known to sit down w/ 10 or 15 books and read though sections re: biting, etc. etc. to see if I can help someone w/ an issue. And I do attempt to be supportive to others who are struggling w/ more punitive measures.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jade's Mom* 
AP does not mean giving in to your child's every whim. But that's what it can become.

And you're not showing your child respect by not teaching boundries. And, you aren't earning your child's respect, either.
.

i think this is HUGE and a great misunderstanding of AP. I don't allow my children to do whatever they want to do...there are boundaries. i have stated it over and over..there are things that my sons have to do that are disagreeable to them (one of my sons would watch TV all day long if i let him....i am just not willing to allow that).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I'd definitely love more support from other like-minded mothers -- but that doesn't mean I'd love for 3 different women to chime in every time I'm talking with my child about something. And I definitely wouldn't want someone calling my child "naughty."


i would have a HUGE issue w/ someone referring to my son as "naughty". I get a sick feeling in my stomach when the dr. says "good boy" when he allows her to look at his ears. I tend to let those sllide b/c we aren't at the dr. office often but i cant stand terms that define a child by their actions at a given moment.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Just1More -- I agree that an occasional "behaviorist" behavior doesn't make one a behaviorist. I've already said that Gentle Discipline is something I *aspire* to -- not that I've arrived. And I agree that it's best to focus on changing philosophy -- not to spell out a step-by-step, one-size-fits-all approach for dealing with everything. This is one reason I like Kohn so much!

EXACTLY! why does it get lost that those of us who are ASPIRING to be more gentle are automatically NEVER engage in behavorist theory? I mess up all the time, sometimes royally. right now i am basically sleep deprived and sick and so is my toddler, but he was also awake at 12:30 last night...FULL AWAKE. I was not very gentle in some of my responses to him. Often times, we do get worn out and no one is perfect (i think i said that w/ my 2nd post or something here). I am certainly not judging anyone who is at their wits end and haivng a time out is a safer alternative. That isnt the argument, for me. The debate, for me, in this thread, is that Time Outs as a consistent method of punishment, do not fit into the manner in which I wish to discipline my kids. I don't like the foundation on which it was based...I don't like how it makes children feel and the motivation it provides for children to "behave". However, I would never say to another mother who occassionally resorts to a time out that I believe she is causing long term damage to her child.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

the concepts behind AP/NP were first used --and there are still tribes across the world where this is still the only way to parent. An example of this would be the Unknown Amazon Tribe who were just photographed sometime this past summer. If you guys remember the photos that were circulating all over the internet with the men who were about to throw their spears at the helicopter.

In my opinion, what is happening is that in taking the methods used in the days of hunting-gathering, by tribes, and other village communities many modern mothers are putting their own spin (which is to be expected) but are not confident in their ability to do some of these very natural things.

Now to be honest, I have met many successful AP/NP and what I have noticed is that the most successful of them were from Canada and was raised on farms and the other half were from Africa. When I say successful, I simply mean raising their children did not seem to be a task, or battle. The interaction between mother and child was quite different from the other mothers. Very natural. Effortless. Give and Take. In fact, two of the Canadian woman claimed to be moving back to Canada so they could raise their own children on farms.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
If some of us seem not to want "support" in-real-life -- maybe it's because most of the people we know in-real-life don't share our parenting philosophy.

i disagree with this statement. the next time you (or anyone else) here attend a AP/NP meeting, watch the other woman. The reason I say watch is because what I have notied is that many of these woman in fact DO share the same parenting philosophy but will STILL cringe when another parent do something as simple as guide _their_ child away from a door they are standing behind. In fact, if you watch the other mothers they will stop and watch the interaction between the mother whose child is standing behind the door, and the mother who is telling the child to be careful.

In some of these meetings what I have gathered is that when someone wishes to talk to a child they must first go through the mother.

But, what I find the most interesting is that if a mother starts crying in one of those meetings ALL of the mothers will surround her and lend their emotional support. By then, it's too late, because the fact is that everyone in that room has enabled her to come to her wits end. Is it our fault? No because we live in a society where we parent alone, we mother alone.


----------



## paquerette

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I'd definitely love more support from other like-minded mothers -- but that doesn't mean I'd love for 3 different women to chime in every time I'm talking with my child about something. And I definitely wouldn't want someone calling my child "naughty."

It seems to me like that kind of thing would actually undermine the mom's ability to parent. What does she do when these other women aren't around to back her up? They can't be there 24/7. I have enough problems with DD not wanting to listen to me alone because DH will, sometimes if he's on auto-pilot, insert himself into a situation that I'm already handling, and she's in daddy phase as it is. I can't imagine how our relationship would go if every single interaction I had with DD was followed by my mom, MIL, SIL, GMIL, etc, barking an order at her as well. And how stressed DD would be by that! Can you imagine if you had a job and went to work and had 3 or 4 supervisors telling you what to do, one right after another?







:


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
I have notied is that many of these woman in fact DO share the same parenting philosophy but will STILL cringe when another parent do something as simple as guide _their_ child away from a door they are standing behind. In fact, if you watch the other mothers they will stop and watch the interaction between the mother whose child is standing behind the door, and the mother who is telling the child to be careful.

In some of these meetings what I have gathered is that when someone wishes to talk to a child they must first go through the mother.

I've never been to an AP meeting, so I can't speak to that specifically, however I am a mama bear and I do watch my child very closely when other people are interacting with him. Adults or children. Out of an instinct to protect. I have found many like-minded mamas here on MDC, but in the real world I feel like an unconventional minority. So I don't trust that other parents are going to guide my child in a way that I agree with. I would definitely want to step in if another mama decided it was her place to punish my son. However, I do not feel as though people have to go through me in order to interact with DS. I'm just watching and protecting. Maybe that's not at all what you were referring to in these meetings though.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
It seems to me like that kind of thing would actually undermine the mom's ability to parent. What does she do when these other women aren't around to back her up? They can't be there 24/7. I have enough problems with DD not wanting to listen to me alone because DH will, sometimes if he's on auto-pilot, insert himself into a situation that I'm already handling, and she's in daddy phase as it is. I can't imagine how our relationship would go if every single interaction I had with DD was followed by my mom, MIL, SIL, GMIL, etc, barking an order at her as well. And how stressed DD would be by that! Can you imagine if you had a job and went to work and had 3 or 4 supervisors telling you what to do, one right after another?







:

to tell your son or daughter to do something and to have the support and backing of other women and mothers is one of the most common issue for woman and mothers seeing a psychiatrist. they do receive not enough support. i don't know the statistics but in a recent article published on MSN it said new mothers should make sure they have the emotional support and backing of other woman, mothers and communities. people they can count on, depend on. the reason is that it makes the transition into motherhood much easier.

there was even an article that was published sometime ago suggesting new mothers to *wait* until they felt they were emotionally strong enough to move away from home where they receive the bulk of their support from. i know this is not the case with all mothers but I think what experts are realizing is that mothers in many cases feel really alone (even though many are married or have access to the internet)...and that is horrible.

everyone --especially mothers needs to feel rooted and supported.


----------



## donttrustthesystem

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
As an example of how respecting children often results in treating them differently than we would adults -- I think of how often other adults fault parents for "making excuses" for their children's crankiness.

"Oh, so if I (as an adult) am 'tired,' I suppose it's okay for me to throw a screaming fit in the grocery store checkout line!?"

good points and just to add to that also I see a lot of unfair expectations placed on children, who aren't capable of articulating emotions or verbally defending themselves and may need to cry just to express or release feelings. It would be so unrealistic for parents to expect little ones to be able to act like adults.

a couple of people in my area recommended an author that AK cites, Alice ******, so if you like AK, it's great for further exploration of the psychology of the developing child.


----------



## chfriend

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i disagree with this statement. the next time you (or anyone else) here attend a AP/NP meeting, watch the other woman. The reason I say watch is because what I have notied is that many of these woman in fact DO share the same parenting philosophy but will STILL cringe when another parent do something as simple as guide _their_ child away from a door they are standing behind. In fact, if you watch the other mothers they will stop and watch the interaction between the mother whose child is standing behind the door, and the mother who is telling the child to be careful.

In some of these meetings what I have gathered is that when someone wishes to talk to a child they must first go through the mother.


I see this differently. I have no problem with someone my child knows and loves suggesting they be careful if they are concerned that someone will get hurt.

The key there is *knows* and *loves.* Like the people in your example in the laundromat. These were not random women who happpened to speak Spanish who ended up in the same laundromat who then began to guide each others' children. They were in community with each other and each other's children. They knew each other sensitivities and idiosynchroses.

Random folks at a meeting I'm at? Yup, they go through me.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
*I've never been to an AP meeting*, so I can't speak to that specifically, however I am a mama bear and I do watch my child very closely when other people are interacting with him. Adults or children. Out of an instinct to protect. I have found many like-minded mamas here on MDC, but in the real world I feel like an unconventional minority. So I don't trust that other parents are going to guide my child in a way that I agree with. I would definitely want to step in if another mama decided it was her place to punish my son. However, I do not feel as though people have to go through me in order to interact with DS. I'm just watching and protecting. Maybe that's not at all what you were referring to *in these meetings* though.

to be fair, you have no idea what I am talking about.


----------



## monkey's mom

I've been to probably hundreds of AP meetings, LLL meetings, and AP playgroups. I haven't witnessed this phenomenon you're speaking of people expecting others to go through the mom for things like, "Ooops, careful, sweetie. Can you come away from the door, please?"

From the somewhat unclear example you gave of a child near a door, my take might be that there was concern about the child's safety or that the mother was concerned that the child would be responsive to the other mother. I've seen those scenarios countless times.

And again, based on just how varied the responses are in this thread, it is clear that what constitutes "support" is not a one size fits all notion. Your examples do not outline the kind of support that I seek out/want.







Different strokes.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
These were not random women who happpened to speak Spanish who ended up in the same laundromat who then began to guide each others' children. They were in community with each other and each other's children. They knew each other sensitivities and idiosynchroses.

Do all woman not have other women and mother in her communities that she feel safe with? I think they do, if that is what they truly wanted.


----------



## paquerette

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
to tell your son or daughter to do something and to have the support and backing of other women and mothers is one of the most common issue for woman and mothers seeing a psychiatrist. they do receive not enough support. i don't know the statistics but in a recent article published on MSN it said new mothers should make sure they have the emotional support and backing of other woman, mothers and communities. people they can count on, depend on. the reason is that it makes the transition into motherhood much easier.

Having emotional support and backing of other women is nowhere near the same thing as having other people, unprompted, jump in the middle of an interaction between a mother and her child. I have had people do that to me (mom, MIL) and it makes me feel anything but supported, whether they're backing up what I'm saying or telling her something opposite. I consider emotional support and backing of other women what I get when I am able to talk about parenting issues with likeminded women without my child around.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I've been to probably hundreds of AP meetings, LLL meetings, and AP playgroups. I haven't witnessed this phenomenon you're speaking of people expecting others to go through the mom for things like, "Ooops, careful, sweetie. Can you come away from the door, please?"

From the somewhat unclear example you gave of a child near a door, my take might be that there was concern about the child's safety or that the mother was concerned that the child would be responsive to the other mother. I've seen those scenarios countless times.

And again, based on just how varied the responses are in this thread, it is clear that what constitutes "support" is not a one size fits all notion. Your examples do not outline the kind of support that I seek out/want.







Different strokes.

They are just examples though. I haven't urged any of the woman or mothers on this site to form a circle and start singing "Koombaya, my Lord!" If anything, I post what I see. I post from my understanding. I post from my experiences. We all do.

And the example you gave in your very first paragraph is an excellent example of what I was talking about. In fact, what most mothers usually do in those groups is just say things like "your son or doing is doing such and such."


----------



## chfriend

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
Do all woman not have other women and mother in her communities that she feel safe with? I think they do, if that is what they truly wanted.

They might. But they'd be unlikely to be someone that just happened to be attending the same AP meeting.

And I said it needed to be someone the child knew and loved, not someone who shares a parenting "philosophy" with the mom.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
Having emotional support and backing of other women is nowhere near the same thing as having other people, unprompted, jump in the middle of an interaction between a mother and her child. I have had people do that to me (mom, MIL) and it makes me feel anything but supported, whether they're backing up what I'm saying or telling her something opposite. I consider emotional support and backing of other women what I get when I am able to talk about parenting issues with likeminded women without my child around.

I agree. I said in one of my prior posts that many of us value our privacy, mother alone and parent alone. and i also realize that this is the reason many mothers would rather NO ONE else interfere when she is speaking to one of her children.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
In fact, what most mothers usually do in those groups is just say things like "your son or doing is doing such and such."

That's not what I understood your post to mean:

Quote:

The reason I say watch is because what I have notied is that many of these woman in fact DO share the same parenting philosophy but will STILL cringe when another parent do something *as simple as guide their child away from a door* they are standing behind. In fact, if you watch the other mothers they will stop and watch the interaction between the mother whose child is standing behind the door, and *the mother who is telling the child to be careful.*
I understood it to mean that mothers speak directly to the child, but based on some other elements (not clear to me from your posts) you interpret that there is a sense of discomfort with that in AP circles.

I'm saying, that's not my experience at all. And if I understand your posts and examples, I'm suggesting that there may be other reasons for any discomfort you're picking up on--reasons, which, in my experience are much more commonplace than mothers being annoyed that a child is told, "Excuse me," or "Watch yourself."


----------



## paquerette

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
I agree. I said in one of my prior posts that many of us value our privacy, mother alone and parent alone. and i also realize that this is the reason many mothers would rather NO ONE else interfere when she is speaking to one of her children.

But it's not about valuing privacy; it's about the fact that another person butting into that conversation will have the opposite effect and will undermine the mother's parenting. That's not a cultural thing; that's human psychology. It detracts from the mom's authority. The mom needs to be the one backing up the things that she says, not someone else. Likewise when other caregivers are in charge. Whoever is the person to correct the behavior first has to be the one to continue the interaction. The tag-teaming thing just doesn't work.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
That's not what I understood your post to mean:

By that I mean, now. I attended my first NP meeting fourteen years ago. My youngest is now two years old, so I have seen and observed some changes in the mothers who attend throughout the years, the groups that are available and the interactions between the members and children. When I first attended my first AP group, it was different then it is now. Fourteen years later, many mothers just say, "your son or daughter is doing such and such." Fourteen years ago, I had a woman help me put my daughter into her car seat after every meeting.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
you interpret that there is a sense of discomfort with that in AP circles.

there is a discomfort. I don't fall for the Jedi Mind Trick of "you didn't see what you saw." I know what I see. I know what I sense. I was born to use my instincts.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
to be fair, you have no idea what I am talking about.










Which is why I said "I've never been to an AP meeting, so I can't speak to that specifically", and "Maybe that's not at all what you were referring to in these meetings though." I was seeing if there was a correlation, if perhaps It was what you were referring to because I somewhat related to your post.

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary tension and defensiveness in this thread. To me, a new member of MDC, it doesn't come across as being very supportive. But maybe I'm just oversensitive.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 








Which is why I said "I've never been to an AP meeting, so I can't speak to that specifically", and "Maybe that's not at all what you were referring to in these meetings though." I was seeing if there was a correlation, if perhaps It was what you were referring to because I somewhat related to your post.

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary tension and defensiveness in this thread. To me, a new member of MDC, it doesn't come across as being very supportive. But maybe I'm just oversensitive.

hmm...let me begin by apologizing. now, can you explain to me what you are saying and I'll answer it.

as far as the defensiveness in the thread, mothering is a wonderful site with loads of great information. we are just discussing something close to our heart.

please explain to me what you were trying to say, if you will.


----------



## Mommoo

Thank you, but no need to apologize. Just a misunderstanding? I have a hard time articulating my sentiments. Especially pre-nap!









So I guess I was just trying to see if my own personal experience with watching other mothers with my DS might correlate with these mamas to whom you were referring at AP meetings. Even though I've not personally been to those meetings, maybe my personal experience in other areas are similar. Just trying to gain perspective, without being able to talk to those mamas and ask them why they've stopped to watch the interaction of their child with another mama. In order to imagine another possible reason for their action (i.e. other than not wanting support or wishing for the other mother to go through them as opposed to directly relating to their child) I tried to draw from my own personal reasoning for watching my child's interactions with others. Does that help clarify? I hope so. I need a nap!


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
there is a discomfort. I don't fall for the Jedi Mind Trick of "you didn't see what you saw." I know what I see. I know what I sense. I was born to use my instincts.

I'm definitely not saying you "didn't see what you saw." I'm saying that we can all witness a single event and draw an unlimited number of different interpretations.

Thus far, your interpretations of what constitutes support, the sorts of things that develop the mother/child bond, and several other things don't resonate with me or my experiences. And that's OK, but when you're making generalizations about how AP mothers are one way or women need x type of support, I think those sorts of generalizations are flawed.

And that is my over arching complaint about Supernanny and her techinques. They assume that children behave in a way to manipulate or gain control and that's not my experience or belief. Kohn's view (and GD, as I understand it) is to find out the specific reason for THAT child to behave in a given way, and deal with that specific child's specific reason.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
Now to be honest, I have met many successful AP/NP and what I have noticed is that the most successful of them were from Canada and was raised on farms and the other half were from Africa. When I say successful, I simply mean *raising their children did not seem to be a task, or battle.* The interaction between mother and child was quite different from the other mothers. *Very natural. Effortless. Give and Take.* In fact, two of the Canadian woman claimed to be moving back to Canada so they could raise their own children on farms.

Kind of off topic &#8230;

I have seen a couple of episodes of SN but have never heard of Alphie Kohn before this thread (was curious when I saw the thread title and then got hooked reading all the debate).

I am Canadian and I think the bolded parts describe my (and many I know) parenting exactly. I might add that we seem to *enjoy our kids and parenting* a bit more than others.

I read so much on MDC that surprises (lack of better word) me. Everyone I know seems to be on the gentler side of parenting. Breastfeeding seems to be most people's choice, no one I know has been harassed, frowned on, etc for NIP. I think most would think it was cool and interesting to see someone wearing their baby, hear that they co-sleep, be open to the vax debate, midwifes are on staff at the hospital where I gave birth, etc.

I had no idea (before finding MDC) that there were labels for parenting "styles". I just thought everyone was doing what came naturally to them and what they thought was best for their families. I guess what it comes down to for me is that I just don't understand why some are sooo concerned and judgmental about how others are parenting.

I think there are families that need guidance (definitely the ones on SN) and I think it's great that they can be open to change and want to do better (yes sad that sometimes it plays out on TV as entertainment). I think there are elements from both SN and AK that work and fit into _individual_ families and if someone finds a better method from either, I think that's great for them.

Sorry for babbling on, I was so excited to see the post about Canadians that I just had to acknowledge it. Canadians Rock!!!!

And yes .... I realize that there are exceptions to great Canadians and that just because I haven't been exposed to much ignorance and harshness that doesn't mean it doesn't exist here. I just think it is a lot less common.


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
Do all woman not have other women and mother in her communities that she feel safe with? I think they do, if that is what they truly wanted.

no, i dont think all women do. i know that i have friends in my community but i do not trust many w/ my children b/c i know they do not practice the same parenting as i do. I don't think they will punish my child, but i do think that my children will see discipline techniques that I disagree w/ and that I think are harmful to children, and I do not want my children witnessing that, esp. not from an environment that I put them in. I do have a few friends that I can trust w/ my children but certainly not many.
And I have sought out like minded ppl. There are just not that many in my area.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 








Which is why I said "I've never been to an AP meeting, so I can't speak to that specifically", and "Maybe that's not at all what you were referring to in these meetings though." I was seeing if there was a correlation, if perhaps It was what you were referring to because I somewhat related to your post.

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary tension and defensiveness in this thread. To me, a new member of MDC, it doesn't come across as being very supportive. But maybe I'm just oversensitive.

Ive been to AP meetings and I do not see the type of protectiveness that was described. I do see concern and respect for children, and a lot more consideration at AP meetings for children than I see at mainstream parenting meetings. I have not joined some mainstream music classes b/c I have found that I can't sit there while a child is told NO at least 20 times in one class for no valid reason most of the time (this was about a month ago). And w/ an infant who was barely touched in an hour long class.









There does seem to be a lot of unnecessary tension and defensiveness in this thread, I agree. I do hope that as a new member to MDC, that you will not take this one thread as indicative of teh support you can find here. I don't find you being overly sensitive but give it some time. You do have to have a tough skin with many members here and realize that online ppl come across differently at times than they may IRL. I at least try to take that view of many posts. I hope you will stick around. I know that I learned a lot from joining this board several years ago (but had to take a break for a bit before coming back).


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 

And yes .... I realize that there are exceptions to great Canadians and that just because I haven't been exposed to much ignorance and harshness that doesn't mean it doesn't exist here.

I think it depends where you live. I lived downtown in the nation's capital, and it definitely wasn't as you described. Unfortunately I encountered many people who were ignorant, harsh, and rude to me specifically with regard to the way I was parenting, wearing my babe, nursing in public, those kinds of things. I don't know why, but something about my look must make people feel that they need to teach me to parent. Now I live somewhere where everyone seems to nurse their toddlers in public and where their children, but I'm in a comparatively small town in the USA. You're a fortunate mama, where do you live?


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
Thank you, but no need to apologize. Just a misunderstanding? I have a hard time articulating my sentiments. Especially pre-nap!









So I guess I was just trying to see if my own personal experience with watching other mothers with my DS might correlate with these mamas to whom you were referring at AP meetings. Even though I've not personally been to those meetings, maybe my personal experience in other areas are similar. Just trying to gain perspective, without being able to talk to those mamas and ask them why they've stopped to watch the interaction of their child with another mama. In order to imagine another possible reason for their action (i.e. other than not wanting support or wishing for the other mother to go through them as opposed to directly relating to their child) I tried to draw from my own personal reasoning for watching my child's interactions with others. Does that help clarify? I hope so. I need a nap!









Thank you! Your post and all of the others comments have made me realize I do need to slow down and be more clear. I admit this is something i must work on.

Here is the example I used before but less confusing (i hope).

If 3 year old Benjamin is playing behind the entrance door and mother X who is not Benjamin's mother says to him, "Ooops, careful, sweetie. Can you come away from the door, please?" What I've noticed is that most of the other mothers in the room will look at the interaction between Mother X and Benjamin's mother. Of course, this is also true for the children's program at local libraries, ice-cream shops, etc,.

And while I do agree that most of the mothers ARE comfortable with one another in some of those groups, it does not extend to our children. I also understand why this is the case.

Now as for myself, as a mother I also look when another mother/person speak to my child if I am not familiar with them, but once I evaluate the situation and determine whether I am needed to step in or not, for the most part I am done with the matter. However, I will step in if am needed to repeat what the person/adult (whom I have already determined NOT to be a threat) has said to my child. Ex. If they asked my child to pick up a piece of paper, and he doesn't I will simply repeat what was already said to my son.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 

There does seem to be a lot of unnecessary tension and defensiveness in this thread, I agree. I do hope that as a new member to MDC, that you will not take this one thread as indicative of teh support you can find here. I don't find you being overly sensitive but give it some time. You do have to have a tough skin with many members here and realize that online ppl come across differently at times than they may IRL. I at least try to take that view of many posts. I hope you will stick around. I know that I learned a lot from joining this board several years ago (but had to take a break for a bit before coming back).

Thank you for addressing my comment. I appreciate it. I will stick around, I am learning a lot already. I will try to toughen my skin.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
Thank you for addressing my comment. I appreciate it. I will stick around, I am learning a lot already. I will try to toughen my skin.



















I think people here get really passionate and you know how that can sometimes turn into "overzealous."









It doesn't seem to matter where on the GD spectrum you fall, either. The "strict" mamas seem to feel as "attacked" as the CL mamas, it seems. So it's not personal!


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 









I think people here get really passionate and you know how that can sometimes turn into "overzealous."









It doesn't seem to matter where on the GD spectrum you fall, either. The "strict" mamas seem to feel as "attacked" as the CL mamas, it seems. So it's not personal!



















Thanks!! I think that translates into real life too. I find parenting discussions really uncomfortable with those who don't parent the same way that I do. I try to be diplomatic but it seems that someone always becomes offended.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Thus far, your interpretations of what constitutes support, the sorts of things that develop the mother/child bond, and several other things don't resonate with me or my experiences. And that's OK, but when you're making generalizations about how AP mothers are one way or women need x type of support, I think those sorts of generalizations are flawed.

Granted, I may need to work on the way I come across but in all fairness I've noticed some great things come from emotional support (which I observed with my own eyes) and I only made reference to the articles because I can see how more of some kind of "something" would cut back on mothers suffering with bouts of depression, and other mental and health issues.

That's all!


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
Thank you! Your post and all of the others comments have made me realize I do need to slow down and be more clear. I admit this is something i must work on.

Here is the example I used before but less confusing (i hope).


No problem, we all have something we need to work on, right? Well, I sure do anyway.
Thank you for clarifying. I had misunderstood your example.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
I think it depends where you live. I lived downtown in the nation's capital, and it definitely wasn't as you described. Unfortunately I encountered many people who were ignorant, harsh, and rude to me specifically with regard to the way I was parenting, wearing my babe, nursing in public, those kinds of things. I don't know why, but something about my look must make people feel that they need to teach me to parent. Now I live somewhere where everyone seems to nurse their toddlers in public and where their children, but I'm in a comparatively small town in the USA. You're a fortunate mama, where do you live?

I'm in Nova Scotia ... I find everyone here so easy going (for the most part). Maybe I don't run into it because I'm outside of the busy downtown scenes.

Sorry you ran into such ignorance ... glad you found a better place for your family


----------



## Mommoo

I-Am-Mother, have you read any Daniel Quinn? Slightly off topic, because it's not related to parenting, but he addresses how the ailments of our culture, society, would be greatly decreased if we were living tribally. I'm interpreting what you're getting at as support for a tribe-like community?


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
Thank you for addressing my comment. I appreciate it. I will stick around, I am learning a lot already. I will try to toughen my skin.









you know what really pushed me towards understanding how natural mothering is Peggy O'mara's "_A Quiet Place_." Before I was ever given the book as a present, I had printed all of the essays off of Mothering website. Now the book is old and tattered, highlighted and heavily underlined.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
I-Am-Mother, have you read any Daniel Quinn? Slightly off topic, because it's not related to parenting, but he addresses how the ailments of our culture, society, would be greatly decreased if we were living tribally. I'm interpreting what you're getting at as support for a tribe-like community?

hmmm...I must admit you've got me there. I have everyone of his books but I am not trying to push for tribal living because it would be unrealistic for us here in America. I DON'T deal in the Unrealistic. In some countries (including here) that kind of thinking will get you killed. I am a just a woman and then a mother who genuinely supports other women and other mothers.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
hmmm...I must admit you've got me there. I have everyone of his books but I am not trying to push for tribal living because it would be unrealistic for us here in America. I DON'T deal in the Unrealistic. In some countries (including here) that kind of thinking will get you killed. I am a just a woman and then a mother who genuinely supports other women and other mothers.

Ah, I see. It was a stretch!







It's nice to meet a supportive woman and mother.


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Comments like this are what get me: Often the folks who advocate adults getting more respect than children, are the same ones who advocate punitive consequences for children's misbehavior, regardless of extenuating circumstances.

respect is earned not bought or coerced. fearing someone and respecting someone are two different things. oftentimes, parents feel unsure of what line to take in establishing a healthy respectful relationship. some will end up too punitive and some will end up having their kids walk all over them and take them for granted.

who gets more respect, the parent or the child? i think this fluctuates on a daily basis from a situational perspective. a child is part of the universe not the universe itself. likewise, the parents. it's unfair to either party. trying to shift all focus on one is imbalance and that will create disharmony in the entire family's setup in the long term.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
If 3 year old Benjamin is playing behind the entrance door and mother X who is not Benjamin's mother says to him, "Ooops, careful, sweetie. Can you come away from the door, please?" What I've noticed is that most of the other mothers in the room will look at the interaction between Mother X and Benjamin's mother. Of course, this is also true for the children's program at local libraries, ice-cream shops, etc,.

Well, I guess the point is that everyone's comfort levels are different and what consitutes "support" to one might feel like interference to another. And maybe the real mother-to-mother support we could be doing is acknowleging and respecting those differences.

Which, to bring it full circle, is the point of Kohn's work as I understand it: What's most important, is NOT if Mother X's speaking to Benjamin is intending to offer support, but how Benjamin and his mother interpret her words and actions.

If Benjamin cowers and cries and his mother looks ashamed or angry then that's the reality of the moment. And it's clear that they did not feel "support" from the interaction.

Obviously, no one's going to think Mother X was doing anything wrong....b/c we do understand her intentions were well meaning.

And maybe Mother X said the exact same thing to Tammy moments before and no one batted an eye. Maybe Tammy's mother did feel supported.

But that doesn't mean we insist that Benjamin and his mother just need to get over it and change the way they feel to "supported." That would be ridiculous. Just like it would be ridiculous, knowing how Benjamin and his mother reacted, to say the same thing 5 minutes later and not understand that it is no longer an "offering of support." Benjamin and his mother's needs are different than Tammy's. And that's OK. But foisting one response upon both of them, and discounting their reactions, seems like a very common theme on the many Supernanny episodes I have seen--and that's the crux of Kohn's criticism as I understand it.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
Kind of off topic &#8230;

I have seen a couple of episodes of SN but have never heard of Alphie Kohn before this thread (was curious when I saw the thread title and then got hooked reading all the debate).

I am Canadian and I think the bolded parts describe my (and many I know) parenting exactly. I might add that we seem to *enjoy our kids and parenting* a bit more than others.

I read so much on MDC that surprises (lack of better word) me. Everyone I know seems to be on the gentler side of parenting. Breastfeeding seems to be most people's choice, no one I know has been harassed, frowned on, etc for NIP. I think most would think it was cool and interesting to see someone wearing their baby, hear that they co-sleep, be open to the vax debate, midwifes are on staff at the hospital where I gave birth, etc.

I had no idea (before finding MDC) that there were labels for parenting "styles". I just thought everyone was doing what came naturally to them and what they thought was best for their families. I guess what it comes down to for me is that I just don't understand why some are sooo concerned and judgmental about how others are parenting.

I think there are families that need guidance (definitely the ones on SN) and I think it's great that they can be open to change and want to do better (yes sad that sometimes it plays out on TV as entertainment). I think there are elements from both SN and AK that work and fit into _individual_ families and if someone finds a better method from either, I think that's great for them.

Sorry for babbling on, I was so excited to see the post about Canadians that I just had to acknowledge it. Canadians Rock!!!!

And yes .... I realize that there are exceptions to great Canadians and that just because I haven't been exposed to much ignorance and harshness that doesn't mean it doesn't exist here. I just think it is a lot less common.

I live in Toronto and agree with all this.


----------



## BabyGow

Ultimately I think it comes down to anything else...i.e. religion, parenting "styles" etc. You take what you need and leave the rest. I think many can learn from both Kohn and SN, depending on where you are at in your relationship with your children. If you don't like SN, then don't watch and if you don't care for Kohn, then don't read. It is our country for a reason, because we have freedom to CHOOSE what WE want to do. It IS sad that some of the families are out of control...however I have seen GD, natural consequence parenting with children running into busy roads and hitting their parents. You may please some people all of the time and all people some of the time, but never all people all of the time. It's life and you have to keep in mind that people are free human beings doing what they think and know to be the best.

"Judge not lest ye be judged"
"Let him who has no faults cast the first stone"

I am not "quoting" a bible, just good resourceful, sound advice


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Well, I guess the point is that everyone's comfort levels are different and what consitutes "support" to one might feel like interference to another. And maybe the real mother-to-mother support we could be doing is acknowleging and respecting those differences.

Which, to bring it full circle, is the point of Kohn's work as I understand it: What's most important, is NOT if Mother X's speaking to Benjamin is intending to offer support, but how Benjamin and his mother interpret her words and actions.

If Benjamin cowers and cries and his mother looks ashamed or angry then that's the reality of the moment. And it's clear that they did not feel "support" from the interaction.

Obviously, no one's going to think Mother X was doing anything wrong....b/c we do understand her intentions were well meaning.

And maybe Mother X said the exact same thing to Tammy moments before and no one batted an eye. Maybe Tammy's mother did feel supported.

But that doesn't mean we insist that Benjamin and his mother just need to get over it and change the way they feel to "supported." That would be ridiculous. Just like it would be ridiculous, knowing how Benjamin and his mother reacted, to say the same thing 5 minutes later and not understand that it is no longer an "offering of support." Benjamin and his mother's needs are different than Tammy's. And that's OK. But foisting one response upon both of them, and discounting their reactions, seems like a very common theme on the many Supernanny episodes I have seen--and that's the crux of Kohn's criticism as I understand it.

I totally agree! It's like if I'm watching my 2yo who's having a ball jumping off a stool -- and then some other adult tells her, "Oh, no, honey! You could get hurt!"

That wouldn't feel like support to me -- and maybe that's a good reason to just let a mother know what her child is doing: What's outside one mother's comfort-zone, may be fine for another.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

so now everyone is going to reserve the right to say all people are different and unique in their parenting? and what is comfortable and alright for one mother not be the same for another mother?


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
so now everyone is going to reserve the right to say all people are different and unique in their parenting? and what is comfortable and alright for one mother not be the same for another mother?

I think people have been saying that over the course of thread, right?

And that's one of the main complaints about Supernanny is that she overlays her very limited techniques on every situation. So people watch it and assume it's The Answer and if it doesn't "work" in their household it couldn't be about different needs or the fact that the show might be edited to show it always working, it's about the parents failing to do it right or the kids just needing *more* of it. That seems pretty one dimensional.

If her body of work was legitimate research showing the effectiveness of her techniques and how the majority of people respond to them, then that's one thing. But that's not her body of work. I think you can look at the anecdotal evidence that is presented in her shows and come to your own conclusions, but even that comes with it's own issues (for example, I routinely see mothers crying and expressing discomfort at executing some of Supernanny's techniques, but at the end of the show they are clearly saying that they found the techniques to be worth any discomfort. That's obviously conflicting information, but like previous posters have said, that's probably more about valuing the "outcome" than the "process." Of course, there's another "outcome" that may not even be discussed and that's the relationship or attachment--which is my focus.).


----------



## lolalola

I'm a bit boogled over the notion that there is no 'attachment/relationship' among parents and children whose parents use other-than-Kohn-endorsed methods of communicating.

And, maybe there is something to be said about parents who value the 'process' over the 'outcome'. I don't spend much time analyzing every word I say, or everything I do with my kids.

My goal, as I've stated before, is to raise healthy children who will become good people, people that others want to be around. I admit that I am less invested in the 'process' of how that happens. I do not spank, shame, belittle or otherwise treat my kids like 'my property'. I simply expect them to behave according to what they know is expected of them.

They will eventually grow up and have lives of their own. My job is to help them navigate the waters between their own boundaries and those of others.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I'm a bit boogled over the notion that there is no 'attachment/relationship' among parents and children whose parents use other-than-Kohn-endorsed methods of communicating.

Me too. Where was that said?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I don't spend much time analyzing every word I say, or everything I do with my kids.

Me either. With connection and respect as the building blocks, I find it just flows.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
With connection and respect as the building blocks, I find it just flows.









Indeed. Me too! I find it amazing really, it's not what I thought a parent / child relationship could be like. I am loving seeing the results of my parenting choices.


----------



## mrspineau

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
I'm in Nova Scotia ... I find everyone here so easy going (for the most part). Maybe I don't run into it because I'm outside of the busy downtown scenes.

Sorry you ran into such ignorance ... glad you found a better place for your family









Im in PEI! a fellow maritimer... and yeah here in charlottetown there is no judgement for babywearing, nursing, cosleeping, or anything of that nature. Here that is the norm. Especially nursing. I have a friend who doesn't nurse and she gets a hard time from everyone about it.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I'm a bit boogled over the notion that there is no 'attachment/relationship' among parents and children whose parents use other-than-Kohn-endorsed methods of communicating.

I'm with monkey's mom -- where was that said?

Now, I have heard it implied that any mother who doesn't have a supportive community, must not really want one or else she'd have one. And that kind of boggles my mind. It seems rather judgmental and like a huge over-generalization. I guess we just all have our things we feel strongly about.

Quote:

They will eventually grow up and have lives of their own. My job is to help them navigate the waters between their own boundaries and those of others.
I see that as part of my job, too.


----------



## Imogen

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rabbitmum* 
I must remind you that I was talking about Supernanny. I'm not discussing how you communicate with your children, but I have seen that Supernanny uses punishments, isolation, disrespect, actual explicit love withdrawal (I once saw her encouraging a mother to push her crying daughter away from her lap, which the daughter was trying to climb into), and ignoring a child's needs and feelings, as they are sitting in a spot or room especially designated to make them feel bad about themselves, crying for their parents' attention (= love). And that's in the parts that are not edited away.









I've never been totally keen on Supernanny... but she completely lost me when she had a Mother ignoring her son completely because he refused to wear sunblock. Never mind taking the time to communicate with the child the reasons for usng the sun block, it was simply a case of do as I tell you or I will ignore you. I loathe Supernanny. In the end, if I remember correctly, he put the sun block on because he couldn't cope with his Mom literally ignoring him.

Peace


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
so now everyone is going to reserve the right to say all people are different and unique in their parenting? and what is comfortable and alright for one mother not be the same for another mother?

I didn't think anyone ever gave up the right to say that.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Now, I have heard it implied that any mother who doesn't have a supportive community, must not really want one or else she'd have one. And that kind of boggles my mind.

Mammal_mama,
I went back and re-read that part, and that wasn't what I was trying to say. Instead of explaining what I did mean, I will simply admit that what every person considers support is different.

In all honesty, (and I could have figured out a better way to phrase some things) I was sharing some of the interactions and experiences I observed within other communities and cultures and at the same time sharing with everyone why I think that these women were at an advantage point.

In all fairness, we mothers here seem to be missing something.

And I'll tell you why I say this, I nursed all of my children, used slings with each of my children, slept with each of them, the whole nine yards. And by the time each of my children were about 2 years old, things simply got less and less stressful in my home. For example, my son is now 2 1/2 years old and each day that passes he begins to understand me better and vice versa. The last time he fought with me about not wanting to get into the car, out of the shopping cart, put his shoes on etc, was about two weeks ago, and he was exhausted. It was about his nap time. By all means, I am not saying we do not have our days but it is nothing like I have witnessed with other parents and I mean that. I guess when it comes down to it, the way I look at parenting my children is that they were born into the lives and home of their parents. I have a responsibility to them BUT they also have a responsibility to this home as well. In order for our family to thrive and be productive everyone does.

Since my son is so young, I still have to work around his nap schedule. An example of this is that I limit the errands I run to just Thursday and Friday because he doesn't like getting in and out of his car seat all day.

I also have a daughter who is 6 yrs. old and she may hit her brother, her sister, or even a cousins but she would never hit me or another adult. We have already established this years ago. I don't know how or when the bulb went off in her head but it did and it was many years ago.

My oldest daughter is 12 and I would probably drop dead if she ever speak to me like I have heard other 12 year old speaks to their parents.

i personally think that in every household the parent should have the last word if it is something that must be done. If not everything else is negotiable. If I have a doctors appointment and my son doesn't want to go, I pick him up, hug him and tell him (while I am carrying him out to my vehicle) that we must go. I don't arrive 15 min. late because "my child would not get in the car.

And since this is the case, i enjoy my children. The only struggles we have currently is the occasional ones with my 2 yr. old, and the other every day life issues. And with those we come to some kind of middle ground on. I had a friend that my oldest daughter did not like when we lived in Georgia, and instead of never hooking up with her (like I have heard many others mothers do for no other reason than because their own child did not want them to go) I limited the amount of time to about 3 hours. If the conversation was really good, and my daughter was cool with it, I would extend it to about 4 hours.

I can not or will not subscribe to any type of parenting philosophy that makes the mother forget about her needs, and always on the brink of collapsing. And since this is the case, I am able to give my children more credit than other parents. I am aware of how much childrn pick up on their own, how much they observe and how well they able to function within their home. I believe that most mothers do not give their children the proper credit. Children understand more than we seem to give them credit for. In my opinion, a six year old knows better than to smack a cracker from the hand of an adult. A twelve year old knows better than to tell his mother to shut up. For the sake of argument, I am not referring to when children push limits. In my opinion, that's different. You push limits sometimes NOT all of the time.


----------



## PassionateWriter

IAMMother,
you seem to be assuming that other women on this thread do not have the same experiences with their children that you do? I certainly do not have daily battles w/ my children. I usually dont have any battles w/ my children, unless they are tired, sick or hungry and that is minimal b/c I try to make it so.

This last post you have made I can agree w totally (at least the way I read it).

I don't know...seems like you consider Kohn to NOT support mothers and to demand that we give up ourselves. I certainly don't feel that way about my parenting or his philosophy.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
IAMMother,
you seem to be assuming that other women on this thread do not have the same experiences with their children that you do? I certainly do not have daily battles w/ my children. I usually dont have any battles w/ my children, unless they are tired, sick or hungry and that is minimal b/c I try to make it so.

This last post you have made I can agree w totally (at least the way I read it).

I don't know...seems like you consider Kohn to NOT support mothers and to demand that we give up ourselves. I certainly don't feel that way about my parenting or his philosophy.

passionatewriter, if you go back and re-read my threads I haven't said anything about the mothers in this thread....honestly! I have been making observations about mothers I have witnessed (with my eyes) and sometimes using some of the other threads started here to support the fact that my eyes are not deceiving me.

In all fairness, Passionatewriter, there are not a lot of mothers who would agree with my last post, believe me. I don't care to relive some of the comments I have heard from mothers in AP meetings and groups but somehow people leave those meetings believing I am an authoritarian. As if I don't _really_ understand the premise of gentle parenting or the philosophy of NP.


----------



## PassionateWriter

you stated this:

Quote:

In all fairness, we mothers here seem to be missing something.
which was the reason for my comment.

it seemed to ME that you were referring to mother's here. I am just chiming in to let you know that I am pretty faithful follower of GD/PD, etc. etc. and I do feel like my experiences w/ my children are similar to the last post you made. I don't feel like it makes my life harder....at all...it seems to make my life much easier.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
you stated this:

which was the reason for my comment.

it seemed to ME that you were referring to mother's here. I am just chiming in to let you know that I am pretty faithful follower of GD/PD, etc. etc. and I do feel like my experiences w/ my children are similar to the last post you made. I don't feel like it makes my life harder....at all...it seems to make my life much easier.

well, thank you for bringing that to my attention. when i said here i meant some of the mothers I encounter in meetings.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
In all fairness, Passionatewriter, there are not a lot of mothers who would agree with my last post, believe me. I don't care to relive some of the comments I have heard from mothers in AP meetings and groups but somehow people leave those meetings believing I am an authoritarian. As if I don't _really_ understand the premise of gentle parenting or the philosophy of NP.

After hearing your description of the encounter with that child, and based on some things I've read here, I would say that your definition of gentle discipline differs from mine.









We, too, don't have lots of battles in our house and it's not because the parents get the last word or I control my children. And I'm not being run down or passively walked over by little dictators.









And in some families, no matter what the discipline style or amount of AP practiced, they have kids who are hard wired to be intense and volatile and challenging. I have much more repsect for a family who works with that spiritedness and lets the child flourish into who s/he is, than the family who squashes that fire out in the name of control.

We had undiagnosed food allergies for years (still working on all the issues), and that made for a very stressful time when my oldest was a toddler. His behavior was off the charts for *my* expectations. No amount of punishing or controlling or expecting was going to change the fact that we were feeding him foods which made him feel/act violent and angry and crazy.

Anyway, it;s weird to read some of that stuff here b/c there are countless other parenting boards where controlling one's children is exalted and assumed to be the best course, no questions asked. This is one of the few places where alternatives--like working WITH a child, looking PAST the behavior--are not considered things that will result in children who test limits and abuse their parents and others. Well....most of the time, anyway.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Anyway, it;s weird to read some of that stuff here b/c there are countless other parenting boards where controlling one's children is exalted and assumed to be the best course, no questions asked. This is one of the few places where alternatives--like working WITH a child, looking PAST the behavior--are not considered things that will result in children who test limits and abuse their parents and others. Well....most of the time, anyway.

what are you trying to get at? I'm not understanding? Let me ask you this, what does this last paragraph mean and how does it relate to me?

Controlling children?


----------



## emma_goldman

Here is another SN thread on MDC:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...886&highlight=


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
what are you trying to get at? I'm not understanding? Let me ask you this, what does this last paragraph mean and how does it relate to me?

Controlling children?

I read a lot of criticism of AP/GD methods and families in your posts. And many references to control as preferential. That's not an uncommon position, generally, it's just strange to read it here on MDC.







Mothering identifies itself as a promoter of non-punitive discipline and non-adversarial/co-operative families and so on. And that seems really far from Supernanny and keeping kids "in control." I dunno....it just always strikes me as weird. And maybe a little scary b/c if I can't come here to discuss why Supernanny's techniques might not be AP where can I?







I gotta get my Supernanny discussions!














:


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I read a lot of criticism of AP/GD methods and families in your posts. And many references to control as preferential. That's not an uncommon position, generally, it's just strange to read it here on MDC.







Mothering identifies itself as a promoter of non-punitive discipline and non-adversarial/co-operative families and so on. And that seems really far from Supernanny and keeping kids "in control." I dunno....it just always strikes me as weird. And maybe a little scary b/c if I can't come here to discuss why Supernanny's techniques might not be AP where can I?







I gotta get my Supernanny discussions!














:

ah, i see. i apologize that my post come across that way that's really not what I think.

I DO NOT watch Supernanny nor do I support the show or the nanny in any way!


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
After hearing your description of the encounter with that child, and based on some things I've read here, I would say that your definition of gentle discipline differs from mine.









We, too, don't have lots of battles in our house and it's not because the parents get the last word or I control my children. And I'm not being run down or passively walked over by little dictators.









And in some families, no matter what the discipline style or amount of AP practiced, they have kids who are hard wired to be intense and volatile and challenging. I have much more repsect for a family who works with that spiritedness and lets the child flourish into who s/he is, than the family who squashes that fire out in the name of control.

We had undiagnosed food allergies for years (still working on all the issues), and that made for a very stressful time when my oldest was a toddler. His behavior was off the charts for *my* expectations. No amount of punishing or controlling or expecting was going to change the fact that we were feeding him foods which made him feel/act violent and angry and crazy.

Anyway, it;s weird to read some of that stuff here b/c there are countless other parenting boards where controlling one's children is exalted and assumed to be the best course, no questions asked. This is one of the few places where alternatives--like working WITH a child, looking PAST the behavior--are not considered things that will result in children who test limits and abuse their parents and others. Well....most of the time, anyway.


i agree that this (food allergies) may be a reason for many children's behavior and its sad that its not sought out AT ALL in SN. Or, maybe the child isn't getting enough physical activity. Or enough attention (that seems to be a huge issue w/ many kids on SN...parents too busy to really deal w/ the kids, etc. etc.). But, on SN, it all seems to stem from behavior, etc. etc.

I share your frustration monkey's mom....this is the only "big" message board that I have found to connect w/ other mothers who are more concerned about their children and how they feel (the kids) than being in control.

I don't know how many times I have heard "they just have to listen". Yes, sometimes that is the case...but not "just b/c".


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
And in some families, no matter what the discipline style or amount of AP practiced, they have kids who are hard wired to be intense and volatile and challenging. I have much more repsect for a family who works with that spiritedness and lets the child flourish into who s/he is, than the family who squashes that fire out in the name of control.

Yes. And thank you for sharing that!

I wouldn't say that we have "constant" battles in our house. I would say that sometimes things seem like they're getting easier and easier -- and sometimes they're just really hard for a while.

I have a hard time with all the comparisons. It's great that some families seem to get it "right" early on, and just breeze through life. But it's hard when they look at others who are having a tough time, and feel compelled to express "shock" and "disgust" ... etcetera, etcetera.

I've met some moms of many who say that none of their children ever went through an aggressive phase -- not even in toddlerhood. So much for thinking there's nothing that'll shock a mom of many, and that surely these are moms who'll understand my struggles!

Not that I have many, I just have 2 -- but, I dunno, somehow I just had this idea that most of the judgementalism comes from moms with just 1 or 2 kids (or no kids). And that moms with a whole bunch are bound to have had at least *one* who went through a stage similar to something we're dealing with.

That just goes to show that every family experiences things differently.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
Mammal_mama,
I went back and re-read that part, and that wasn't what I was trying to say. Instead of explaining what I did mean, I will simply admit that what every person considers support is different.

Thanks for clarifying!







It actually wasn't just you that I got that from.

I do see your point about us all differing in what we consider to be support.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I read a lot of criticism of AP/GD methods and families in your posts. And many references to control as preferential.

After mulling over your comment I have something to say. I believe in AP/NP because in my opinion, this is the kind of thing that can help change the world. Raising generations of children who are breast-feed, co-sleep, were carried in slings and so forth is a beautiful and natural thing. Home schooled children, free-births, home births are awesome. Not because a scientist or two has recorded what they observed as far as the interactions between mother and child in third world countries and put a couple of labels on things, but because (if you are doing it correctly) you know it is natural. It causes you to feel indescribable. I compare it to being a gardener. Gardeners enjoy their tasks of making things grow and (from my experience) are much more in-tuned with their surroundings. They have to be, because flowers and plants are so delicate but at the same time very tough. Like children and their feelings.

With that being said, when unschooling begins to attract a larger audience, and more people become interested in diaper elimination communication, this site (Mothering) is going to be a gem. However, some of you veterans are going to have to unschool other mothers because to be honest, we are not the norm and most of us know this.

I am not certain how many mothers who practice AP/NP understand how dynamic and important it is. Or the history of it. Let me give a brief history for those who are unaware. As I said in previous posting, the philosophy behind AP/NP was taken directly from tribes, villages and the lives of hunter-gatherers. This kind of parenting (nursing, co-sleeping, holding and carrying was looked down on by many explorers. A great book to read (for those who wish to learn more) is _Hunter-Gatherers Childhoods: Evolutionary, Developmental and Cultural Perspectives (Evolutionary Foundations of Human Behavior)_ by Michael E. Lamb & Barry S. Hewlett. Another great book would be _The Old Way: A Story of the First People_ by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas. She is also the author of _The Harmless People_ which is another good book I would recommend to those who want a better understanding of the philosophy of NP/AP. Because it is not new and we are not the experts. As I said earlier, there are small pockets of hunter-gathers scattered across the world who have never been introduced to formula, cribs, or strollers or anything else. I gave one example of this in one of my previous post, when I mentioned the Unknown Amazon Tribe who was photographed sometime this summer. It is also still practiced in many third world countries. Anyone who watches The History Channel or National Geographic can attest to this.

Let us remember that the first explorers to visit many of these countries considered the women "savages" when they witnessed children 2, 3, and 4 yrs. old nursing at their mother's exposed breast. (There were many others factors but they are not important at the moment.) The term "co-sleeping" was no doubt coined after someone noticed that most of the children only slept on a mat of some kind with their mothers or other family members. These same women used a sling to carry their children when they were working, traveling long distances, shopped at the local market, or were doing something as simple as washing the village's laundry at the river. As I said in many third world countries this natural parenting still exists.

It was rare for women in Europe to breast feed her child. History books tell us that the men thought the woman should be covered at all time. I'm thinking this is why people started paying for "nurse mothers" (not for all, but for some). I don't know about the history of a crib and baby's nursery but I would be willing to bet it got its start in Europe. Giving a child their own space, giving birth in a hospital, is a luxury that you must be able to afford.

America duplicated itself after Europe, right? Or at least in many ways. Now what gets me is whenever I hear another AP/NP mother say she can not understand how another mother could want to spank, beat or control another human being. How could you not? You don't have to agree or condone it but unless a person is blind, they should at least understand. Christian men in Europe & America typically believed (I do not know about many other religions although I have heard this was a common practice in Islam) that spanking or beating was the way to control another human being. Bible Belt? This type of treatment even extended to their women, children and slaves.

I gave that last example because in my honest opinion, this country has a huge Christian presence. And to act like we don't understand why most people we come into contact with prefer spanking or agree with punishment is unfair and unrealistic because of this country's history. Spanking and beating is part of the fabric of our country, just like it was a part of the country we model ourselves after, Europe. You were not a man if you did not have control over everything you owned and that means everything. (Please understand I am not referring to ALL Christians).

And AP/NP wonder why they are always having a difficult time nursing their children in public, or getting support from other American when they choose to have a natural birth, or a home birth. Even something as small as catching hell for using a "clothes line." Because Americans and Christians believe in science, not natural. What kind of image would it send to other countries if an American mother is seen as engaging in the same natural behavior as the "savages?"

Breast feeding a child until they are three or four is what "savages" do. So, it's going to take a while longer before this wave catches on, if it ever does. In the meantime, I'm going to be much more understanding to the woman who spanks her child (although I am bold enough to suggest other methods) because she is only doing what has been passed down to her for generations. The same goes for the parents who use formula, choose not to co-sleep, use a sling, or home birth, want an epidural. That is why I was able to endure the meetings, and other discussions with AP mothers because in reality something greater will come from AP/NP. It is why I have come out of lurking to become a member of this site, why I apologize if I fail to explain something clearly, etc.

Anything I attach myself to, I believe whole heatedly. For me, there is no other way. I don't have the luxury to NOT be confident, and certain about my role as a mother.


----------



## lolalola

Ack...this thread grew so long, so fast!

I haven't had a chance to respond, as I was too busy putting my son in the naughty spot, today....







Just a joke.

Anyway, I'm not going to comment on the "natural vs unnatural" mothering aspect, 'cause I just don't have the energy (right now, anyway). But I wanted to address Monkey Mom, and Mammal Mamma's question out of fairness, and clarification.

It wasn't explicitly argued that mothers who practice discipline methods like time outs aren't attached to their children. However, it has been implied, and in some instances, stated, that mothers who do so, are not thinking about how their kids are feeling, and are therefore not AS invested in their kids well-being as those who practice discipline without time outs.

And, I'm not going to say that I take offence to that, but I do find it innaccurate, and a bit arrogant. I'm not calling anyone out, or pointing to any particular post because that's counter-productive to this very polite, and respectful discussion.









Mammal Mamma:

Quote:

Now, I have heard it implied that any mother who doesn't have a supportive community, must not really want one or else she'd have one. And that kind of boggles my mind. It seems rather judgmental and like a huge over-generalization. I guess we just all have our things we feel strongly about.
I didn't mean it as a judgement. I apologize if I offended you. I am well aware that there are many moms out there who would give their right arm for a supportive network. A generalization...yes. I will conceed the point that "support" means different things to different folks.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
I don't have the luxury to NOT be confident, and certain about my role as a mother.

I really don't know what you mean by this.


----------



## my3peanuts

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
i agree that this (food allergies) may be a reason for many children's behavior and its sad that its not sought out AT ALL in SN. Or, maybe the child isn't getting enough physical activity. Or enough attention (that seems to be a huge issue w/ many kids on SN...parents too busy to really deal w/ the kids, etc. etc.). But, on SN, it all seems to stem from behavior, etc. etc.

I share your frustration monkey's mom....this is the only "big" message board that I have found to connect w/ other mothers who are more concerned about their children and how they feel (the kids) than being in control.

I don't know how many times I have heard "they just have to listen". Yes, sometimes that is the case...but not "just b/c".

For quite a while in your post I thought you were referring to Special Needs kids when you used "SN" and I was getting angry. Then I realized you meant SUPER NANNY. :Lol

Guess I should read the thread from the beginning and I probably would've seen other references to her this way!


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my3peanuts* 
For quite a while in your post I thought you were referring to Special Needs kids when you used "SN" and I was getting angry. Then I realized you meant SUPER NANNY. :Lol

Guess I should read the thread from the beginning and I probably would've seen other references to her this way!









OMG i am so sorry! i am so used to abbreviating everything (i once gave a secretary a 3 page list of my abbreviations! lol!).


----------



## elizawill

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my3peanuts* 
For quite a while in your post I thought you were referring to Special Needs kids when you used "SN" and I was getting angry. Then I realized you meant SUPER NANNY. :Lol


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 

We, too, don't have lots of battles in our house and it's not because the parents get the last word or I control my children. And I'm not being run down or passively walked over by little dictators.









those are your children, you have a system that works. good. we can never make the mistake of assuming what is that critical component that works for a particular family...is it the children's receptiveness or the parents' approach? who directs what? we cannot base our particular situation as the criteria for deciding someone is getting/doing it wrong. punitive parents and AP parents, both, can get into this rut.


----------



## Imogen

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
After mulling over your comment I have something to say. I believe in AP/NP because in my opinion, this is the kind of thing that can help change the world. Raising generations of children who are breast-feed, co-sleep, were carried in slings and so forth is a beautiful and natural thing. Home schooled children, free-births, home births are awesome. Not because a scientist or two has recorded what they observed as far as the interactions between mother and child in third world countries and put a couple of labels on things, but because (if you are doing it correctly) you know it is natural. It causes you to feel indescribable. I compare it to being a gardener. Gardeners enjoy their tasks of making things grow and (from my experience) are much more in-tuned with their surroundings. They have to be, because flowers and plants are so delicate but at the same time very tough. Like children and their feelings.

With that being said, when unschooling begins to attract a larger audience, and more people become interested in diaper elimination communication, this site (Mothering) is going to be a gem. However, some of you veterans are going to have to unschool other mothers because to be honest, we are not the norm and most of us know this.

I am not certain how many mothers who practice AP/NP understand how dynamic and important it is. Or the history of it. Let me give a brief history for those who are unaware. As I said in previous posting, the philosophy behind AP/NP was taken directly from tribes, villages and the lives of hunter-gatherers. This kind of parenting (nursing, co-sleeping, holding and carrying was looked down on by many explorers. A great book to read (for those who wish to learn more) is _Hunter-Gatherers Childhoods: Evolutionary, Developmental and Cultural Perspectives (Evolutionary Foundations of Human Behavior)_ by Michael E. Lamb & Barry S. Hewlett. Another great book would be _The Old Way: A Story of the First People_ by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas. She is also the author of _The Harmless People_ which is another good book I would recommend to those who want a better understanding of the philosophy of NP/AP. Because it is not new and we are not the experts. As I said earlier, there are small pockets of hunter-gathers scattered across the world who have never been introduced to formula, cribs, or strollers or anything else. I gave one example of this in one of my previous post, when I mentioned the Unknown Amazon Tribe who was photographed sometime this summer. It is also still practiced in many third world countries. Anyone who watches The History Channel or National Geographic can attest to this.

Let us remember that the first explorers to visit many of these countries considered the women "savages" when they witnessed children 2, 3, and 4 yrs. old nursing at their mother's exposed breast. (There were many others factors but they are not important at the moment.) The term "co-sleeping" was no doubt coined after someone noticed that most of the children only slept on a mat of some kind with their mothers or other family members. These same women used a sling to carry their children when they were working, traveling long distances, shopped at the local market, or were doing something as simple as washing the village's laundry at the river. As I said in many third world countries this natural parenting still exists.

It was rare for women in Europe to breast feed her child. History books tell us that the men thought the woman should be covered at all time. I'm thinking this is why people started paying for "nurse mothers" (not for all, but for some). I don't know about the history of a crib and baby's nursery but I would be willing to bet it got its start in Europe. Giving a child their own space, giving birth in a hospital, is a luxury that you must be able to afford.

America duplicated itself after Europe, right? Or at least in many ways. Now what gets me is whenever I hear another AP/NP mother say she can not understand how another mother could want to spank, beat or control another human being. How could you not? You don't have to agree or condone it but unless a person is blind, they should at least understand. Christian men in Europe & America typically believed (I do not know about many other religions although I have heard this was a common practice in Islam) that spanking or beating was the way to control another human being. Bible Belt? This type of treatment even extended to their women, children and slaves.

I gave that last example because in my honest opinion, this country has a huge Christian presence. And to act like we don't understand why most people we come into contact with prefer spanking or agree with punishment is unfair and unrealistic because of this country's history. Spanking and beating is part of the fabric of our country, just like it was a part of the country we model ourselves after, Europe. You were not a man if you did not have control over everything you owned and that means everything. (Please understand I am not referring to ALL Christians).

And AP/NP wonder why they are always having a difficult time nursing their children in public, or getting support from other American when they choose to have a natural birth, or a home birth. Even something as small as catching hell for using a "clothes line." Because Americans and Christians believe in science, not natural. What kind of image would it send to other countries if an American mother is seen as engaging in the same natural behavior as the "savages?"

Breast feeding a child until they are three or four is what "savages" do. So, it's going to take a while longer before this wave catches on, if it ever does. In the meantime, I'm going to be much more understanding to the woman who spanks her child (although I am bold enough to suggest other methods) because she is only doing what has been passed down to her for generations. The same goes for the parents who use formula, choose not to co-sleep, use a sling, or home birth, want an epidural. That is why I was able to endure the meetings, and other discussions with AP mothers because in reality something greater will come from AP/NP. It is why I have come out of lurking to become a member of this site, why I apologize if I fail to explain something clearly, etc.

Anything I attach myself to, I believe whole heatedly. For me, there is no other way. I don't have the luxury to NOT be confident, and certain about my role as a mother.

I really enjoyed reading this and I agree completely on how punitive measures have become so ingrained in our consciousness. In fact, I was forced to consider this yesterday when a complete stranger demanded that my son 'Needed a slap' (but this is an entire other thread worth of discussion).

I found your post to be very throught provoking









Peace


----------



## allgirls

That's a very well thought out response I-am-Mother. I would agree. I would suggest though that maybe your are more referring to Great Britain rather than the whole of the continent of Europe. Many many countries in Europe have long histories of bfing and more natural parenting. But you are right, the upper classes of England definitely were more likely to employ a wet nurse, the lower classes however extended nursed as it was their only method of birth control..not always successful but it was all they had.

You make some interesting points though. I don't think history has modelled natural parenting in North America.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
we cannot base our particular situation as the criteria for deciding someone is getting/doing it wrong. punitive parents and AP parents, both, can get into this rut.

Considering I was responding to this, I'm not sure why your comments are directed at me:

Quote:

i personally think that in *every* household the parent should have the last word if it is something that must be done. If not everything else is negotiable. If I have a doctors appointment and my son doesn't want to go, I pick him up, hug him and tell him (while I am carrying him out to my vehicle) that we must go. I don't arrive 15 min. late because "my child would not get in the car.

And since this is the case, i enjoy my children.

Anyway, my overall pt. re. Supernanny (not special needs







) vs. Alfie Kohn is this:

When you have someone saying, "Respond to your children's behavior with this set of responses, and it will eventually work to end the behavior."

That's basing one's particular situation as the criteria for others.

When, on the other hand, you have someone saying, "Find what your child's underlying issues are, and deal with them in loving and respectful ways, and it will eventually work to end the behavior."

That's a bit different. That is something that can be applied to everyone--because the advice is to look at the individual, and who doesn't deserve/want love and respect?

Further, when the advice continues: "After looking at hundreds [?? Not sure, really--but for the sake of argument...] of individuals, we've seen that the vast majority find x set of repsonses to NOT be loving or respectful, you might not want to use those." I think that's a generality that is worth knowing.

Just like in AP we can discuss the benefits of babywearing. We understand that *most* babies like to be close to the body, they benefit from the view, etc. But, we don't force a screaming baby to be worn when s/he clearly would rather not. So, while babywearing is part of AP, the bigger part of AP is responding to the child individually so that a relationship and attachment is strong. The criteria to build that attachment is not, "You must wear your baby," the criteria is, "Respond to YOUR baby's needs."

So when someone puts it out there that in "every" household the parent must get the last word, or that the mother-child bond is "always" strengthened by other women disciplining/scolding another's child, then that's problematic for me. Those methods would not work to build up the relationships in my house. I think they would have the opposite effect, actually. Same with Supernanny's methods. So I get nervous when I see those methods presented in a way that says these are universal truths. How many of us have heard people say, "That kid needs Supernanny!" On a forum for a popular TV show (Jon and Kate Plus 8) I hear this a lot. Nevermind that the kids in this family are being recorded all the time and have parents whose parenting decisions seem questionable at times. Most of the participants on this forum genuinely feel that the children are being exploited. But many don't see the kids' behavior as being a result of that exploitation, it's a result of not having Supernanny.









Maybe I'll post this Kohn quote there









Quote:

I also found quite a bit of evidence that parents who refrain from excessive control and rely instead on warmth and reason are more likely to have children who do what they're asked - and who grow into responsible, compassionate, healthy people.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
That's a very well thought out response I-am-Mother. I would agree. I would suggest though that maybe your are more referring to Great Britain rather than the whole of the continent of Europe. Many many countries in Europe have long histories of bfing and more natural parenting. But you are right, the upper classes of England definitely were more likely to employ a wet nurse, the lower classes however extended nursed as it was their only method of birth control..not always successful but it was all they had.

You make some interesting points though. I don't think history has modelled natural parenting in North America.

all girls, yes you are absolutely correct. thanks. in one of my earlier postings i actually gave germany a lot of credit. i lived their for several years, and formed a few bonds with some women, (i am actually still friends with one) and all of them were breast-fed and also breast-fed their own children. my girlfriend actually calls her "wet-nurse" her "nursing mother.


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Considering I was responding to this, I'm not sure why your comments are directed at me: [snip]

it was just directed at a point you made, most of the posts are not about supernanny (i haven't watched it) nor about kohn. but, about particular perceptions about parenting and the notion that what works for one should work for everyone. I-AM-Mother's eloquent post is beautifully illustrative of what i am trying to say.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
Now what gets me is whenever I hear another AP/NP mother say she can not understand how another mother could want to spank, beat or control another human being. How could you not? You don't have to agree or condone it but unless a person is blind, they should at least understand.

Right. But, you know, I don't think I've heard *anyone* here at MDC (or even Kohn) say "I can't understand how a parent could feel the urge to spank or be controlling." Seriously, I know I can "understand" the urge. And I think most people here can.

And, again, I don't hear anyone saying that if we ever slip up and do behaviorist stuff, that means we don't care about our connection with our children, or don't care about their feelings.

I really do see it as a matter of changing our philosophy first -- primarily by looking at our children in a new way. You are so right about what I'll call the fundamentalist Christian punitive tradition, which I grew up in. As you can see by my signature, I'm still Christian -- but I no longer see the punitive tradition as true to the nature of the God I'm getting to know increasingly better.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
it was just directed at a point you made, most of the posts are not about supernanny (i haven't watched it) nor about kohn. but, about particular perceptions about parenting and the notion that what works for one should work for everyone. I-AM-Mother's eloquent post is beautifully illustrative of what i am trying to say.

No, I wasn't confused about the Supernanny/Kohn tie-in, but just that I thought we were saying the same thing.

My point was not "what works for one should work for everyone,"--with the exception of tuning into the child and responding with respect and love.

My point was exactly the opposite, that in "every" household the parent should not get the last word, etc.

Does that make sense? I understand me. Am I the only one?


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
So when someone puts it out there that in "every" household the parent must get the last word,

That is my personal opinion. I know this is not the case though nor will it ever be.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
or that the mother-child bond is "always" strengthened by other women disciplining/scolding another's child, then that's problematic for me.

however, this is NOT what I said. I did not say it was "strengthened" I said that the mothers seemed to be LESS stressful when other people were backing them up. I gave this example below:

Quote:

if a three year old little boy refused to listen to his German mother after she asked him to sit down the other women would support her, and back her up. Below is an example dialogue-

"Joe, sit down." <------mother

"Joe, your mother told you to sit." <--------grandmother

"You must listen to your mother." <---------neighbor with two children

"Are you being naughty?"<-----------boy's aunt

This group of women/mothers are backing the mother and the child begins to sense this. Someone in that room will get Joe to listen and some of the times it is NOT his mother. It's a community of women raising children and *that means less stress on our mothers.*
of course i understand there will be exceptions to this rule, because as you said this would never work in your home. I understand people and things better when I observe them, not be reading about people. My husband says I have a bad habit of "staring" at other people. It's not a bad habit as much as it my way of internalizing what I see and then understanding it.

the reason i gave this example of the german women is because if i had my first child now i would probably be turned away from AP/NP especially if I had to base it off of what I see in meetings with other mothers. instead, i was introduced to a phenomenal group of women (by accident) who took me under their wings and shared with me the philosophy of AP/NP when i was pregnant with my first child fourteen years ago. am i seeing mothers more mothers saying "yes" to everything? YES, I am. is it because more mainstream mothers are adopting its philosophy? I really don't know. I most defiantly believes that has something to do with it, although not solely.

in all fairness, kohn draws his conclusions about things by Observing and watching the interactions and reactions of people. I do the exact same thing. And, i observe that the mothers with the MOST support appear to be LESS stressed. Remember, I also shared with everyone how the interactions between the mothers from canada and africa and their children were anything BUT what I see going on in our AP/NP meetings. Now, I have NO clue about their personal or individual support system AT ALL nor did I have time to ask, but when that group was over EVERYONE wanted to get in on what they were doing. Their children were really overall much calmer, and more respectful when playing with the toys and when interacting with the other children.

I am also aware that support will differ for each family.

So, I don't go on another tangent like I did yesterday I will just say this, what you reading in my posts may sound critical but they are merely observations about some mother's emotional mind-state, not if what she is practicing is working or not because obviously it is. I am a AP/NP. I live in harmony with my children and have used everyone of my instincts in raising them. To be honest, sometimes I give myself head-aches (especially now that my oldest daughter is 12 yrs. old) making sure to respect her needs and interests.)

*shakes head thinking about it*


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Does that make sense? I understand me. Am I the only one?









it's good to understand oneself.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkey's mom:
So when someone puts it out there that in "every" household the parent must get the last word,
That is my personal opinion. I know this is not the case though nor will it ever be.

Well, yes, and that's fine. Many people believe in "one size fits all" parenting. I'm not really one of them. Though, it's tricky b/c I kind of do believe that AP does....only in that, responding to and meeting children's needs should happen in EVERY household.







But as far as specifics, I think it should be case-by-case.

Like, I think everyone should love their kids. But after reading stuff about "love languages," it's clear to me that there are so many different ways that can play out specifically. And not only in terms of what's being offered as love, but also in terms of how people experience those or other "offerings."

So, while I can say, "Yes, EVERYone ought to love their kids," I don't think that if every parent told their kids, 'I love you,' on a regular basis, that would fulfill the "love need" of everyone. Some people need love via touch, some need love via acts of service, some need gifts or offerings.

EVery parent having the final say or last word, resulting in a harmonious household or enjoying their children or whatever, strikes me as one of those specifics that just doesn't apply universally.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkey's mom:
or that the mother-child bond is "always" strengthened by other women disciplining/scolding another's child, then that's problematic for me.
however, this is NOT what I said. I did not say it was "strengthened" I said that the mothers seemed to be LESS stressful when other people were backing them up. I gave this example below:

I thought this part at the end:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
This group of women/mothers are backing the mother and the child begins to sense this. Someone in that room will get Joe to listen and some of the times it is NOT his mother. It's a community of women raising children and that means less stress on our mothers. More confident woman. Less text book ways of raising children. *This does a great deal for the mother-child bond. It always has and always will.*

was about strengthing the mother-child bond. And that it was a result of the type of community and support illustrated in the example.

I have no problem with the examples or observations, it's the "always" and "every" and sort of universal conclusions that I take issue with.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Right. But, you know, I don't think I've heard *anyone* here at MDC (or even Kohn) say "I can't understand how a parent could feel the urge to spank or be controlling." Seriously, I know I can "understand" the urge. And I think most people here can.

I wasn't really talking about what I read here. Let me give you an example of what I was talking about.

Some woman who has NEVER been upset or frustrated with another human being in her entire life comes into a NP meeting and with what appears to be her last breathe of air, announces on the way to the group she stopped to get her children something to eat. At the restaurant she heard a mother yell to her son, "sit down before i spank you." And she was just appalled. She was tempted to walk out without ordering the children's food but she didn't want to be late. She ordered the food and was so disgusted she couldn't bring herself to even look in the lady's direction. She tells us that the other lady was lucky because had she did look at her she probably would have thrown her soda in her face.

Now about 4 other mothers always jump right in and say things like:

"Nooo."

"I don't know why..."

"Neither do I. That is why I would...."

"I don't blame you for being so upset, now come sit down."

Then someone who can completely relate to the mother at the restaurant frustration says something like:

" Well, I can understand her frustrations..."

OR.

"I'm sorry to hear that, I remember when I almost lost it one day with my such and such. It's really hard to be a mother. I hope she learns a better way to..."

And then one of the other mothers (who has been quiet this entire time) turns and says something to the woman who has just finished speaking like:

"I'm glad you just said that because I also remember..."

And suddenly two of the other woman who chimed right in when the woman who has never been frustrated with her child first told us the story remembers a few times they almost lost it. And maybe then someone will say something like, "my parents also..."

Which is normally when I choose to share with them what I know about (to use your words) fundamentalist Christian punitive tradition. After being looked at like I am an alien from out of space, the woman who has never been angry with another human being in her life, looks at me and says "well, that is still no way to treat another human being ESPECIALLY a child" and then says something about still wanting to burn that "other" mother to a stake.

And normally if the facilitator is sharp enough she is able to get everyone's mind off of the ordeal, by mentioning the name of a great book or something like that. However, if not, I am forced to listen to a bunch of mother's soothe the anger of the woman who never gets upset with her children or other people until the conversation either shifts or (my personal favorite) one of the children brings us all back down to reality.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
it's good to understand oneself.









Hee! "I live in my own world. It's OK, they know me there!"


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Well, yes, and that's fine. Many people believe in "one size fits all" parenting. I'm not really one of them. Though, it's tricky b/c I kind of do believe that AP does....only in that, responding to and meeting children's needs should happen in EVERY household.







But as far as specifics, I think it should be case-by-case.

Like, I think everyone should love their kids. But after reading stuff about "love languages," it's clear to me that there are so many different ways that can play out specifically. And not only in terms of what's being offered as love, but also in terms of how people experience those or other "offerings."

So, while I can say, "Yes, EVERYone ought to love their kids," I don't think that if every parent told their kids, 'I love you,' on a regular basis, that would fulfill the "love need" of everyone. Some people need love via touch, some need love via acts of service, some need gifts or offerings.

EVery parent having the final say or last word, resulting in a harmonious household or enjoying their children or whatever, strikes me as one of those specifics that just doesn't apply universally.

I thought this part at the end:

was about strengthing the mother-child bond. And that it was a result of the type of community and support illustrated in the example.

I have no problem with the examples or observations, it's the "always" and "every" and sort of universal conclusions that I take issue with.

when i say strengthening the mother-child bond, i am talking about mother who have a great deal of support appear to be less stressful and have seems to enjoy their bond with their children.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
Some woman who has NEVER been upset or frustrated with another human being in her entire life comes into a NP meeting and with what appears to be her last breathe of air, announces on the way to the group she stopped to get her children something to eat. At the restaurant she heard a mother yell to her son, "sit down before i spank you." And she was just appalled. She was tempted to walk out without ordering the children's food but she didn't want to be late. *She ordered the food and was so disgusted she couldn't bring herself to even look in the lady's direction. She tells us that the other lady was lucky because had she did look at her she probably would have thrown her soda in her face.*

Bolding mine.







I know exactly what you're talking about here. The "I'm so appalled at violence I'd just love to beat up all those violent people!" perspective.

It's similar to all the people who think Gentle Discipline should end with childhood -- "Gentle Discipline" parents remarking that some other adult "deserves" the consequence she's getting.

Oh, well ... I think philosophies change gradually for all of us, it takes time for Gentle Discipline to move into all of our dealings with other people -- therefore some people probably only ever learn to apply it with children. That's what I mean about integrity being a life-goal -- no one's ever going to get it all together in this life.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
therefore some people probably only ever learn to apply it with children. That's what I mean about integrity being a life-goal -- no one's ever going to get it all together in this life.









BUT OUR CHILDREN CAN further our progress and their children can take it even further. yesterday that is why i said I believe in the philosophy of AP/NP because if implemented correctly, it can shift lots of things. but if AP/NP is just a fad, something people do without hoping to see positive results (1) in their home (2) with their children (3) or in the future, it's like every other fad. Now the thing about this is, it is not a fad with me. Which is why I have allowed my children to attend most of AP/NP meetings with me. So, they can SEE other woman doing the same thing as mommy. Enforces in their brain some of the same things I do at home. Not because I need company or friends but to SEE the community of women who parent naturally. Everything else can be dismissed. I am actively trying to combat some of the daily images of strollers, bottles, formula, with what we use. I want my children to subscribe to Mothering as adults. To nurse, co-sleep, wear a sling, not spank, have a natural home birth (if possible) because doing some of the most natural things like raising another human being from a new born baby has caused me to understand people and others. Not completely but just a little bit.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
And, again, I don't hear anyone saying that if we ever slip up and do behaviorist stuff, that means we don't care about our connection with our children, or don't care about their feelings.

But, those who *choose* to use 'behaviourist stuff' must not, right?









I mean, isn't that the reason for Kohn's 'blasting' of Supernany?


----------



## allgirls

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
But, those who *choose* to use 'behaviourist stuff' must not, right?









I mean, isn't that the reason for Kohn's 'blasting' of Supernany?

I would think that if you follow the philosophy set out in Unconditional Parenting you would indeed think behaviourist stuff was not the best course of action in raising children. I think at times a lot of us with certain ideals including those set out by Alphie Kohn about parenting being about the relationship and connection with the child and between the parents, siblings and entire family would think that a complete behaviourist approach to parenting would be the wrong approach. That seems to be a given







.

When first learning about gd I read a large number of books including Unconditional Parenting. Before I could learn the practicalities or "techniques" to help support me in my parenting I first had to settle my philosophy in my own mind. I agree with Alphie Kohn's philosophy and I also agree with Dr. Neufield and Anthony Wolfe...all of who write of different things that come down to one thing...family harmony and connection is the key to successful parenting and happy, emotionally healthy children.

Some of the techniques came from other resources..Barbara Coloroso for example. Also Playful Parenting is very helpful, I don't know the author's name off hand. Siblings Without Rivalry is another example.

I have watched one of the Super Nanny or Nanny 911 shows(not sure which) and what I saw was that she also subscribed to the idea that the family should have harmony and that parents and children needed to connect. What I disagreed with was the methods used in getting there(which involved punitive measures) as I don't believe punishment to be beneficial no matter how desperate the family is. I think they could have gotten to the same result with more time and more patience and more connection and love. But it's a tv show







.

There is no one size, fits all, cookie cutter parenting technique. But I think the discipline should be gentle and fair to the children, take into account the individual child's abilities and temperament and the parents limitations and needs.

I do let myself get burned out from parenting. But that's my fault not my parenting philosophy's fault. I know my children can spare me for an hour or a day without any long term or short term negative affects. Sometimes I just don't care for myself.

Someone talked about in this thread, the importance of support. I don't thing the support I need is someone backing me up in my day to day interactions with my children, I just need someone to take over occasionally so I can breathe, someone to tell me they'll outgrow it, that they are fine, it's just a stage etc. I don't need someone to get my back. I need back up. For me that's my partner. For others it might be mothers, sisters. I think it should be someone who shares your parenting philosophy to some degree.

I am a unique mother with a unique family. I have mostly great moments with my kids and occasionally they drive me insane. Sometimes I use less than perfect techniques to get me through the moment but I always maintain my philosophy. I am not ideal. I just have an ideal.

I think it's about learning how to inspire your child to behave not requiring them to do so.


----------



## monkey's mom

I liked your entire post, and this quote just blew my hair back a little!









Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
I think it's about learning how to inspire your child to behave not requiring them to do so.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:

I would think that if you follow the philosophy set out in Unconditional Parenting you would indeed think behaviourist stuff was not the best course of action in raising children. I think at times a lot of us with certain ideals including those set out by Alphie Kohn about parenting being about the relationship and connection with the child and between the parents, siblings and entire family would think that a complete behaviourist approach to parenting would be the wrong approach. That seems to be a given .
Ok. But I wasn't talking about a 'complete' behaviourist approach to parenting, anymore than I agreed that Kohn's 'philososphy' or Unconditional Parenting is the 'ideal' reference for gentle discipline. I don't think that 'ideals', are necessarily positive or helpful anyway, with respect to mothering/motherhood.

I'm unsettled by Kohn's philosophy. I don't consider it to be any less 'controlling' to treat our individual children as though their feelings are more important than the feelings of others. That's the vibe I get. I treat my kids with kindness and understanding, but I'm not going to shelter them from the negative feelings/emotions, which will present if they're acting like jerks, and treating other people badly.

Quote:

I do let myself get burned out from parenting. But that's my fault not my parenting philosophy's fault. I know my children can spare me for an hour or a day without any long term or short term negative affects. Sometimes I just don't care for myself.
I don't understand this. Why are you blaming yourself?

Quote:

Someone talked about in this thread, the importance of support. I don't thing the support I need is someone backing me up in my day to day interactions with my children, I just need someone to take over occasionally so I can breathe, someone to tell me they'll outgrow it, that they are fine, it's just a stage etc. I don't need someone to get my back. I need back up. For me that's my partner. For others it might be mothers, sisters. I think it should be someone who shares your parenting philosophy to some degree.
See, for me, I consider 'support' to mean real hands-on-support, not simple lip service to ideals that leave us all exhausted. I refer to governmental support, not a 'pat on the back' stuff.

Quote:

I think it's about learning how to inspire your child to behave not requiring them to do so
Sure, that's fine, but I'm sure there are many mothers out there who simply don't have the time to 'inspire' good behaviour. Sometimes, you just need your kids to trust you.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I'm unsettled by Kohn's philosophy. I don't consider it to be any less 'controlling' to treat our individual children as though their feelings are more important than the feelings of others. That's the vibe I get.

Can you explain where you got that from his work?

I didn't get that at all.....but, admittedly, it's been a while since I've read his books.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Can you explain where you got that from his work?

I didn't get that at all.....but, admittedly, it's been a while since I've read his books.

I will. But, it's 1am, so I'll check back in tomorrow.


----------



## allgirls

*Ok. But I wasn't talking about a 'complete' behaviourist approach to parenting, anymore than I agreed that Kohn's 'philososphy' or Unconditional Parenting is the 'ideal' reference for gentle discipline. I don't think that 'ideals', are necessarily positive or helpful anyway, with respect to mothering/motherhood.* ]

I think they are essential for me. I needs something to aspire to.

*I'm unsettled by Kohn's philosophy. I don't consider it to be any less 'controlling' to treat our individual children as though their feelings are more important than the feelings of others. That's the vibe I get. I treat my kids with kindness and understanding, but I'm not going to shelter them from the negative feelings/emotions, which will present if they're acting like jerks, and treating other people badly.*

I treat my children as though their feelings are as valid as mine, not more valid.

*I don't understand this. Why are you blaming yourself?*

Because I am to blame if I don't take care of myself.







I own what is mine to own. It would be a bit silly to blame William Sears or Alphie Kohn because I didn't take care of my needs or interpreted their books to mean I shouldn't. So if I do neglect myself on occasion it's because I either didn't take care of my needs or didn't ask for help when I could have and ended up a bit burnt out. That's my stuff. I own it.

*See, for me, I consider 'support' to mean real hands-on-support, not simple lip service to ideals that leave us all exhausted. I refer to governmental support, not a 'pat on the back' stuff.*

Support is personal. Somepeople need someone to do the laundry. Some people need a person to chat to. Some need cash to buy shoes.







That's a very individual thing.

*Sure, that's fine, but I'm sure there are many mothers out there who simply don't have the time to 'inspire' good behaviour. Sometimes, you just need your kids to trust you.







[/QUOTE]*

Well I have all sorts of time. I only have 4 children and my husband is a long-haul truck driver who is away quite a bit and my family lives 1200km away so I'm not all that busy with anything but my children. I am fortunate that way. And my kids do trust me. Because I've given them every reason to and no reason not to.

Again trust is one of those things you can't demand, it has to be earned. It needs to be nourished to flourish. So that when you need your children to trust you in that moment they just do.







.

I am not many mothers. I am just me. I know not to get crafts and paints out when I am pmsing because I can't tolerate messes then. So we go outside and play then. I know not to take them to the park when it's hot and humid because it makes me miserable so I do something different. I know myself, I know my limitations, I ask my kids to bear with me when I'm troubled and they do because I bear with them when they are troubled.

I don't suffer from being a gentle parent. My kids are happy and well-adjusted. My ideals don't leave me exhausted, they lift me up and keep me motivated. Actually, I don't get all that exhausted at all. I find life and parenting moves along in a nice rhythm, we work through issues, we try to get enough sleep, we eat as best we can, we go to playgroups and we work together to make a strong healthy family unit that supports all of us in every way.

It's not easy. It's not hard. It's just life and family.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I liked your entire post, and this quote just blew my hair back a little!









Quote:
Originally Posted by allgirls View Post
I think it's about learning how to inspire your child to behave not requiring them to do so.

Yes, me too! That's beautiful.


----------



## swampangel

I haven't read all of the posts but something struck me when I was skimming the last few. What concerns me about never requiring certain behavior is that the world isn't going to attempt to "inspire" our kids all the time. There are times in settings out in the world that they will have to do stuff simply because that is required.

For example, there are things that are done or expected at my child's school that go against how we do things at home - specifically, intrinstic motivation verses receiving rewards for this, that or the other. I am hoping that I can use this situation as a learning moment for my child that his school does this or that because of this or that reason...it may not be the way we prefer things but this is why they do it and we can hold our own opinions about it.

Not sure if that makes sense, but I think by allowing ourselves to be human (at times make mistakes, use behavioral methods, have the final say at times, etc.)and interact with our children with kindness and love, we will prepare them best for what lies ahead in the world. I prefer the ideal but I allow myself to trust my instincts which doesn't always mean following a particular philosophy.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
Well I have all sorts of time. I only have 4 children and my husband is a long-haul truck driver who is away quite a bit and my family lives 1200km away so I'm not all that busy with anything but my children. I am fortunate that way. And my kids do trust me. Because I've given them every reason to and no reason not to.

Again trust is one of those things you can't demand, it has to be earned. It needs to be nourished to flourish. So that when you need your children to trust you in that moment they just do.







.

I am not many mothers. I am just me. I know not to get crafts and paints out when I am pmsing because I can't tolerate messes then. So we go outside and play then. I know not to take them to the park when it's hot and humid because it makes me miserable so I do something different. I know myself, I know my limitations, I ask my kids to bear with me when I'm troubled and they do because I bear with them when they are troubled.

I don't suffer from being a gentle parent. My kids are happy and well-adjusted. My ideals don't leave me exhausted, they lift me up and keep me motivated. Actually, I don't get all that exhausted at all. I find life and parenting moves along in a nice rhythm, we work through issues, we try to get enough sleep, we eat as best we can, we go to playgroups and we work together to make a strong healthy family unit that supports all of us in every way.

It's not easy. It's not hard. It's just life and family.









I notice you are from Canada. Are you a native?


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
I think it's about learning how to inspire your child to behave not requiring them to do so.

as nice as that sounds, sadly, it's an ideal that, sometimes, may or may not work out in real life. many of us here lean heavily toward GD/CL yet, we face lots of challenges with regards to behavioral issues. so, it's not as if there is a lack of inspiration for the children!


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
I haven't read all of the posts but something struck me when I was skimming the last few. What concerns me about never requiring certain behavior is that the world isn't going to attempt to "inspire" our kids all the time. There are times in settings out in the world that they will have to do stuff simply because that is required.

For example, there are things that are done or expected at my child's school that go against how we do things at home - specifically, intrinstic motivation verses receiving rewards for this, that or the other. I am hoping that I can use this situation as a learning moment for my child that his school does this or that because of this or that reason...it may not be the way we prefer things but this is why they do it and we can hold our own opinions about it.

Not sure if that makes sense, but I think by allowing ourselves to be human (at times make mistakes, use behavioral methods, have the final say at times, etc.)and interact with our children with kindness and love, we will prepare them best for what lies ahead in the world. I prefer the ideal but I allow myself to trust my instincts which doesn't always mean following a particular philosophy.

I agree, leaning towards the ideal. Sure, there are times and places where there are rules, rewards, and punishments.

But those things need to be evaluated against something larger. Don't we ultimately want to raise kids who, for example, question authority that is being mismanaged or who work for the internal rewards of work (a sense of purpose and accomplishment) rather than solely the external rewards?

Isn't it an obsession with external rewards and fear of punishment that often keeps us from finding and expressing our truly authentic life work and selves?

Obviously there is a balance to be found in there but I personally truly worry less about erring on the side of too much idealism than not enough. I have confidence that if I raise my children to feel loved and supported and respected, and guide them in treating others with dignity and respect, that they will be able to navigate a wide variety of systems. If not, I figure the world is much more ready to teach behaviourism where I haven't.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Isn't it an obsession with external rewards and fear of punishment that often keeps us from finding and expressing our truly authentic life work and selves?

So true!

Also, even with unschooling and not forcing learning on my children, I'm finding that they still have ample opportunity to learn how the world operates.

Both my girls are very extraverted, and my 8yo especially expresses a strong desire for group activities, over and above the times she spends playing with kids in the neighborhood, and having one-on-one playdates and slumber parties.

When she embarks on a new group activity, she knows the choice is hers whether or not she wants to stay involved. Sometimes she decides to totally ditch an activity -- usually because there's not enough fun stuff to compensate for the boredom of having to sit and wait and follow rules. And sometimes she says, "I really like this! There's a little bit of boring stuff, but it's mostly really fun."

This seems very similar to my life as an adult. Some things are worth the effort and some aren't.


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
My point was not "what works for one should work for everyone,"--with the exception of tuning into the child and responding with respect and love.

My point was exactly the opposite, that in "every" household the parent should not get the last word, etc.

Does that make sense? I understand me. Am I the only one?









no...i get you too.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
:

Remember, I also shared with everyone how the interactions between the mothers from canada and africa and their children were anything BUT what I see going on in our AP/NP meetings. Now, I have NO clue about their personal or individual support system AT ALL nor did I have time to ask, but when that group was over EVERYONE wanted to get in on what they were doing. Their children were really overall much calmer, and more respectful when playing with the toys and when interacting with the other children.

i think this is also a cultural issue. children seem to be respected in other societies much more than the US...i think for many of us here, AP is not natural...it is not supported by care givers, family members, churches, etc. That alone makes it seem more stressful here i believe.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
Some woman who has NEVER been upset or frustrated with another human being in her entire life comes into a NP meeting and with what appears to be her last breathe of air, announces on the way to the group she stopped to get her children something to eat. At the restaurant she heard a mother yell to her son, "sit down before i spank you." And she was just appalled. She was tempted to walk out without ordering the children's food but she didn't want to be late. She ordered the food and was so disgusted she couldn't bring herself to even look in the lady's direction. She tells us that the other lady was lucky because had she did look at her she probably would have thrown her soda in her face.

...the woman who has never been angry with another human being in her life, looks at me and says "well, that is still no way to treat another human being ESPECIALLY a child" and then says something about still wanting to burn that "other" mother to a stake.

.

I just cant imagine a woman who has never felt frustrated with anyone in her life. I disagree w/ her statement re: throwing a soda in the other woman's face, but right there is an indication that she HAS felt frustration previously and just refrained from actually acting on it. I do agree w/ her statement, though, re: threats and hitting NOT being a way to treat another human being, ESPECIALLY a child. Children are one of the most vulnerable citizens and I do feel they should be protected.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Ok. But I wasn't talking about a 'complete' behaviourist approach to parenting, anymore than I agreed that Kohn's 'philososphy' or Unconditional Parenting is the 'ideal' reference for gentle discipline. I don't think that 'ideals', are necessarily positive or helpful anyway, with respect to mothering/motherhood.

I'm unsettled by Kohn's philosophy. I don't consider it to be any less 'controlling' to treat our individual children as though their feelings are more important than the feelings of others. That's the vibe I get. I treat my kids with kindness and understanding, but I'm not going to shelter them from the negative feelings/emotions, which will present if they're acting like jerks, and treating other people badly.

I have never read where Kohn has ever stated that children's feelings are more important than the feelings of others. if anything, I feel that Kohn focusing alot on acknowledging the feelings of our children IN ORDER TO help them learn to appreciate and respect teh feelings of others. I need to watch the DVD again this week to see where this concept comes from, b/c i have seen it said IRT Kohn on many occassions. After reading his books and watching the UP DVD I have never seen that.



lolalola said:


> See, for me, I consider 'support' to mean real hands-on-support, not simple lip service to ideals that leave us all exhausted. I refer to governmental support, not a 'pat on the back' stuff.
> 
> I think many ppl consider support differently. One mother may truly need to escape from her children and focus on something mindless for a bit...or to do something entirely intellectually stimulating. Another mother may need support getting things done and want to spend more time w/ her children. Just as one size does not fit all IRT parenting, the same is true of support. I don't really need someone else to watch my children for me...what I could use is friendship, understanding, companionship (as a SAHM, that is the hardest thing for me to deal w/...the lack of companionship I have found staying home w/ my children vs. WOHM). I'm not exactly sure what governmental support you are referring to, but in the US, I'm not really interested in their support...I am a bit skeptical of anything provided by the govt. at this time (esp. considering some of the stories I've read re: vaccinations, etc. etc. coming from the "governmental support" agencies).
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *lolalola*
> Sure, that's fine, but I'm sure there are many mothers out there who simply don't have the time to 'inspire' good behaviour. Sometimes, you just need your kids to trust you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? i don't know..i used to be a WOHM w/ 2 children...was actually a single mom at the time and worked at a very demanding job. For the past 18 years I have considered it one of my top priorities to inspire my children's behavior. I have failed on many occasions of course. However, it was always a goal for me to model good behavior for them, regardless of how busy I was. I do agree that sometimes our children need to trust us, but I think that is earned through our display of love and affection for them and through time and modeling for them that they are safe to trust us. W/O getting too personal, I can tell you that often times children willl KNOW when they can't trust an adult, at a very young age. I have always attempted to ensure that my children know they can trust me and that I will not lie to them. Due to my own childhood, I have made that a cornerstone of my parenting.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *swampangel*
> What concerns me about never requiring certain behavior is that the world isn't going to attempt to "inspire" our kids all the time. There are times in settings out in the world that they will have to do stuff simply because that is required.
> 
> Not sure if that makes sense, but I think by allowing ourselves to be human (at times make mistakes, use behavioral methods, have the final say at times, etc.)and interact with our children with kindness and love, we will prepare them best for what lies ahead in the world. I prefer the ideal but I allow myself to trust my instincts which doesn't always mean following a particular philosophy.
> 
> Of course our children will not necessarily be inspired by others. Thats why WE are their parents. That is one of my main jobs...to inspire my children to aspire to ideas that others may not necessarily believe they are capable. No one will ever do that for children as much as their parents (in an average parent/child relationship). Often times we ALL do things that are simply required of us w/o us having the corresponding excitement to do such thing....I think that begins in infancy and there are enough experiences for children to learn that very early (often times the baby hates a diaper change, or the car seat, or has to wait a few minutes before being fed, etc. etc. etc.). NO parent can totally eliminate these things from their child's life and I don't think they should try to.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GuildJenn*
> Don't we ultimately want to raise kids who, for example, question authority that is being mismanaged or who work for the internal rewards of work (a sense of purpose and accomplishment) rather than solely the external rewards?
> 
> Isn't it an obsession with external rewards and fear of punishment that often keeps us from finding and expressing our truly authentic life work and selves?
> 
> Obviously there is a balance to be found in there but I personally truly worry less about erring on the side of too much idealism than not enough. I have confidence that if I raise my children to feel loved and supported and respected, and guide them in treating others with dignity and respect, that they will be able to navigate a wide variety of systems. If not, I figure the world is much more ready to teach behaviourism where I haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! One really stupid "rule" that comes to mind is a rule at one of our local museums that all kids MUST wear socks when inside. No shoes (not even soft shoes). Well, the play areas are carpeted...which is great. but the area between the play areas is tile. Even my 2.9 yo, in SOCKS, is prone to slipping on this surface. I am NOT going to follow that rule when he is between play areas. I do NOT need a visit to the ER. One of my friend's dh's is a big rule follower....I tease her about it and I know he probably thinks I'm a rebel b/c I take my son's socks off. I just do NOT find the risk worth the obedience. For some, that small rebellion is a bit uncomfortable. For me, not so much....I was raised to question authority and to determine which rules (for myself) that I can comply w/ and which ones I can not. I think thats a VERY important lesson to teach children. I do, however, understand the "idea" behind that rule and I do put my child's socks on INSIDE the play areas....so im not completely rebelling against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are too many instances in history where blind obedience has led to some horrible consequences. I want my children to learn to listen to their inner voice IRT right and wrong...not some reward for doing something or fear of punishment for not. I know that is perhaps getting a bit OT IRT to the OP; however, I do believe that is one of the goals of Kohn's philosophy..and I do not believe Super Nanny looks at the long term consequences of her techniques IRT to the "big picture". Yes, those families displayed on our TV sets area royally screwed in the parenting department, but that doesnt mean that what Super Nanny is doing is a great thing...and these children shouldn't be put on our big screens for our entertainment...I think that is just wrong also....I don't consider it much different than the whole "baby borrower" show.


----------



## allgirls

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
as nice as that sounds, sadly, it's an ideal that, sometimes, may or may not work out in real life. many of us here lean heavily toward GD/CL yet, we face lots of challenges with regards to behavioral issues. so, it's not as if there is a lack of inspiration for the children!

Of course. We all do.

When my oldest was around 13 she had a terrible time. We had a terrible time. Her dad, my ex is a serious drug addict and his disappearance from her life/then appearing back in her life..that rollercoaster, that stress manifested itself in terrible behavior on her part...dangerous, life threatening behaviour. We had a really terrible time with her, she left home and lived with her drug dealing/using dad(law allowed her to do that at 14














then my brother, changed schools etc.

I was advised to "clamp down" on her, be more strict, make more rules, go "commando" etc.

What I decided after about a year of this was to just let it all go. I essentially just worked on our connection, our relationships. I offered empathy. I offered hugs. I offered love. Because the crime and punishment stuff was making things even worse. Not only had her father let her down, I was starting to as well.

I don't believe that her difficulties arose from the way she as parented by me but rather by the way she wasn't parented by her father. He let her down and we bore her anger. But there was enough trust there to get her through. She has since gotten herself back in school, got her own place, works two jobs, finished school and is moving forward in a very positive way. I'm very proud of her.

We all have challenges as parents. Things outside our happy little family and sometimes within it have an effect on them. I still say we wouldn't be where we are today if I hadn't held to my ideals. If I had been a punitive parent in her childhood I think I would have lost her.







All of her changes have been a result of her own internal desire to behave in a certain way not my enforcing behaviour on her.

Right now we are in a good place in our family. My almost three year old hits her older sister with toys sometimes. We are working on that. I feel pretty confident she won't be doing that with guidance and impulse control much longer.

I think when times are tough we need our ideals more, not less.

Do we always act on them? of course not, we are humans with human failing. Life gets rough. It gets hectic. So we fall down, and then we get up again. We get knocked down. Then we get up again. That's life.


----------



## allgirls

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
I notice you are from Canada. Are you a native?

I was born and raised on Canada's east coast and I live in Ontario now.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
I think when times are tough we need our ideals more, not less.

Absolutely!

Quote:

Do we always act on them? of course not, we are humans with human failing. Life gets rough. It gets hectic. So we fall down, and then we get up again. We get knocked down. Then we get up again. That's life.
















Thanks for sharing this, and also for everything else you've shared!


----------



## allgirls

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Absolutely!








Thanks for sharing this, and also for everything else you've shared!

I look at my last post about getting knocked down again and getting up and I hear that Chumbawumba song..."I get knocked down, but I get up again, ain't nothin' gonna keep me down"...darn thing's stuck in my head..lol.


----------



## chfriend

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
Of course. We all do.

When my oldest was around 13 she had a terrible time. We had a terrible time. Her dad, my ex is a serious drug addict and his disappearance from her life/then appearing back in her life..that rollercoaster, that stress manifested itself in terrible behavior on her part...dangerous, life threatening behaviour. We had a really terrible time with her, she left home and lived with her drug dealing/using dad(law allowed her to do that at 14














then my brother, changed schools etc.

I was advised to "clamp down" on her, be more strict, make more rules, go "commando" etc.

What I decided after about a year of this was to just let it all go. I essentially just worked on our connection, our relationships. I offered empathy. I offered hugs. I offered love. Because the crime and punishment stuff was making things even worse. Not only had her father let her down, I was starting to as well.

I don't believe that her difficulties arose from the way she as parented by me but rather by the way she wasn't parented by her father. He let her down and we bore her anger. But there was enough trust there to get her through. She has since gotten herself back in school, got her own place, works two jobs, finished school and is moving forward in a very positive way. I'm very proud of her.

We all have challenges as parents. Thinks outside our happy little family and sometimes within it have an effect on them. I still say we wouldn't be where we are today if I hadn't held to my ideals. If I had been a punitive parent in her childhood I think I would have lost her.







All of her changes have been a result of her own internal desire to behave in a certain way not my enforcing behaviour on her.

Right now we are in a good place in our family. My almost three year old hits her older sister with toys sometimes. We are working on that. I feel pretty confident she won't be doing that with guidance and impulse control much longer.

I think when times are tough we need our ideals more, not less.

Do we always act on them? of course not, we are humans with human failing. Life gets rough. It gets hectic. So we fall down, and then we get up again. We get knocked down. Then we get up again. That's life.









Thank you. I so much needed to read this today.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
For me, not so much....I was raised to question authority and to determine which rules (for myself) that I can comply w/ and which ones I can not. I think thats a VERY important lesson to teach children. I do, however, understand the "idea" behind that rule and I do put my child's socks on INSIDE the play areas....so im not completely rebelling against it.









there are too many instances in history where blind obedience has led to some horrible consequences. I want my children to learn to listen to their inner voice IRT right and wrong...not some reward for doing something or fear of punishment for not.

i notice more AP parents are saying this now and days. which gets me to thinking a lot of the things parents want to teach their children comes naturally to the child if the parent's model the behavior.

For ex. I've never had to teach my child to say please or thank you. if it is okay to use your example, the same must be said about me teaching my children to question everything, observing others, learning to trust your instincts and then listening to your instincts.

and to be completely honest, i admire the mothers who are able to tell you why they adopted the philosophy of AP/NP/GD other than because it is natural. i have a hard time telling others HOW something has worked for me until after i see the results.


----------



## Dr.Worm

WOW this thread got long!!! I noticed pages and pages ago someone said LLL made a book with advice from MDC...what is it called and how can I get one?


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dr.Worm* 
WOW this thread got long!!! I noticed pages and pages ago someone said LLL made a book with advice from MDC...what is it called and how can I get one?









Adventures in Gentle Discipline by Hilary Flower

http://store.llli.org/public/profile/76


----------



## Dr.Worm

Thank you!!


----------



## bczmama

I-AM-MOTHER -- Can we get away from the generalizations of the behaviors of the so-called "natural" peoples and comparisons to our behaviors in America today? The behaviors and beliefs of peoples living still in traditional or tribal fashions (or of historical child-rearing) are so widely divergent as to make any claim about some sort of "natural" child-rearing norm to be fruitless or even offensive (as if all tribal peoples are alike).

A number of the claims in your summary are rather inaccurate to my mind -- for example, you seem to claim that men in europe thought women "should be covered at all times" and would therefore be offended by viewing a breastfeeding mother. Of course, throughout europe, in a number of churches, these same men would be exposed to numerous paintings, murals and statutary showing the Virgin Mary breastfeeding, and even holding her breast and squirting out milk. In fact, vials of Mary's milk (as with other claimed religious objects, such as fragments of the True Cross, saint's relics, etc.) were (and I believe still are) objects of veneration.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
A number of the claims in your summary are rather inaccurate to my mind -- for example, you seem to claim that men in europe thought women "should be covered at all times" and would therefore be offended by viewing a breastfeeding mother. Of course, throughout europe, in a number of churches, these same men would be exposed to numerous paintings, murals and statutary showing the Virgin Mary breastfeeding, and even holding her breast and squirting out milk. In fact, vials of Mary's milk (as with other claimed religious objects, such as fragments of the True Cross, saint's relics, etc.) were (and I believe still are) objects of veneration.

Only because you brought religion up first, I WILL remind you that there is a on-going debate about whether the Virgn Mary is actually Queen Isis. As we know in all of the original depictions and sculptures, Queen ISIS was the VERY FIRST woman to be seen with a child on her lap. What was this baby Horus doing? NURSING.

because I am in the library and NOT at home, I will leave you with this:

"*Scholars have drawn comparisons with Isis worship in late Roman times and the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary*. For example, the historian Will Durant has claimed, "*Early Christians sometimes worshiped before the statues of Isis suckling the infant Horus*, seeing in them another form of the ancient and noble myth by which woman (i.e., the female principle), creating all things, becomes at last the Mother of God." *Though the Virgin Mary is not worshiped (only venerated) in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, her role as a merciful mother figure has parallels with the figure of Isis."*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis

And this:

"*With the acceptance of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire by the Romanan Emperor Constantine in the fourth century C.E. the worship of Isis was slowly banned*, despite the fact that Constantine, who was originally a henotheist and Sun worshipper in early life, tolerated Paganism.

*Isis' Temples, called Iseums, were destroyed or else converted to Christianity as the new religion travelled the length and breadth of the Empire. The icons of Isis and Horus were renamed as the Madonna and Her child. lndeed, in many of the earliest carvings, it is impossible to tell which pair, they depict*."

http://users.adelphia.net/~megastulm...irgin_mary.htm


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
Of course. We all do.

When my oldest was around 13 she had a terrible time. We had a terrible time. Her dad, my ex is a serious drug addict and his disappearance from her life/then appearing back in her life..that rollercoaster, that stress manifested itself in terrible behavior on her part...dangerous, life threatening behaviour. We had a really terrible time with her, she left home and lived with her drug dealing/using dad(law allowed her to do that at 14














then my brother, changed schools etc.

I was advised to "clamp down" on her, be more strict, make more rules, go "commando" etc.

What I decided after about a year of this was to just let it all go. I essentially just worked on our connection, our relationships. I offered empathy. I offered hugs. I offered love. Because the crime and punishment stuff was making things even worse. Not only had her father let her down, I was starting to as well.

I don't believe that her difficulties arose from the way she as parented by me but rather by the way she wasn't parented by her father. He let her down and we bore her anger. But there was enough trust there to get her through. She has since gotten herself back in school, got her own place, works two jobs, finished school and is moving forward in a very positive way. I'm very proud of her.

We all have challenges as parents. Things outside our happy little family and sometimes within it have an effect on them. I still say we wouldn't be where we are today if I hadn't held to my ideals. If I had been a punitive parent in her childhood I think I would have lost her.







All of her changes have been a result of her own internal desire to behave in a certain way not my enforcing behaviour on her.

Right now we are in a good place in our family. My almost three year old hits her older sister with toys sometimes. We are working on that. I feel pretty confident she won't be doing that with guidance and impulse control much longer.

I think when times are tough we need our ideals more, not less.

Do we always act on them? of course not, we are humans with human failing. Life gets rough. It gets hectic. So we fall down, and then we get up again. We get knocked down. Then we get up again. That's life.









yes, life is like that. if we couldn't do that (bounce back after setbacks) survival would be difficult.

thank you for sharing your family's experience, it is clear, as her mother, you had that intuitive understanding of what works for her, going against the grain might have had a very undesirable outcome! and that is essentially what i am saying, only, our terms are different...'ideals' and 'intuition'. fwiw, i consider certain ideals to be shaped or guided by our intuition. for example, some of us have had difficult childhoods, our care as kids might have been less than stellar, but, it has been possible to go beyond that conditioning and let our intuition guide us.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 

Quote:

Support is personal. Somepeople need someone to do the laundry. Some people need a person to chat to. Some need cash to buy shoes.







That's a very individual thing.
Well, I disagree. I suppose you could argue that 'support is an individual thing', if all mothers mothered in the same conditions.

Quote:

Well I have all sorts of time. I only have 4 children and my husband is a long-haul truck driver who is away quite a bit and my family lives 1200km away so I'm not all that busy with anything but my children. I am fortunate that way. And my kids do trust me. Because I've given them every reason to and no reason not to.
Not sure why you write that you only have four children...that's a gaggle of kiddos!







You're right, though, you are fortunate that you can spend all your time devoted to your children. That's kinda my point.

Quote:

Again trust is one of those things you can't demand, it has to be earned. It needs to be nourished to flourish. So that when you need your children to trust you in that moment they just do.







.
I have earned my children's trust by never lying to them. I don't manipulate them, just tell them what's what.









Quote:

I am not many mothers. I am just me. I know not to get crafts and paints out when I am pmsing because I can't tolerate messes then. So we go outside and play then. I know not to take them to the park when it's hot and humid because it makes me miserable so I do something different. I know myself, I know my limitations, I ask my kids to bear with me when I'm troubled and they do because I bear with them when they are troubled.










Quote:

It's not easy. It's not hard. It's just life and family.











Well some things are easy for me, and others are damn hard.









Different strokes, I guess.


----------



## allgirls

Well, I disagree. I suppose you could argue that 'support is an individual thing', if all mothers mothered in the same conditions.

*You think all mothers need the same support in exactly the same conditions without even taking into account their lives, their backgrounds their temperament? I think I'm missing something here.*

Not sure why you write that you only have four children...that's a gaggle of kiddos! You're right, though, you are fortunate that you can spend all your time devoted to your children. That's kinda my point.

*I dont' know that I spend "ALL" my time devoted to my children. They are the centre of my devotion though and everything else revolves around them. (And I don't know why I wrote "only" either...I think it got in there in an edit or something) But when my older two were little I was a WOHM with a Nanny but I still made my children the centre of my devotion. My views on parenting haven't changed, they have evolved and it's gotten easier but really, my ideals have remained steadfast. And in there I've also been a single mother. That was tough times. But my ideals remained. I've been a mother for nearly 18 years and I still hold true to those promises I made back when I was pregnant with my first. My methods have improved. I've found better ways to voice what I want to say and I've learned some techniques that children really respond to. And I'm still learning. My ideals on the type of parent I want to be, modelled after the type of parent my father was, have never changed*

I have earned my children's trust by never lying to them. I don't manipulate them, just tell them what's what.

*Me too.*

Different strokes, I guess.

*exactly*


----------



## Jade's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
That's not what I understood your post to mean:

I understood it to mean that mothers speak directly to the child, but based on some other elements (not clear to me from your posts) you interpret that there is a sense of discomfort with that in AP circles.

I'm saying, that's not my experience at all. And if I understand your posts and examples, I'm suggesting that there may be other reasons for any discomfort you're picking up on--reasons, which, in my experience are much more commonplace than mothers being annoyed that a child is told, "Excuse me," or "Watch yourself."

Agreed. I've seen, and even felt that discomfort myself, but I don't interpret as "don't talk to my child." In my case , I am usually embarrassed that I wasn't watching her close enough that someone else had to step in to ensure her safety or to keep her from doing something to another child. I'm glad that another woman did it, but I feel guilty that I wasn't paying attention. In most of the groups I've gone to, a woman looks at the mother of the child first, to see if the mom is aware of what's going on. If so, it's up to the mother to handle the situation. But if the mom isn't aware, that's when the other woman steps in. I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I'm grateful for it, even if I feel guilty about not having taken care of it myself.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 

Quote:

*You think all mothers need the same support in exactly the same conditions without even taking into account their lives, their backgrounds their temperament? I think I'm missing something here.*
No, that's not what I wrote. I disagree with your assumption that 'support is individual' given the reality that not all mothers are raising their children in the same conditions as you are. As for temperment, isn't that covered in *Unconditional Parenting?*

Quote:

*I dont' know that I spend "ALL" my time devoted to my children. They are the centre of my devotion though and everything else revolves around them. (And I don't know why I wrote "only" either...I think it got in there in an edit or something) But when my older two were little I was a WOHM with a Nanny but I still made my children the centre of my devotion. My views on parenting haven't changed, they have evolved and it's gotten easier but really, my ideals have remained steadfast. And in there I've also been a single mother. That was tough times. But my ideals remained. I've been a mother for nearly 18 years and I still hold true to those promises I made back when I was pregnant with my first. My methods have improved. I've found better ways to voice what I want to say and I've learned some techniques that children really respond to. And I'm still learning. My ideals on the type of parent I want to be, modelled after the type of parent my father was, have never changed*
It sounds like you have found a method that works for your family. That's all I'm saying---all families are different.









For our family, life does not revolve around our children. Our children are 3 fifths of the family; my husband and I have goals, ambitions, desires, needs,...etc, that are wholely seperate from our kids. I have also been a single mother, and to be honest, life was easier when it was just me and my daughter.

I don't recall making any promises when I was pregnant with my first. I am still learning, too, about myself, my husband, my kids...etc. I don't think we ever stop learning, as long as our minds are open.









I honestly don't try to be a particular kind of parent. I respond to my children with kindness, and try to use as much common sense as I can.

[=allgirls;12142708]


----------



## allgirls

No, that's not what I wrote. I disagree with your assumption that 'support is individual' given the reality that not all mothers are raising their children in the same conditions as you are. As for temperment, isn't that covered in Unconditional Parenting?

I have absolutely no idea what you mean









So you are saying that the type of support a woman needs isn't individual? That all people require the same type of support in their lives? Or do we define support differently? I mean it's not a lab so we can't make all other things be equal which is WHY different women need different types of support.

I'm at a loss as to what you are trying to convey.









Having your children be the centre of your devotion does not make them of greater value than other members of the family. It's just that by virtue of their newness in the world they require more time. My husband and I have ambitions and goals and do lots of things outside of the children however not as much as we did before the children and not as much as we will after the children are grown. They are the focus of our lives but not all we do. There is a certain balance to be struck. I write. I give workshops. I volunteer. My husband has a full time job. We have very full individual lives but our devotion is absolutely first and foremost to our children. I find that to be true of all of the families I know though. So I don't think we are unusual in that at all.

I really am not sure what you are trying to say. You seem to think that if you have ideals with regards to how you raise your children, such as those in Unconditional Parenting then you have to sacrifice your whole life to even try. That only certain people, those with lots of time to give and no other ambitions and no sense of self at all would have such ideals or even bother trying. When in fact, for me anyway, it's the opposite. The stronger my sense of satisfaction in myself becomes the easier it is to maintain my ideals.

Is that what you are trying to say?


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
I really am not sure what you are trying to say. You seem to think that if you have ideals with regards to how you raise your children, such as those in Unconditional Parenting then you have to sacrifice your whole life to even try. That only certain people, those with lots of time to give and no other ambitions and no sense of self at all would have such ideals or even bother trying. When in fact, for me anyway, it's the opposite. The stronger my sense of satisfaction in myself becomes the easier it is to maintain my ideals.

Is that what you are trying to say?

It's fine to have 'ideals'; it is my research background, and academic interest in Motherhood that leaves me cringing whenever I hear/read that there is an 'ideal' way to mother. People can hold themselves to whatever ideal they like...it's not a bad thing to want--to strive to be a 'better person'. That is highly individualistic.

But, with respect to Mothering, we should appreciate that there isn't only one way to mother. I disagree that a 'parenting ideal' even exists. Women mother in varying conditions. There is no 'one size fits all' script for communicating with your kids.

Kohn's ideas likely resonate with mothers who have the resources/priviledge to think about, and implement his theories. It's very 'heady', and short on common sense. Lots of 'mommy guilt'. Yay!

And, other mothers have alternative GD ways of communicating with their kids, which acknowledge the unequal relationship between mothers and children.

Again, I don't subscribe to ideals, so I don't feel a 'sense of satisfaction' with myself with respect to mothering. Of course I make mistakes...but I also have many moments when I know that my kids know me. To me, that's golden.


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Kohn's ideas likely resonate with mothers who have the resources/priviledge to think about, and implement his theories. It's very 'heady', and short on common sense. Lots of 'mommy guilt'. Yay! .


wow...thats a great way to insult many of us here...short on common sense? I have not found that to be the case at all. and i dont find myself feeling a lot of mommy guilt simply b/c i strive to be GD/PD.

i admit that i am very privileged and have the luxury to think about alot of this stuff at my leisure but i dont think it really takes that MUCH privilege to grasp the concepts of respecting and listening to our children.

I find myself agreeing w/ some of your posts and then being completely perplexed by others (such as the portion I quoted above).


----------



## monkey's mom

I'd say his view is full of common sense. "The research I've looked at indicates x,y,z. Therefore, I'd recommend doing a,b,c." It's definitely not the conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's lacking common sense.

Can you explain what part of his work makes you think that? And why mothers would feel guilty?

I just found my copies of Unconditional Parenting and Punished by Rewards today, so I'd like to review some things if you can point me in the direction.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 

Kohn's ideas likely resonate with mothers who have the resources/priviledge to think about, and implement his theories. It's very 'heady', and short on common sense. Lots of 'mommy guilt'. Yay!


I disagree. I think a few pages back in the thread you claimed to have read Unconditional Parenting. Is this correct? I don't really feel like going back to find the post. I have a hard time understanding how you could get this impression from having read the book.

Personally, it totally struck a chord with my instinct. It was very much common sense based. I certainly experience no "mommy guilt". Quite the opposite. If I had parented according to conventional methods, I would be experiencing much guilt.

I also don't understand how privilege has anything to do with it. I had the privilege of reading the book, understanding it, and making it work for me. All it took was a little time and thought. I don't see how resources have anything to do with that whatsoever.


----------



## swampangel

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
I also don't understand how privilege has anything to do with it. I had the privilege of reading the book, understanding it, and making it work for me. All it took was a little time and thought. I don't see how resources have anything to do with that whatsoever.

Many societal privileges work in just this way -- it doesn't feel like a privilege unless you don't have it.

For example, a working class mother may not find a moment in the day to read a parenting book. She might be so busy working and caring for her children that she doesn't have time to philosophize about parenting. She might also have a limited education which would factor into whether or not she would be aware of this book, have access to the book, have the time/energy/etc. to read and reflect about this kind of content, etc. She might also be living in poverty which creates endless challenges and issues for families of which I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.

Privilege is a tricky thing because those who have it (myself included) struggle with a lot of guilt if they face the fact that they do. Those that don't, remain disenfranchised and marginalized in our society.

I think it's an important point and one not to be missed.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
For example, a working class mother may not find a moment in the day to read a parenting book. She might be so busy working and caring for her children that she doesn't have time to philosophize about parenting. She might also have a limited education which would factor into whether or not she would be aware of this book, have access to the book, have the time/energy/etc. to read and reflect about this kind of content, etc. She might also be living in poverty which creates endless challenges and issues for families of which I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.

Right. I do understand societal privilege, absolutely. I also understand the guilt associated with it. However, I didn't think that reading a book had anything to do with privilege. I do see your point. Thanks for helping me understand.


----------



## Soundhunter

allgirls, that's beautiful, how you handled things with your 13 yr old. When I was 13 they clamped down on me, and drove me right away, I ran away to be a street kid and never returned, it was a hard life that put my life in peril many times, but I didn't feel that home was anywhere safer to return to. So














from me to you, you sound like one very wise mother from that one post alone.


----------



## phathui5

On the topic of Supernanny, the show last night was fantastic. The dad was a civilian contractor in Iraq and the mom was in constant meltdown. Screaming at the kids, telling them not to talk to her, spanking them without even a warning, yanking them around. Supernanny's focus was getting Mom to get her emotions under control and not take her worry over Dad out on the kids. She really focused on getting Mom to talk to the kids on their level, to not yell and hit and to be clear with them about what she needs them to do.


----------



## allgirls

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
It's very 'heady', and short on common sense. Lots of 'mommy guilt'. Yay!


Are you sure we are talking about the same book? Which book are you talking about? I think I've read all of Alphie Kohn's books and quite a few of his articles and I've never gotten that sense from anything he's ever written.

yeah, it's a paradigm shift and yeah, it's about a different philosophy from the mainstream, crime and punishment model but the reason it resonated so clearly for me was that it struck me as simple and common sense.

And I certainly didn't get a sense of mommy guilt from it.

I think I'm going to re-read it. It's around here somewhere.

As to ideals, Mothering.com is full of them...lots of different ideals but a lot of common ones as well, gentle, natural parenting, peaceful coexistance, minimal footprint on the planet and of course trying to keep peace in our different ways of trying to reach them.

I'm really surprised to find someone on MDC that doesn't subscribe to ideals.

(I'd really like you to start a thread on that in the appropriate forum. This isn't the right place to go into the philosophy of not having ideals but it is intriguing to me. That would be a fantastic discussion.)


----------



## mummyofan

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane* 
I agree with a lot of what he says.

Supernanny's whole thing is control. Kids are never given reasons for anything. We don't hit because it's against the rules, not because it hurts people. We go to bed because it's time for bed, not because we're tired. Oh, not sleepy? Too bad, it's bedtime, and if you cry you're just being manipulative.

The naughty spot is another thing she just loves. Plop the kid where you've decided they have to go when they misbehave. Don't give them any explanation beyond "You were naughty, so you have to sit here." If they get up and move, drag them back to the spot. If they cry, ignore them, they're just being manipulative. When they've worn themselves out crying, they'll stop. Then they'll apologize so they can get up. If they don't apologize, back on the naughty spot!

I have big issues with Supernanny.

I've never watched it for that very reason; heard so many bad things she does. trouble is, parents thing she's the bees knees and like to emulate her - think it's the right thing.

MAN!!


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
I'm really surprised to find someone on MDC that doesn't subscribe to ideals.

I think there are quite a few.


----------



## chfriend

I found that UP actually relieve some of that mommy guilt since it encourages authenticity. Hmmm. Interesting that different folks come away with such different impressions of it.


----------



## Papooses

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
It sounds like Kohn is envious of Supernanny's success!

To this & such following sentiments ... they are so wrong.

While I don't claim that Alfie Kohn would consider me a friend or even remember me, I have read all his books (as I am an Education major) & have been to his seminars. Meeting him in person was awesome not because he's a "celebrity type" but because he is the exact opposite. He's real, he's down to earth, he cares.

P.S. this is a little something my grandmother used to say: "Common sense doesn't always mean it's Good sense -- common is merely passable, we deserve excellent!"







:


----------



## homeschoolingmama

To be completely honest...I have tonnes of mommy guilt after reading Unconditional Parenting. That book has influenced my parenting like no other. It rings so unbelievably true! I am the type of person that feels guilt if I don't do things perfectly. It also says in the book though, that a parent can't expect to suddenly turn a switch and follow this philosophy. This eases my mind. If you don't know that you are not parenting the right way then there isn't much guilt. Now when I am with them I can hear myself making mistakes and I cringe. It isn't the book that makes me feel guilty. It is me. I am just so happy that I found this book! I has definitely changed the relationships in this house!


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
wow...thats a great way to insult many of us here...short on common sense? I have not found that to be the case at all. and i dont find myself feeling a lot of mommy guilt simply b/c i strive to be GD/PD.

*I find myself agreeing w/ some of your posts and then being completely perplexed by others* (such as the portion I quoted above).

I didn't mean to imply that you, or any mother who finds UP helpful, to be short on common sense--not at all. I was referring specifically to the book, not to those who have read it/love it.

I find that happens with me, too. I can be nodding to someone's post one minute, and







the next.







I've enjoyed your posts, btw.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I'd say his view is full of common sense. "The research I've looked at indicates x,y,z. Therefore, I'd recommend doing a,b,c." It's definitely not the conventional wisdom, but I don't think it's lacking common sense.

Can you explain what part of his work makes you think that? And why mothers would feel guilty?

I just found my copies of Unconditional Parenting and Punished by Rewards today, so I'd like to review some things if you can point me in the direction.

One of my absolute fave quotes about mothering is from Toni Morrison. I try to remember it whenever the mommy guilt creeps in (this is a bit of a paraphrase, as I don't have the exact quote in front of me):

"If you listen to your kids, and look at them, they will make demands on you that you can live up to. And, they don't need all that overwhelming love either, that's just you being vain about it".

That, to me is common sense.







:

I borrowed UP from the library, and after reading, throwing it against the wall, reading, throwing....repeat, my 2 weeks was up. So, I can't really be specific enough for you. I'd like to though, because you seem very genuine in your request.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
Many societal privileges work in just this way -- it doesn't feel like a privilege unless you don't have it.

For example, a working class mother may not find a moment in the day to read a parenting book. She might be so busy working and caring for her children that she doesn't have time to philosophize about parenting. She might also have a limited education which would factor into whether or not she would be aware of this book, have access to the book, have the time/energy/etc. to read and reflect about this kind of content, etc. She might also be living in poverty which creates endless challenges and issues for families of which I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.

Privilege is a tricky thing because those who have it (myself included) struggle with a lot of guilt if they face the fact that they do. Those that don't, remain disenfranchised and marginalized in our society.

I think it's an important point and one not to be missed.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 

(I'd really like you to start a thread on that in the appropriate forum. This isn't the right place to go into the philosophy of not having ideals but it is intriguing to me. That would be a fantastic discussion.)

I might do that! Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

please correct me if I am wrong, but do most of the mothers who read UP believe that without the book they would not know how to properly mother their children?

i'm not talking to the mothers who were abused either, but those that come from more stable healthy upbringings.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Papooses* 
To this & such following sentiments ... they are so wrong.

My statement was neither right nor wrong; it was a lighthearted poke at Kohn's philosophy.


----------



## kacymoose

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
please correct me if I am wrong, but do most of the mothers who read UP believe that without the book they would not know how to properly mother their children?

i'm not talking to the mothers who were abused either, but those that come from more stable healthy upbringings.

I read the book, and changed a few things. Only because the things Kohn voiced in his book where things that had been floating around in my head, but had never been validated.

We live in a society where we have been conditioned from an early age to expect rewards and punishment, praise and disapproval.

I had thought many times about the flip side of praise, but because it is such a common motivator, I doubted my own thoughts and didn't always act on them. Being able to read and reflect on his ideas helped me become more true to myself and less influenced by current culture.

I think it is wrong to condemn people for reading literature and following through with actions based on what rings true to them.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kacymoose* 
I think it is wrong to condemn people for reading literature and following through with actions based on what rings true to them.

i'm just asking. i'm very familiar with the book (i've never read it) but in many of the AP/NP groups I attend it is gospel.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kacymoose* 
I think it is wrong to condemn people for reading literature and following through with actions based on what rings true to them.

Are you referring to this thread? If so, when did this happen?


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
please correct me if I am wrong, but do most of the mothers who read UP believe that without the book they would not know how to properly mother their children?

i'm not talking to the mothers who were abused either, but those that come from more stable healthy upbringings.

I'm trying really hard to understand what you're trying to say here.

Mothering/fathering/parenting is complex behaviour. _Many_ parenting practices are culturally influenced. I don't think anyone is saying without a particular book they'd have no idea how to "properly" mother.

But, just as in some societies the "need" to mutilate female genitalia or the "need" to bind feet or what have you might benefit from some external thinking, so I personally think that some of the current cultural trends in childrearing benefit from a challenge.

With Supernanny, I find her making things into long power struggles with a lot of screaming and a need for control are some of the cultural things I would like challenged - basically, the idea that the best way to establish respect and thoughtful behaviour is via punishment, reward, and parents "winning battles." I actually find the win/lose dynamic pretty destructive.

But I have been glad to read people who were able to articulate why.

I haven't read UP myself though; I've read some of Kohn's other writings.


----------



## kacymoose

OK, so it wasn't spelled out, I felt it was insinuated based on seeing another observation in a different thread. "Wow, a book teaching mothers how to listen and trust their instincts."

I feel like it is saying that if you have to read, you are not trusting your instincts. I think there are a lot of us who have had our instincts buried by years of behaviourist training, ie praise & rewards.


----------



## allgirls

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
please correct me if I am wrong, but do most of the mothers who read UP believe that without the book they would not know how to properly mother their children?

i'm not talking to the mothers who were abused either, but those that come from more stable healthy upbringings.

nope..but it did clarify for me why I felt so different from other parents, why some of the things I did or didn't do that people would say you "have" or "should" do for the good of your child didn't appeal to me. It certainly clarified why I hated the "good jobbing" all over the place and why all this false praise wasn't good for self esteem but rather genuine self-pride and good effort are more conducive to building that.

It also made me feel a bit vindicated. It was nice to know there were others. Also..sometimes it's hard to get things in order in your mind.you have this idea..you kinda know what you believe, you have some pieces..then you read a book like UP and it's like someone picked up a couple of puzzle pieces that were missing and you can make the connections you couldn't quite make before.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
With Supernanny, I find her making things into long power struggles with a lot of screaming and a need for control are some of the cultural things I would like challenged - basically, the idea that the best way to establish respect and thoughtful behaviour is via punishment, reward, and parents "winning battles." *I actually find the win/lose dynamic pretty destructive*.

I assume you mean wrt parenting, and not in general?

See, I don't interpret the show as Supernanny making things into 'power struggles'. She's doin' damage control.

It's blatantly obvious (editing, aside) that the parents are totally checked out. Those kids aren't getting enough attention, and no one is getting enough sleep.

If my children were hitting/kicking/screaming/biting and/or yelling obsenities at me...I'd be calling Supernanny, too.


----------



## mrspineau

I have always really liked supernanny. I think that she is respectful towards the children, but does not tolerate certain behaviors. I do not understand this fear of the concept of "control". I mean, there is a difference between controlling your children, and having control over your household as a whole. I think that having house rules for everyone to follow, not just the children, is fair. Timeouts I don't think are right for every situation, I definetely prefer a natural consequence, however sometimes there is no natural consequence. (I am not saying that timeouts are the only option in that situation, but it can be an option) The only thing that I really dont like is when she tries to change the sleep habits and the children are left to cry and be ignored. That to me is not good, although, ideally the situation would never get that bad to begin with. I guess these situations are so extreme, that it is hard to imagine what else to do to change things. What about Nanny 911? Have any of you watched that show? It is similar in a lot of ways... I have never heard of Alfie Kohn until reading this thread so I am not even sure what his views are, but I am going to go google him right now!


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mrspineau* 
The only thing that I really dont like is when she tries to change the sleep habits and the children are left to cry and be ignored. That to me is not good, although, ideally the situation would never get that bad to begin with. I guess these situations are so extreme, that it is hard to imagine what else to do to change things.

Are you saying the sleep situations are extreme and have gotten "that bad?" I'm confused...


----------



## homeschoolingmama

The book made me see things in a new light. I have always leaned towards his philosophy but it is like a light went on. It rang so true. A lot of what he says is common sense but it didn't occur to me until I read it. The book has made me see situations in a new way. I had a lot of A HA moments while reading it.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *homeschoolingmama* 
The book made me see things in a new light. I have always leaned towards his philosophy but it is like a light went on. It rang so true. *A lot of what he says is common sense but it didn't occur to me until I read it.* The book has made me see situations in a new way. I had a lot of A HA moments while reading it.

Ok, I'll bite--if it's common sense, why did it not occur to you?


----------



## homeschoolingmama

Here is an example.
Say my daughter hits her brother. Before I would send her to a time out. Instead of noticing how it made her brother feel she was thinking how she was upset that she was put there. She was focusing on herself.
Now I will ask her why she hit him. Then I will ask her what she could have done differently. I also point out how it made her brother feel. TO ME this is common sense but I just didn't think of it that way. It makes complete sense. The outcome that I wanted wasn't going to happen with the way I was going about it. I wanted her to feel compassion and help her see why hitting isn't the answer.


----------



## kalimay

So, I didn't read the whole thread but I wanted to comment on a couple things. I have never seen Supernanny but I have watch the other one nanny 911, I think, twice. I actually though the Nannies were pretty good. In one of the shows it came out that the father was both physically and emotionally abusive to the children and his wife. The wife had not told anyone and you could see how relived she was when the Nanny caught on. I think positive, life altering changes were made as a result.

I agree with many that children should not be filmed in there home like that.

The only book of Kohn's that I have read was Unconditional Parenting and I found his tone to be holier than thou. I had a very hard time finishing it even though I would agree with some of it. I would also like to point out that his ideas are not new. There are child development experts who came before him who are all about respecting children. And I have to say I don't like his tone in the article either. It is very harsh and extremely inflammatory and seems in contraction to what he is trying to teach.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *homeschoolingmama* 
le.
Say my daughter hits her brother. Before I would send her to a time out. Instead of noticing how it made her brother feel she was thinking how she was upset that she was put there. She was focusing on herself.
Now I will ask her why she hit him. Then I will ask her what she could have done differently. *I also point out how it made her brother feel.* TO ME this is common sense but I just didn't think of it that way. It makes complete sense. The outcome that I wanted wasn't going to happen with the way I was going about it. I wanted her to feel compassion and help her see why hitting isn't the answer.

Seriously, kids will figure out the empathy thing. It's called growing up.


----------



## homeschoolingmama

You know what? I am done talking with you. You are starting to get rude and I don't deserve it. I thought this was a nice, civil conversation. I didn't realize you were being snarky.


----------



## lolalola

Are you talking to me? 'Cause I have been nice throughout this discussion.


----------



## homeschoolingmama

Yes I was talking to you. I misunderstood you. It is hard to read tone. Sorry.

I don't think growing up = empathy.


----------



## lolalola

It is hard to read tone...I understand.

You're right, growing up does not equal empathy. However, it does take time for children to develop a sense of empathy, no?

I think that most kids will learn to take other peoples feelings into consideration at some point. And, usually it is through spending time with other people.


----------



## babygrace

i think what is being said is that everything doesn't need to be spelt out and discussed for kids to understand a situation. certainly a lot of us didn't grow up with a lot of talk about how we feel, why we feel and what we feel, but, hopefully have grown in to individuals who can empathize, nevertheless.


----------



## mrspineau

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Are you saying the sleep situations are extreme and have gotten "that bad?" I'm confused...

I mean, yeah. I think it is pretty extreme when parents havent slept in the same bed for eight years because their bed is full of kids. That's often the kind of thing that is happening on the show. It is extreme when there is punching, kicking, being mean to each other, absolutely. These households are completely chaotic.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I assume you mean wrt parenting, and not in general?

See, I don't interpret the show as Supernanny making things into 'power struggles'. She's doin' damage control.

It's blatantly obvious (editing, aside) that the parents are totally checked out. Those kids aren't getting enough attention, and no one is getting enough sleep.

If my children were hitting/kicking/screaming/biting and/or yelling obsenities at me...I'd be calling Supernanny, too.

I mean during the show. I have only seen it a few times because it disturbs me. The episode I saw they put a child on a time out and she kept leaving it - and they fought it out for THREE HOURS because of this overriding need to win the time out. I saw another one where a sleep battle was very similar.

Personally, I find that seriously disturbing.

Yes these families need help - but real, long-term help.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mrspineau* 
I have always really liked supernanny. I think that she is respectful towards the children, but does not tolerate certain behaviors. I do not understand this fear of the concept of "control". I mean, there is a difference between controlling your children, and having control over your household as a whole. I think that having house rules for everyone to follow, not just the children, is fair. Timeouts I don't think are right for every situation, I definetely prefer a natural consequence, however sometimes there is no natural consequence. (I am not saying that timeouts are the only option in that situation, but it can be an option) The only thing that I really dont like is when she tries to change the sleep habits and the children are left to cry and be ignored. That to me is not good, although, ideally the situation would never get that bad to begin with. I guess these situations are so extreme, that it is hard to imagine what else to do to change things. What about Nanny 911? Have any of you watched that show? It is similar in a lot of ways... I have never heard of Alfie Kohn until reading this thread so I am not even sure what his views are, but I am going to go google him right now!

I personally believe that there is an obsession with control in our culture, particularly over young children: what they eat, how they sleep, etc. This is not to say that they don't have need for a rhythm and routine (structure) or limits and security (boundaries).

But to me when you're grabbing a child and putting her back on a naughty spot about 80 times, what's really going on is a total breakdown of anything but physical dominance. So that's what I mean by control. I also think that in the long term punishments and rewards actually eat away at a child's natural development of internal motivation and drive.

To me there is a big gap between a structure or routine and a three-hour naughty spot battle. From the shows that I've watched there definitely are positive elements, but for me the blatant disregard for the absolute distress of some of the children at critical moments overshadows that.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mrspineau* 
I mean, yeah. I think it is pretty extreme when parents havent slept in the same bed for eight years because their bed is full of kids. That's often the kind of thing that is happening on the show. It is extreme when there is punching, kicking, being mean to each other, absolutely. These households are completely chaotic.

The sleep situations have run the gamut from babies to older kids. They've had one year olds left to CIO alone in a room with a night-vision camera. That child fell alseep standing with her arms through the slats after wailing and reaching for her parents. It was awful. Awful. Even when the parents are fine with co-sleeping Supernanny is against it. And will threaten to leave if the parents don't abide by her cry-it-out, ignore the child, put them back in the bed even if it takes hours of crying methods.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
But to me when you're grabbing a child and putting her back on a naughty spot about 80 times, what's really going on is a total breakdown of anything but physical dominance. So that's what I mean by control. I also think that in the long term punishments and rewards actually eat away at a child's natural development of internal motivation and drive.

To me there is a big gap between a structure or routine and a three-hour naughty spot battle. From the shows that I've watched there definitely are positive elements, but for me the blatant disregard for the absolute distress of some of the children at critical moments overshadows that.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Turning a room in my home or a spot in my kitchen into a "jail" where my child is sequestered and forced to "do time for the crime" does not seem like it's going to build attachment in our relationship. Especially if the enforcement of that involves overriding meeting my child's emotional needs while physically dominating them. No thanks....not for me.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I personally believe that there is an obsession with control in our culture, particularly over young children:

That was great but you shouldn't have stopped there. For adults we use guilt, shame, peer pressure, gossip, manipulation influence, and lies. I'm sure I missed something.


----------



## paquerette

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
please correct me if I am wrong, but do most of the mothers who read UP believe that without the book they would not know how to properly mother their children?

i'm not talking to the mothers who were abused either, but those that come from more stable healthy upbringings.

I think there are some of us who might not have known that behaviorism is wrong. And it's not just mothering. I used to think nothing of using rewards/punishment on my husband; heck that's what all those fashion-and-relationship magazines tell you to do! Over the time that I stopped reading that drivel and started hanging out here and read UP myself and did a lot of thinking about different ways of relating to people in general, I realised how much of my life was steeped in that mindset, and how much I was manipulating people instead of communicating with them. I wouldn't say that I was abused, unless you consider the vast majority of society being like that to be abusive.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mrspineau*
I think it is pretty extreme when parents havent slept in the same bed for eight years because their bed is full of kids.

Is that extreme? I'm pretty sure we've got quite a few examples of that around here.


----------



## Magella

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I personally believe that there is an obsession with control in our culture, particularly over young children: what they eat, how they sleep, etc. This is not to say that they don't have need for a rhythm and routine (structure) or limits and security (boundaries).

I think so too. I've read UP twice, and seen Alfie Kohn speak. The first time I read UP, I came away wondering if he ever has a spontaneous interaction with his kids and thinking that it was so overwhelming. I though he was really overthinking things, and I didn't feel like he offered any practical "what to do in the moment" advice. When I came back to the book later, however, and heard him speak--after shifting my own perspective quite a bit--I realized that all he wanted to do was get people to reconsider how they perceive and treat kids. He deliberately doesn't tell people what they should do when 'x' or 'y' happens, because he recognizes that each child, in each situation, is different-so there is no one size fits all answer. His main idea, as I understand it, is simply to move the emphasis away from control and to encourage parents to look at things from their own child's point of view before responding. He would like to see parents respond in a way that works with and respects each child's needs, feelings, abilities, temperament, and desires. I do think this is a major shift in thinking for the society he's writing and speaking in, I think in general people in the U.S. tend to see children as needing to be controlled and as having feelings and needs/desires that are less valid than those of adults. And I don't think he means that parents need to neglect their own needs and feelings in order to parent in the way he advocates (though that may not come through clearly in the book, because his emphasis in the book is on the child).

I've found that as crazy as his ideas seemed to me at first, I now think that life is so much easier when I am taking the time to slow down and see things from my kids' point of view and putting the emphasis on working _with_ them (rather than stating my will and expecting compliance-as a general theme). Approaching parenting in this way has dramatically reduced the number of power struggles in my home, and resulted in much better behavior from my kids.


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
please correct me if I am wrong, but do most of the mothers who read UP believe that without the book they would not know how to properly mother their children?


i feel like i properly mothered my children prior to reading UP. I have been a mother for almost 18 years (in about a week). I read UP a little over 3 years ago. I feel that UP, for me, confirmed some of teh doubts i had about the punishment/rewards system that seems so prevalent in common mainstream American discipline for children. It never sat well w/ me. I did used to 'good boy" alot more than I do now before reading a lot about GD/PD (not just Kohn). I did not understand why I wasnt comfortable w/ that and similar terms and reading these books has given me a better understanding of my own instincts actually. Maybe some moms dont need to read to understand their own instincts, but I did.

I don't know..maybe its b/c thats how I have been taught to learn. I read about everything. I always have. I learned to love books at a very early age and read books about almost every subject I have ever been interested in. I love to white water kayak. I have a few books about that. I certainly didn't "learn" to white water kayak by reading a book; however, reading about certain river features and different types of kayaks did help me understand more about the dynamics of white water kayaking. I have several degrees and of course read alot in college, so Im used to reading books about alot of different things. Parenting books have just been an extension of that. I have almost 20 books on vaccinations, due to the fact that I became interested in that issue and wanted to learn more about the subject. I prefer books...I like reading online, getting support from others, etc. etc. but for me, putting a book in my hands and reading is very comfortable and I enjoy that much more than learning by other methods sometimes.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i'm just asking. i'm very familiar with the book (i've never read it) but in many of the AP/NP groups I attend it is gospel.

seriously, i think before you judge a book, you really need to read it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
nope..but it did clarify for me why I felt so different from other parents, why some of the things I did or didn't do that people would say you "have" or "should" do for the good of your child didn't appeal to me. It certainly clarified why I hated the "good jobbing" all over the place and why all this false praise wasn't good for self esteem but rather genuine self-pride and good effort are more conducive to building that.

It also made me feel a bit vindicated. It was nice to know there were others. Also..sometimes it's hard to get things in order in your mind.you have this idea..you kinda know what you believe, you have some pieces..then you read a book like UP and it's like someone picked up a couple of puzzle pieces that were missing and you can make the connections you couldn't quite make before.

this is how felt after reading it also.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 

See, I don't interpret the show as Supernanny making things into 'power struggles'. She's doin' damage control.

If my children were hitting/kicking/screaming/biting and/or yelling obsenities at me...I'd be calling Supernanny, too.

she may be doing damage control in the family she is working with, but she is modeling for the rest of America what is appropriate child rearing and thats where I take issue with her. That and the fact that these children are being exploited.

If my kids were behaving like the kids on SuperNanny, i wouldnt be calling her. I would be calling a family therapist and deal w/ my family's issues in privacy and with respect to my children. I do not think Super Nanny gives either privacy (obviously) or respect to children.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mrspineau* 
I mean, yeah. I think it is pretty extreme when parents havent slept in the same bed for eight years because their bed is full of kids.

well, i have slept w my partner but one of my sons coslept for 8 years. I don't see anything wrong with a "bed full of kids". I have managed to have 4 children in this manner and have a very healthy sex life with my partner. Co sleeping does not prevent us from connecting. If I had my way, I would have a "bed room" for everone, with one HUGE matttress (the size of 4 king size beds would be nice).


----------



## I-AM-Mother

thank you Magella,
i used your post and added the highlighted words.
Kohn teaches people how to deal with other people. That is what I am beginning to get a feeling of. And if that is the case I understand why it feels right and makes sense to people.

When I came back to the book later, however, and heard him speak--after shifting my own perspective quite a bit--I realized that all he wanted to do was get people to reconsider how they perceive and treat *other people*. He deliberately doesn't tell people what they should do when 'x' or 'y' happens, because he recognizes that each person, in each situation, is different-so there is no one size fits all answer. His main idea, as I understand it, is simply to move the emphasis away from control and to encourage *people* to look at things from *other people's* point of view before responding. He would like to see *people* respond in a way that works with and respects *other folks* needs, feelings, abilities, temperament, and desires. I do think this is a major shift in thinking for the society he's writing and speaking in, I think in general people in the U.S. tend to see *others* as needing to be controlled and as having feelings and needs/desires that are less valid than those of *their own*. And I don't think he means that *people* need to neglect their own needs and feelings in order to *get along* in the way he advocates.


----------



## Magella

Yes, I-AM-Mother, I completely agree with you.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
please correct me if I am wrong, but do most of the mothers who read UP believe that without the book they would not know how to properly mother their children?

i'm not talking to the mothers who were abused either, but those that come from more stable healthy upbringings.

I have read, and subscribe to the philosophy of, UP. I wouldn't necessarily say that before reading it I wouldn't know how to properly mother my children. However, I was conflicted.The only former knowledge I had came from society, people I babysat for, my own upbringing, things I saw on TV.
I was in a position where I didn't trust my instinct. I knew that I wasn't comfortable with conventional parenting methods, but all around me were people practicing them, and telling me to practice them. I didn't know of an alternative. Before discovering that it was "OK" for me to follow my instincts, that I wasn't going to ruin my baby by doing so, I was confused and troubled about parenting. Unconditional Parenting, along with other GD and AP materials, validated my feelings and gave me tools to help support instinctive mothering.

I also agree that UP is about how to treat other people. It gave me a lot of insight into my own relationship with my DP.

So in short, I likely would have ended up parenting according to my instincts, however I probably would have been a lot less confident in doing so, and there probably would have been many more challenges and bumps in the road. I feel like I have a really easy-going child, and although it's not all due to parenting, a lot of it is.


----------



## Papooses

Growing up does not inherently bring about a magical presence of empathy. If that were true, then we'd have a much healthier society than we do.


----------



## paquerette

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Papooses* 
Growing up does not inherently bring about a magical presence of empathy. If that were true, then we'd have a much healthier society than we do.

I suppose one could argue that much of society never grows up.


----------



## mammal_mama

I've mentioned this before, but thought I'd say it again in a slightly different way: What about those of us (such as Passionate Writer and me, and many others here) for whom reading, reading, reading has become so much a part of us, something we love so much, that it feels as instinctive to us as breathing?

Does that mean that before books, mothers didn't know how to parent? Not at all! But, before books, I don't think mothers had as much to conflict with their natural instincts. There were no clocks, and no "experts" were saying so many minutes had to pass between nursings.

I'm not going to say parents were never controlling back then. As others have pointed out, there was a lot of diversity back then as there is now. But, frankly, I don't think there were all the "rules" being circulated about that make many parents doubt their own common sense.

I'm also going to repeat something else I said before, which a few others have also pointed out: I think _Unconditional Parenting_ is accused of lacking common sense essentially because Kohn doesn't spell out a one-size-fits-all way of parenting. He focuses on challenging the current social attitudes toward children, and encouraging parents to re-think their own ideas, rather than giving a step-by-step "this is how it's done" presentation.

This is why it's so weird when people refer to his approach as "one-size-fits-all."


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mrspineau* 
*I mean, yeah. I think it is pretty extreme when parents havent slept in the same bed for eight years because their bed is full of kids.* That's often the kind of thing that is happening on the show. It is extreme when there is punching, kicking, being mean to each other, absolutely. These households are completely chaotic.

Bolding mine. I don't see the bolded stuff as having anything to do with the household being chaotic. I haven't watched more than one show -- but I was saddened when I read that even when parents are happy with the co-sleeping, once Supernanny comes in, the kids can't sleep with the parents any more.

This is so sad, because it seems like she's throwing out the baby with the bathwater, literally. In the midst of these obviously dysfunctional situations, there's this one thing that's positive (I mean, it's positive if both parent and child are happy with the co-sleeping).

And if everything else is very negative, can you imagine how lifesaving a happy co-sleeping relationship must be to children, parents, and the interrelationships in that family?

It may be their one harmonious, connected time -- and, yeah, it's not enough if they're ripping one another to shreds the rest of the time, but at least it's one precious thread that need not be snapped, and can simply be woven in with the many new threads the family grows, as they get help and gain better relationship skills ... it can contribute to the overall strength of the family bond, and be maybe one thing that they can say they were doing right even before "the experts" came in and "fixed" them.

But it's interesting to hear a fellow MDCer describe a situation where "parents haven't slept in the same bed for eight years because their bed is full of kids" as a contributing factor to a household being "completely chaotic."

Yes, I realize that not all MDC families co-sleep, it's all about each family coming up with an arrangement that works for everyone, you don't have co-sleep to be an attached parent, and so on -- but at the same time, making a statement like that seems just as intolerant as me making negative statements about mothers who actually use their cribs for their babies.

Either kind of criticism is just plain wrong, and not respecting of all the different varieties of families and situations.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
I suppose one could argue that much of society never grows up.









One could argue that, but it would require a definition of 'grown up'.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I'm also going to repeat something else I said before, which a few others have also pointed out: I think _Unconditional Parenting_ is accused of lacking common sense essentially because Kohn doesn't spell out a one-size-fits-all way of parenting. He focuses on challenging the current social attitudes toward children, and encouraging parents to re-think their own ideas, rather than giving a step-by-step "this is how it's done" presentation.

This is why it's so weird when people refer to his approach as "one-size-fits-all."

'The current social attitudes about children'-- this is a perfect example of the over-generalizing tendancy of UP.


----------



## allgirls

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 

I'm also going to repeat something else I said before, which a few others have also pointed out: I think _Unconditional Parenting_ is accused of lacking common sense essentially because Kohn doesn't spell out a one-size-fits-all way of parenting. He focuses on challenging the current social attitudes toward children, and encouraging parents to re-think their own ideas, rather than giving a step-by-step "this is how it's done" presentation.

This is why it's so weird when people refer to his approach as "one-size-fits-all."

Yes. I agree. He doesn't say if x then do y. He does focus on challenging current social attitudes rather than a "do it" book. It's a different sort of book and maybe not what someone who is used to the way things are generally done in current society. So if someone is looking for a more practical how to guide then Alphie may be beyond their needs and Supernanny might be more along the lines of what they are looking for.

Also some people want straight out tell me what to think guidelines. I don't. I want to flesh things out myself. I'm driven to discover for myself. I read books, I observe children, I observe parents, I learn from my own life experiences, I take all those things into account,not just for parenting but in everything I do. I'm just wired that way.

I like the generalizations in this book, because it allows for the exceptions. When you have a "usually" you will also have room for a "but sometimes". When you have "if Johnny does x, do y and do that everytime and your child will behave forever" and then Johnny does not behave in the expected manner well, maybe there is something wrong with Johnny or more likely there is something wrong with mom or dad. They need to do it more, they need to do it harder, they need to send him to bootcamp







(ok maybe that's dr. Phil not SN)

I just "get" what Alphie Kohn is saying and I agree


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
Yes. I agree. He doesn't say if x then do y. He does focus on challenging current social attitudes rather than a "do it" book. It's a different sort of book and maybe not what someone who is used to the way things are generally done in current society. *So if someone is looking for a more practical how to guide then Alphie may be beyond their needs* and Supernanny might be more along the lines of what they are looking for.

so, in essence, kohn is not practical?

see, i believe, neither kohn nor supernanny (or anyone) can EVER write or be a "how-to guide" on parenting. there is no such thing as a parenting "how-to"! simply because humans are just too diverse for it to work.


----------



## swampangel

There's a book (probably more than one) that talks about the match between parents and their children. In other words, it focuses more on temperment and personality types to be a jumping point to look at possible strengths and weaknesses in the relationship depending on this match.

To me, this kind of starting point is much more helpful than UP or Supernanny. It is so much more complicated than these lofty ideals or behaviorist techniques. We're human, we make mistakes, and we shine. As parents and children. There's no right way or one way or best way. What's best is that the relationship is authentic and connected.

It's sort of like in the psychotherapy world - Rogers states that the most important aspect of the helping relationship is the relationship itself - not techniques or theoretical orientations. Those other things are important, but the relationship is primary.

To me, this sums up parenting. My relationship with my child and how I nurture and tend to that connection is what guides my parenting. I think it does help to have an awareness of theory and technique, but I think it's just so much more than either of these two extremes gets to.


----------



## Magella

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
What's best is that the relationship is authentic and connected.

It's sort of like in the psychotherapy world - Rogers states that the most important aspect of the helping relationship is the relationship itself - not techniques or theoretical orientations. Those other things are important, but the relationship is primary.

This is what I take away from reading Alfie Kohn's work. Relationship first. Communicate. Empathize. Let go of the agenda just enough or just long enough to connect and get creative. Respond to the person, not to the behavior alone. Behavior management techniques such as rewards and punishments can get in the way of relationship and learning if we use them too much, if that's our main focus in teaching kids (and I may be wrong, but I am under the impression he doesn't say to _never, ever_ use these things--but to rethink how we use them and how often we use them). I think he certainly is challenging prevailing social attitudes--not that everyone holds the views he's challenging, but in my experience a great many people do.

I think it's really interesting how each person can take away from a book something very different, and how what we take from a book can change as we ourselves change over time.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*
I like the generalizations in this book, because it allows for the exceptions. When you have a "usually" you will also have room for a "but sometimes". When you have "if Johnny does x, do y and do that everytime and your child will behave forever" and then Johnny does not behave in the expected manner well, maybe there is something wrong with Johnny or more likely there is something wrong with mom or dad. They need to do it more, they need to do it harder, they need to send him to bootcamp(ok maybe that's dr. Phil not SN)









UP is a different sort of book. It's not unique in its message, but IME it is in the minority.

eta Personally, I found it enormously helpful to first examine by own perceptions, attitudes, understanding of parenting and children before looking for "practical" (read: "how-to," specific techniques, if 'x' happens do 'y') advice. My understanding leads to my response. My attitudes and perceptions lead to my response. Sometimes, it isn't enough to simply try to find a new practical technique. Sometimes my own thoughts/perceptions/attitudes/understanding/etc. need to change before I can respond to my kids in a way that is effective and compassionate.


----------



## allgirls

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
There's a book (probably more than one) that talks about the match between parents and their children. In other words, it focuses more on temperment and personality types to be a jumping point to look at possible strengths and weaknesses in the relationship depending on this match.

Yes. I think that's in "Raising Your Spirited Child" maybe. Gosh, they all meld after awhile but yes, that type of reading was very helpful for me.


----------



## hempmama

I would actually guess it's _The Emotional Lives of Toddlers_. It talks about "fit" or parents- it's one of the big themes. I have "slow to warm" children, who aren't described in most of the popular books, but they are described fairly well in ELoT.


----------



## allgirls

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hempmama* 
I would actually guess it's _The Emotional Lives of Toddlers_. It talks about "fit" or parents- it's one of the big themes. I have "slow to warm" children, who aren't described in most of the popular books, but they are described fairly well in ELoT.

and there you have it.. a book I havent' read. So yeah, this topic is covered in different places.


----------



## mrspineau

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Bolding mine. I don't see the bolded stuff as having anything to do with the household being chaotic. I haven't watched more than one show -- but I was saddened when I read that even when parents are happy with the co-sleeping, once Supernanny comes in, the kids can't sleep with the parents any more.

This is so sad, because it seems like she's throwing out the baby with the bathwater, literally. In the midst of these obviously dysfunctional situations, there's this one thing that's positive (I mean, it's positive if both parent and child are happy with the co-sleeping).

And if everything else is very negative, can you imagine how lifesaving a happy co-sleeping relationship must be to children, parents, and the interrelationships in that family?

It may be their one harmonious, connected time -- and, yeah, it's not enough if they're ripping one another to shreds the rest of the time, but at least it's one precious thread that need not be snapped, and can simply be woven in with the many new threads the family grows, as they get help and gain better relationship skills ... it can contribute to the overall strength of the family bond, and be maybe one thing that they can say they were doing right even before "the experts" came in and "fixed" them.

But it's interesting to hear a fellow MDCer describe a situation where "parents haven't slept in the same bed for eight years because their bed is full of kids" as a contributing factor to a household being "completely chaotic."

Yes, I realize that not all MDC families co-sleep, it's all about each family coming up with an arrangement that works for everyone, you don't have co-sleep to be an attached parent, and so on -- but at the same time, making a statement like that seems just as intolerant as me making negative statements about mothers who actually use their cribs for their babies.

Either kind of criticism is just plain wrong, and not respecting of all the different varieties of families and situations.


very good point. I guess i didnt think of it from the point that the parents are happy with that situation. If it works for the family, then I suppose it shouldnt be a problem. I say that the parents not sleeping in the same bed for eight years is a contributing factor to the chaoticness because that was obviously not what the parents had wanted. I do feel that the parents are wanting to change things, otherwise they would not have called supernanny in the first place. I think that the "techniques" that she uses are extreme and they are being used to change a situation that has resulted from the way the children have been parented.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

i'm really anxious to see what kind of adults will the children of some of some of the most crunchiest, AP/NP/GD grow up to become. Will they be understanding, empathetic, and kind to others? You know--- reflecting their upbringing? Will they get creative with the way they communicate and reach out to others, using some of the same techniques we use with them? Will they be fair? Will they understand the ways of other people without being judgmental? *You know, the way they see their parents doing with their friends and family all of the time.* Because all Kohn is teaching is how to interact. So, why should our children NOT grow up and work together with their friends the same way we communicate and work together with them? Children learn by example and teachings, right? They don't leave their lessons inside of their homes when they go off to school UNLESS their parents tell them to.

Or will the children of most of us AP/NP/GD somehow get the impression that all they have been taught by their parents is void? *Will they see and understand that we have adopted these great philosophies with them, BUT we still haven't changed the way we ourselves interact with one another?* I mean, because what good is a Kohn book if the parents who have read it and applied it to their children lives, are still so set in their ways and beliefs that they have no desire to see things from another person's view point. That is what our children will learn. They don't care about what books we read, or how we talk to them. They watch how we interact with EVERYONE.

I don't have a thing for people who read book. I am an avid reader, but first I am a student of life. I know I am a good parent because I am a good person. I know how to teach my children to use their instincts because I use my instincts.

And for the record, I have never knocked a Kohn book *but I don't take recommendations from people who can give me an entire synopsis of a book they have read and then say something like, "I don't have patience for other people's children.*" or stand up in a meeting and say something like,"i refuse to see why..." That's garbage. I am all for harmony in the home, but it can not stop there. And, if it does stop there (which every parent has that right) I look for a better source.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
'The current social attitudes about children'-- this is a perfect example of the over-generalizing tendancy of UP.

I pluralized -- I wrote "attitudes" instead of merely "attitude" -- as part of my attempt to avoid over-generalizing.









Actually, one of Kohn's generalizations has really proved true for me -- well, more than one has, but I'm talking right now about one in particular. In _Unconditional Parenting_, he talks about how most parenting authors present their approach as being the middle-ground between two extremes, with extreme strictness/authoritarianism at one end of the spectrum, and extreme permissiveness at the other end.

Then he presents Unconditional Parenting as being totally *off the spectrum* (can't remember his exact words now, but that's the gist I got from it).

Well, guess what, after I finished UP and later read (or started reading) some other parenting/discipline books, *that's exactly what I saw*. It was *mind boggling* -- and I'm surprised I never saw it before. I mean, the different authors use different terminology -- but it all boils down to the same thing: "We're the happy medium between two extremes."

No, I don't mean *all* their ideas are the same -- but, I can't explain it right ... but as someone who enjoys being a tad radical and extreme, it's refreshing to read someone who (essentially) says, "I'm not giving you a 'happy medium' -- I'm trying to lure you into a whole new paradigm!"

I won't say Kohn's totally ruined me for other parenting authors -- but he has somewhat jaded me. I start reading some other book, and see that same "happy medium" tactic being employed, and I automatically see that author as less cutting-edge, creative, or smart as Kohn. I know that's not very fair of me, but there it is.

Of course, I guess he still framed his approach by contrasting it with all the "happy medium" approaches.







But I still love it!


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mrspineau* 
I say that the parents not sleeping in the same bed for eight years is a contributing factor to the chaoticness because that was obviously not what the parents had wanted.

How is it obvious? Are both parents complaining? I saw one post where someone said she insists on ending the co-sleeping even when the parents are happy about it.

Quote:

I do feel that the parents are wanting to change things, otherwise they would not have called supernanny in the first place.
Right, they're wanting to change things -- I just don't see a reason to assume that they want to change *everything*.


----------



## kalimay

Quote:

Or will the children of most of us AP/NP/GD somehow get the impression that all they have been taught by their parents is void? Will they see and understand that we have adopted these great philosophies with them, BUT we still haven't changed the way we ourselves interact with one another? I mean, because what good is a Kohn book if the parents who have read it and applied it to their children lives, are still so set in their ways and beliefs that they have no desire to see things from another person's view point. That is what our children will learn. They don't care about what books we read, or how we talk to them. They watch how we interact with EVERYONE.
Thank you! I think this is what bothered me about the article linked in the OP's post. Kohn's tone is so rude and disrespectful. Our children learn by watching how we treat others too.


----------



## kacymoose

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kalimay* 
Thank you! I think this is what bothered me about the article linked in the OP's post. Kohn's tone is so rude and disrespectful. Our children learn by watching how we treat others too.


How is his tone rude and disrespectful? If he completely disagrees with shows like Suppernanny, how could he express it more respectfully?


----------



## mrspineau

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
How is it obvious? Are both parents complaining? I saw one post where someone said she insists on ending the co-sleeping even when the parents are happy about it.

Right, they're wanting to change things -- I just don't see a reason to assume that they want to change *everything*.









It was obvious in the specific episode that I am talking about, and, tbh I don't think that it is a very ideal situation. Of course, that's my own opinion.


----------



## allgirls

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
And for the record, I have never knocked a Kohn book *but I don't take recommendations from people who can give me an entire synopsis of a book they have read and then say something like, "I don't have patience for other people's children.*" or stand up in a meeting and say something like,"i refuse to see why..." That's garbage. I am all for harmony in the home, but it can not stop there. And, if it does stop there (which every parent has that right) I look for a better source.


I don't believe we can blame Alphie Kohn if some of the subscribers to his methodology are not good to other people. We all have to own our own stuff.

I have older children and the best we can do is give them a good foundation. My oldest is nothing like I am now...but very much like I was at 18. I was nothing like my father at 18 but I work very hard to be like him now. We grow and change. I am way more mellow, tolerant and gentle now than I was at 20 for example. I've learned that through life lessons combined with research and reading.

And I have good instincts. But as humans we have intellect as well. I think a good combination of knowledge from different sources as well as finely tuned instincts serve us well both as parents and as people


----------



## PassionateWriter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
'The current social attitudes about children'-- this is a perfect example of the over-generalizing tendancy of UP.

you dont think that our society discounts children? i certainly do. Esp. in the USA, I believe that children are generally not valued....from our workplace issues w/ mothers, to restaurants, to the rate of pay for ppl who watch our children..i don't feel they are valued here.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 

Or will the children of most of us AP/NP/GD somehow get the impression that all they have been taught by their parents is void? *Will they see and understand that we have adopted these great philosophies with them, BUT we still haven't changed the way we ourselves interact with one another?* I mean, because what good is a Kohn book if the parents who have read it and applied it to their children lives, are still so set in their ways and beliefs that they have no desire to see things from another person's view point. That is what our children will learn. They don't care about what books we read, or how we talk to them. They watch how we interact with EVERYONE.

I don't have a thing for people who read book. I am an avid reader, but first I am a student of life. I know I am a good parent because I am a good person. I know how to teach my children to use their instincts because I use my instincts.

And for the record, I have never knocked a Kohn book *but I don't take recommendations from people who can give me an entire synopsis of a book they have read and then say something like, "I don't have patience for other people's children.*" or stand up in a meeting and say something like,"i refuse to see why..." That's garbage. I am all for harmony in the home, but it can not stop there. And, if it does stop there (which every parent has that right) I look for a better source.

i dont believe Kohn advocates not following instincts and not being good to other ppl. I believe he is simply advocating an approach that is very different than the ones offered in MOST parenting books in this country and the children are his focus.

Im not understanding your criticism of someone stating that they "refuse to see why....". I have a very diffficult time understanding why people do certain things. I do try to understand others and their circumstances; however, I find it difficult to understand why someone would spend 3 hours allowing their child to be put in time out repetitively; or why someone would allow their child to be weaned from teh breast prematurely absent a medical condition; or why someone would allow their child to suffer through CIO.

I don't believe this makes me a BAD person. I feel horrible pangs of sympathy for the children that have gone through this and more on shows like Super Nanny. My empathy and understanding certainly does not stop at my front door....which is why I am such an outspoken opponent of Super Nanny, Ezzo, the Pearls, and a few others that I can't recall right now.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
I don't believe we can blame Alphie Kohn if some of the subscribers to his methodology are not good to other people. We all have to own our own stuff.

I have older children and the best we can do is give them a good foundation. My oldest is nothing like I am now...but very much like I was at 18. I was nothing like my father at 18 but I work very hard to be like him now. We grow and change. I am way more mellow, tolerant and gentle now than I was at 20 for example. I've learned that through life lessons combined with research and reading.

And I have good instincts. But as humans we have intellect as well. I think a good combination of knowledge from different sources as well as finely tuned instincts serve us well both as parents and as people

i am not blaming alphie, i'm just interested to see what kind of impact AP/NP/GD will have on our society. will we be able to tell who was raised by mothers who breastfed and those who did not? will i be able to tell the difference between the mother who used a "time out" chair and the mother who chose to "time-in." I'm not just raising my children naturally without expecting something. I am raising them to GO OUT and treat others as I have treated them. i have three children, if one chooses another road I trust that my other two will make up for that.

this is the hopes of a mother. a child watched their mother so much talking eventually becomes unnecessary. come on, guys. we all have children.

or will the philosophy of kohn eventually end up being viewed like people view various religions.

"what do you think of _________?"

"ummm....i think their god is great, but his followers really suck."

i just think it's going to be interesting to see many of our children grow up. will the next generation be able to tell the way we raised our children? i personally believe they will. my oldest will be 13, and i listen to her and her associates talk and discuss life. their watching us now. absorbing our every move, i think it's going to be interesting to see how they treat one another.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
Im not understanding your criticism of someone stating that they "refuse to see why....". I have a very diffficult time understanding why people do certain things. I do try to understand others and their circumstances; however, I find it difficult to understand why someone would spend 3 hours allowing their child to be put in time out repetitively; or why someone would allow their child to be weaned from teh breast prematurely absent a medical condition; or why someone would allow their child to suffer through CIO.

they key word was refuse. you have to understand the older I get the more people I hear individuals say they refuse to see another person's point of view.


----------



## allgirls

Ah, gotcha







I-AM-mother.

I hope it makes a difference. I think it will make a difference to their emotional well being, their ability to be flexible, to change and grow.

My oldest has been rebelious as a teen but as she gets through those teen years and the anguish of being completely abandoned by her father







I see things coming through.

An example...she buys organic food. She eats healthy. When she was here she complained constantly about not having the convenient foods like Pizza pockets etc. and often bought them for herself when she earned her own money. Now she has her own place and while they have a few convenience items she calls me frequently for how to cook things she complained about previously.

She also takes supplements and uses natural products a lot. They make recycling a big deal, they reuse a lot of things.

She's a nice, kind, polite girl. You would like her. I think it made an impact.


----------



## tresleo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoginisarah* 
That's because you aren't a child. Children see things very linearly. They do something "wrong" (AKA completely age appropriate) and mom decides to put them by themselves, away from the family, at a time when they are already feeling overwhelmed or upset to begin with. *The idea behind it is that as children, we see almost everything our parents do as a reflection of love.* Therefore, mom leaving you in a corner says to the child "I don't love you because you hit your sister." It's irrational to us as adults because we are adults. But to kids, withdrawing the behaviors of affection (talking, playing, hugging, etc) is the same as withdrawing actual affection.
And, really, how is it "loving" to use a time out? It basically says "go sit by yourself, be quiet, and i don't care how you feel about this situation right now."
I can certainly see how it is a better option than completely losing it with a child....but I can also certainly see much better options that are clearly working in our family.

Just coming to this thread, and reading from the beginning. There were many that I really resonated with, but for some reason, I just loved this one.

So, perhaps this is no longer relevant, but I'm putting it out there anyway.









From observing my own five children on a daily basis, I've noticed the bolded statement to be very true. Lunch time is a good example. Did I cut the crust on their sandwich the way they like it? Did I put it on their favorite plate? Did I put their very specific, "perfect" amount of pb on the bread - it all sounds like very mundane things that lots of times seem like it doesn't matter. But its been my experience that the little things are what show my kids I love them. I am taking the time to listen to their preferences, showing them they are important to me.

I hope I was clear, because it really made a difference around here when I realized that was what was happening and its not because they are secretly ganging up on me to drive me crazy.


----------



## allgirls

Monkeyprinces..that was a GREAT post! Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't thought of it in quite that way before!


----------



## PrennaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
<SNIP>
Turning a room in my home or a spot in my kitchen into a "jail" where my child is sequestered and forced to "do time for the crime" does not seem like it's going to build attachment in our relationship. Especially if the enforcement of that involves overriding meeting my child's emotional needs while physically dominating them. No thanks....not for me.









This harkens back to the discussion on SN's use of TO and her "naughty spots"... (which just made me giggle, just now, thinking of _errant freckles... muah ah ah ah!_) But seriously, there are people who use TO, and can do so without withrawing love; like, literally, a time _out_, like in sports. But what SN does is not a break from the action to re-convene after a plan of action has been determined.

We have an area in our home devoted to breaks in the action... we used it a LOT when dd was 2-3 yo. The "Listening Spot"... where we go to calm down, together, or apart, and then listen to one another. Love it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i'm really anxious to see what kind of adults will the children of some of some of the most crunchiest, AP/NP/GD grow up to become. Will they be understanding, empathetic, and kind to others? You know--- reflecting their upbringing? Will they get creative with the way they communicate and reach out to others, using some of the same techniques we use with them? Will they be fair? Will they understand the ways of other people without being judgmental? *You know, the way they see their parents doing with their friends and family all of the time.* Because all Kohn is teaching is how to interact. So, why should our children NOT grow up and work together with their friends the same way we communicate and work together with them? Children learn by example and teachings, right? They don't leave their lessons inside of their homes when they go off to school UNLESS their parents tell them to.

Or will the children of most of us AP/NP/GD somehow get the impression that all they have been taught by their parents is void? *Will they see and understand that we have adopted these great philosophies with them, BUT we still haven't changed the way we ourselves interact with one another?* I mean, because what good is a Kohn book if the parents who have read it and applied it to their children lives, are still so set in their ways and beliefs that they have no desire to see things from another person's view point. That is what our children will learn. They don't care about what books we read, or how we talk to them. They watch how we interact with EVERYONE.

<snip>


Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
Ah, gotcha







I-AM-mother.

I hope it makes a difference. I think it will make a difference to their emotional well being, their ability to be flexible, to change and grow.

<snip>










On adopting great philosophies, *I-AM* gave me pause for thought re; my own "research and development" in parenting approaches, and I can see the concern over talking the talk (after reading all the books and what-have-you) and not walking the walk, as children will model what they see us _do_, and not what our _intentions_ are.

I find that in any philosophy, religion, or practice, it seems most fruitful when the participant (in this case, the parent) is fully invested in the process involved... in "making the change". So when we apply UP to our children, we're actually (dh and I) attempting to apply _unconditionality_ to everyone, on some level, AND model that approach to dd.

Anything that resonates with who I am in my role as wife-mother-student-volunteer-mentor is something I will use in all those aspects of my existence. I don't have time or energy for things and activities that don't jibe with those pursuits. And actually, any time I have left after the full-time mothering job, school-days (mine, where I'm full-time with 16 credits, _and_ dd's, where I volunteer half the time she's there), home-blessing, house-work (not on mine so much thanks to an awesome dh, but on other in-need moms' homes, for a small stipend), homework, writing, spiritual mentoring, teaching at Baha'i School, and meditation instruction... is spent cultivating and deepening the relationships I have in my life. Especially with other women. Mothers and non-breeders alike, IRL and even here online.

And I believe that as a result, dd (and subsequent children) will get a more rounded view of these approaches, by seeing them applied _by me_ in real-time, real-life experiences. Be it Kohn, Biringen, Sears, or Faber & Mazlish, I implement what works for me in my life, and take a holistic approach to using these teachings. And that is what they are... teachings.

Something I've been ruminating on for a few days...

A topic that seemed to refer to instinctive parenting, how we've gotten away from our tribal roots, and communal parenting came up a dozen or so pages ago...

And after some discussion on the validity of sources like Kohn and Supernanny, I got to thinking.

All the way back to our hunter-gatherer days, and through early agrarian (sp?) culture, as well as even in recent history (say, colonial times...), didn't community members often consult with sages, wise-women and wise-men, shamans, witch-doctors, priests and priestesses, medicine men and women, scribes, country doctors, and such? And couldn't, in some way, our current sources of inspiration, enlightenment, education, and information (righteous, wrong, or in-between) be considered as modern-day sages, scribes, medicine men and witch-doctors?

In that view, it occurred to me that the Alfie and Supernanny debaucle would be something of a sage scribe calling out a snake-oil peddler.

A problem I have with SN and shows like this one, (as well as a great volume of the rhetoric mainstream parents hear and then espouse), is the snake-oil effect. This direction in parenting, this kind of thinking undermines the work that educators, psychologists, and ultimately parents are doing in this age to understand and _support_ child-development and the child-parent, child-_society_ relationship.

Snake-oil. It will cure everything. You're desperate for a cure, aren't you? Nothing has worked... you're not sharing a bed with your husband, and the kids have unleashed total anarchy. You're tired of being up with Jr, and going rounds all day with Janie. You have lost control of your home... well this here bottle of Supernanny juice will in 3 short weeks cure it all!!

But has it? Does anyone know what the _sustainable_ success rate for the families on SN is? Anyone care to venture a guess? I looked and can find _nothing_ referring to sustainability, no follow-ups (except the little month-later snippet the show has) or testimonials from families months or a year after SN has been there... So who knows?

And one last blurb on the sustainability of UP/AP/GD (how will our children end up)... the kindest, most well-spoken, non-judgemental, open-minded, respectful, creative, innovative, and poised individuals I have _ever_ met came from, and parent _in_, such homes and are the inspiration behind the path of parenting I have chosen. So, at least for them, it was definitely sustaining.


----------



## tresleo

*


----------



## kalimay

Quote:

How is his tone rude and disrespectful? If he completely disagrees with shows like Suppernanny, how could he express it more respectfully?
He actually calls her names. I would like to teach my kids that they can respectfully disagree with someone and have a dialogue about it. You don't need to "blast" someone to make your point.


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kalimay* 
He actually calls her names. I would like to teach my kids that they can respectfully disagree with someone and have a dialogue about it. You don't need to "blast" someone to make your point.

I just reread the entire article, and didn't read Kohn calling SN names even once. What are you talking about? That he refers to her methods as superficial?

ETA: In fact, he is critical of SN using name-calling when she refers to children as "little monsters."


----------



## kalimay

Quote:

I just reread the entire article, and didn't read Kohn calling SN names even once. What are you talking about? That he refers to her methods as superficial?
He call her "stunningly simple-minded" and says they are selling snake oil. I wouldn't have a problem with the tone of the article if someone else had written it but as another poster said our children learn from the way we treat other people too and I just wonder if that is the example he wants to set or is it fine to be rude to adults you don't agree with as long as your and gentle and respectful to your own children.

I want to say again that I have not seen SN but have seen Nanny 911 twice and it was nothing like what he says every episode of those shows is like. Maybe he missed the show I saw.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
A topic that seemed to refer to instinctive parenting, how we've gotten away from our tribal roots, and communal parenting came up a dozen or so pages ago...

i have discussed using my instincts and am puzzled and in awe that there are not more women who openly admit to using theirs as well. using things like their intuition and such. one of the only times i hear mothers admit they even have instincts and should master them is when discussing issues such as "strangers" and "self defense" other than that that, instincts seems to be dismissed.

however, most of what I have shared in this particular thread is observations. gotten away from our tribal roots, and communal parenting???
i hope i haven't come across like that, although if i have that may mean I have a few beliefs that need ironing out, on my part. because that was definitely not my intentions. my point was that we are not the experts and the only thing our "experts" did was observed others.

i normally have to do this on the tattoo/piercing forum i am a member of. because somehow they too have forgotten that tattoo and piercing have been around since the beginning of time, and the only thing that has happened in the last ten years is we (americans) have went and put our spin on it.


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kalimay* 
He call her "stunningly simple-minded" and says they are selling snake oil. I wouldn't have a problem with the tone of the article if someone else had written it but as another poster said our children learn from the way we treat other people too and I just wonder if that is the example he wants to set or is it fine to be rude to adults you don't agree with as long as your and gentle and respectful to your own children...

He didn't call _Jo_ simple minded, he said her approach is, and then he provides his reasoning. This is not name calling, it is a critique.


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i have discussed using my instincts and am puzzled and in awe that there are not more women who openly admit to using theirs as well. using things like their intuition and such. one of the only times i hear mothers admit they even have instincts and should master them is when discussing issues such as "strangers" and "self defense" other than that that, instincts seems to be dismissed.

Every animal on this earth uses their instincts, humans included. I think several people have pointed out to you that their instincts drive them to learn as much as possible. You like observing other people, I like reading. That's our nature as humans. It's why we've got the biggest brains on the planet, too.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Think of Winter* 
Every animal on this earth uses their instincts, humans included. I think several people have pointed out to you that their instincts drive them to learn as much as possible. You like observing other people, I like reading. That's our nature as humans. It's why we've got the biggest brains on the planet, too.

it's possible we're talking about two different things.


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
it's possible we're talking about two different things.











*instinct* from Dictionary.com
-noun
1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.
2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.
3. a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money.
4. natural intuitive power.

I'm not sure why I'm pursuing this, but anyway, a large part of our child-rearing behavior is learned, not instinct. Some of us were lucky enough to have good models, some were not. Lots of us think there's more to be learned, so we keep doing so.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Think of Winter* 









*instinct* from Dictionary.com
-noun
1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.
2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.
3. a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money.
4. natural intuitive power.

I'm not sure why I'm pursuing this, but anyway, a large part of our child-rearing behavior is learned, not instinct. Some of us were lucky enough to have good models, some were not. Lots of us think there's more to be learned, so we keep doing so.

i'd indulge you, but it's pointless.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i'd indulge you, but it's pointless.

And why is it pointless? You keep talking about the importance of following our instincts, and I agree with you. Some of us are saying that reading is very instinctive to us.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
And why is it pointless? You keep talking about the importance of following our instincts, and I agree with you. Some of us are saying that reading is very instinctive to us.

lol....speaking of using instincts. i pick and choose the posts and threads i want to respond to by using my intuition. most of the times I can tell where a conversation is going and if it is not going to be fruitful, i want nothing to do with it.

in this particular case, think of winter said some things about every animal using their instincts. i didn't say they didn't -i said most people normally do not ADMIT to it unless its has something to do with strangers or learning about self-defense.

now, i could have responded to her BUT in my mind (in my mind only) she didn't get the gist of what I was saying, so i told her so. then she went on to give me the definition of instincts, and it was really crystal clear we were talking about two different things.

she and i will have the opportunity to discuss something else in the future but right now i see no reason to go on.


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
lol....speaking of using instincts. i pick and choose the posts and threads i want to respond to by using my intuition. most of the times I can tell where a conversation is going and if it is not going to be fruitful, i want nothing to do with it... right now i see no reason to go on.

Well, ok then.


----------



## swampangel

Ditto the









I am perplexed at how this thread has become so argumentative. There is no one-size-fits-all parenting...I'm sure that's been said here before. I find issues with both SN and Kohn. But both are trying to help families be more loving and functional. SN deals with some pretty dysfunctional families...families where the parents aren't reading parenting books and have found themselves stumbling around as their children get older and the challenges get a little bigger.

I think comparing the two is difficult because she is actually in there with the families addressing what's going on. Kohn is writing books and theorizing. It's just different. I disagree with much of the behavioral stuff SN does. I also disagree with much of Kohn suggests because I think it takes us away from our instincts and makes everything too heady. I love reading parenting books, but what I focus on with my kids is our relationship. I draw from different sources in different moments.

I think most critical thinkers aren't going to buy anything hook, line and sinker. Our kids need us to be authentic and present.


----------



## monkey's mom

This thread has progressed into the surreal for me.

I am looooooooost.


----------



## Surfacing

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eleven* 
I enjoy Alfie Kohn and Supernanny; they both have some ideas that I identify with and some that I don't.

















:


----------



## swampangel

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
This thread has progressed into the surreal for me.

I am looooooooost.

When did you get lost? I was attempting to get things back to the thread topic. I never get how these conversations become arguments.


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Quote:

Our kids do need us to be, as Swampangel writes, "authentic and present". You can't be that if you need to refer to an episode of 'Supernanny', or a passage in UP, when conflict arises.
This is assuming all people are wonderful and beautiful and have had a wonderful upbringing themselvs.
Authentic and present...means I would beat the s&%t out of my son half the day. Ive had A LOT of therapy for my abusive neglectful childhood. Some people are no so lucky. So I know this is wrong - I know to stop myself and take a step back. I have spanked my son in the past and I deeply regret it - but even that was showing a lot of self control on my part. Without books - like UP...I would not be where I am today, I would not be the parent I am today. No I dont need to refer to a line in his book - you shouldnt have to anyhow, he does not give step by step advice on how to dicipline or control your child (yeah, of course he has an agenda - to try and help parents step back and ensure that everyone makes it growing up emotinally healthy if nothing else and that children are not just controlled becaue be are the bigger bully and treated like second class citizens because they are simply younger and smaller than us - as most parenting books try to suggest...the 'how to control your child', even if in a 'gentle' way...he steps away from the 'how do I control my child' aspect our culture has got intself into with the myth that if we do not control our children, they will not grow up to be 'good' people) - so I am not exactly sure what you would have to stop yourself to refer to the book for?...But thank God it is there. It was one of the stepping stones that got me to where I am today!
I am currently reading another stepping stone I would also highly recommend. Oh no..a book!...Am I bad parent? I am not being authentic because I need to read this book? No of course not! Raising our Children, Raising Ourselves...we need this book in our house right now - authentically and presently very much so! And even my DH who didnt have an abusive childhood - who probably had about as 'normal' a childhood as anyone else here had needs this book as well. He has some serious issues with feelings and them being expressed - and thats him being authentic! He hasnt given much thought about it...but the message it is giving our son is that his feelings are wrong to have and that he is a boy and should 'suck it up' and that life is bloody tough and to 'get over it'... NOT a message I am personally happy about sending out son. We are working on that together as a family. It has taken more than just my 'instinct'. ...and is certainly taking more than his as well.
He might be theorising, but parents are putting it into practice in their homes everyday. At least he has children - so even if hes not in my home guiding me in person, his book has...and I would trust that anyday over a lady who has no children of her own.


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Yeah, I agree with this, and have bolded a couple statements that, to me, highlight both, the 'reality' of SN, and the underlying message of UP.

It really is unfair for Kohn to 'blast' SN for providing some 'control' to parents who are totally checked out. And, just because they are checked out, doesn't mean that they don't love, or want the best for their children. I like to assume that most parents want the best for their kids.

And, if we are going to be critical thinkers, we should keep in mind that anyone who, regardless of philosophy, writes parenting books, has an agenda.

Our kids do need us to be, as Swampangel writes, "authentic and present". You can't be that if you need to refer to an episode of 'Supernanny', or a passage in UP, when conflict arises.


Well the thing is that Supernanny isn't going and helping parents quietly regain control. If she were, she wouldn't be a cultural force. She's doing it on television, and that means her practices become up for debate.

I still personally believe that the show at times - enough times that I don't think I personally have seen an episode without it, although I would guess I've seen about 5 - desensitizes people to screaming, upset children and frames that distress as something to be 'stamped out' through physical force.

I think it's good to have people challenge the underlying philosophy and principles of both Supernanny and Alfie Kohn and anyone else who engages in public discourse. What I don't agree with is "well those families are in trouble and she helps them! [for the course of the show]" as a defense. It's the same defense that has been used for many child rearing practices for centuries - beatings, spankings, and so on.

I don't doubt the good intentions of the show (on a surface level; underneath it is a show designed to make money for its corporation) nor do I deny that some of the things they show are positive. But that doesn't mean that it's all good.

As for your last paragraph, wow. Everything I read and see informs my "authentic self" in some way whether I dismiss it or accept it, leave it on the shelf or pull it down when a problem is on my mind. Story/writing is a very deep human way to communicate cultural practice.


----------



## PassionateWriter

ery well said ann!


----------



## cotopaxi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
This thread has progressed into the surreal for me.

I am looooooooost.

LOL, me too. I gave up about 15 pages ago. Interesting read though, even though I don't get half of it.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
As for your last paragraph, wow. Everything I read and see informs my "authentic self" in some way whether I dismiss it or accept it, leave it on the shelf or pull it down when a problem is on my mind. Story/writing is a very deep human way to communicate cultural practice.

This is true for me, too! I also loved everything Ann had to say.


----------



## kacymoose

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i have discussed using my instincts and am puzzled and in awe that there are not more women who openly admit to using theirs as well.

I think you are on target that most people do not talk about using instincts. Our society has become somewhat expert driven, and people tend to look to "experts" for advice instead of looking inside of themselves.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
This is assuming all people are wonderful and beautiful and have had a wonderful upbringing themselvs.
Authentic and present...means I would beat the s&%t out of my son half the day.

I didn't have an abusive upbringing, although I was spanked occaisonally - & I too have had the urge to hit my children. It felt like it was authentic when the urge was there, was that instinct? I don't think so, and I hope I am not wrong. I would hate to think that the urge to hit one's children is an instinct.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
I am currently reading another stepping stone I would also highly recommend. Oh no..a book!...Am I bad parent? I am not being authentic because I need to read this book? No of course not! Raising our Children, Raising Ourselves...we need this book in our house right now - authentically and presently very much so!

I think this is an important book because it helped me understand why I do get the urge to smack my kids once in a while, and to look to my underlying feelings as to why that urge is there.

I think the problem at looking to "experts" for advice comes when people just follow it without question. CIO is a great example of this. The sleep books tell you how to let your child cry so they will learn to sleep on their own and on paper it sounds reasonable. Then when they try it, they ignore their instincts and emotions that it feels wrong to let a baby cry without attending to her. They ignore their instincts because of what an expert said! If a person can read what an expert recommends, try applying it to their live, then evaluate it based on their instincts and truly reflect on how it is affecting their family - that can be a very positive thing.


----------



## PrennaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i have discussed using my instincts and am puzzled and in awe that there are not more women who openly admit to using theirs as well. using things like their intuition and such. one of the only times i hear mothers admit they even have instincts and should master them is when discussing issues such as "strangers" and "self defense" other than that that, instincts seems to be dismissed.

however, most of what I have shared in this particular thread is observations. gotten away from our tribal roots, and communal parenting???
i hope i haven't come across like that, although if i have that may mean I have a few beliefs that need ironing out, on my part. because that was definitely not my intentions. *my point was that we are not the experts and the only thing our "experts" did was observed others.*

i normally have to do this on the tattoo/piercing forum i am a member of. because somehow they too have forgotten that tattoo and piercing have been around since the beginning of time, and the only thing that has happened in the last ten years is we (americans) have went and put our spin on it.

*I-AM-Mother*, I was not referring to you specifically. There has (likely inspired by your posts) been a discussion on instinctual parenting. There have been observations on modern-day mothers getting away from the more communal practices witnessed in the tribal comminities, whose practices have inspired so much of the current study of, discourse on, and understanding of human-development. It was said that this society is getting away from that by parenting in a solitary fashion, behind closed doors.

There can't be an acknowledgement of (or even an admittal to) instictive (parenting) behavior in the human animal without a look at other instinctual behaviors, and their origins... Parenting instinctually can't stand by itself and not be accompanied by the other instincts and behaviors that have followed us through the ages.

And the "experts" (the wise-men, the oracles, the psychologists, the educators, the scribes) observe "instictual behaviors" and their origins, studying them at length; they theorize and test; they channel and chant; and then they bring to the public their findings, or their visions, or their inspiration. We take what we like, and leave the rest... as has been done for millennia.

As for parents "admitting" using their instints, I wouldn't think that's something anyone needs to "admit" to. I mean, of course I use my instincts. And I'd hazard to say most folks here do at least on some level. Is it that you don't encounter many moms who actually _talk_ about it that bothers you?

When I was pregnant with dd, I intended to CIO, use disposable diapers, planned I'd try not to spank, but would if I "had" to, and make sure dd was sound in her own bed, etc. I was all ready to go with my mainstream belief-set, fingers crossed.

When I HAD her, my _instincts_ caused a major recoil from CIO and having her more than an inch from me... so we co-sleep and AP. And as I got to know myself as the adult child of an abusive household, in my parenting-role, I found a void, a major lack of understanding in how to parent effectively without using fear or coercion as my primary motivators. So, my instincts lead me to seek input from the sages. And under their tutelage, I have become an awesome mom.

Now, I'm on a path that will paint _me_ as one of the "experts" some day... Now, I take joy in helping or inspiring other mothers to strike out and find _more_ tools for their tool-kits. Kohn isn't enough. SN isn't enough. Instincts aren't enough. Do it all, see it all, read as much as possible, be around other parents whenever you can, take inspiration from the people whom you admire the most. And actually _apply_ what you learn, apply the bits that speak to you and your needs; theorize and test, and see what works... I truly believe that some folks won't find what they need, to do the multi-faceted job of parenting, with just one approach.

On "experts"... *I-Am-Mother*, you _yourself_ are something of an expert! Observing folks, learning about these different approaches, having parented for more than a decade already (if I have read your posts right...), being part of so many AP groups, and being a critical thinker... you can stand in a crowd of women and intelligently make your voice heard in a way that inspires and helps others. I'd say you're on way to being one of the sages...







Would you feel that the women who may find you inspiring aren't using their instincts?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
<snip>
Our kids do need us to be, as Swampangel writes, "authentic and present". You can't be that if you need to refer to an episode of 'Supernanny', or a passage in UP, when conflict arises.

People reference that which gives them power, or inspiration, in the moment. The bible, the koran, the torah, writings from Buddhism, Socrates, Abdul'baha, Abraham Lincoln, MDC moms, Kohn, and even SN may reveal pearls of wisdom that can save a child from being robbed of his or her sense of security, and provide support for that child's development. One that comes to mind is one I got here on MDC from a mom on the I'm a new mama thread: "Drops not stones" taken from the principle that 'Hailstones crush what they could nourish were they rain-drops' and applied to using gentleness when dealing with conflict.

Here's an example of how all the tools in my tool-kit blend: This morning, I was ready to choke dd... she was driving me absolutely bananas. I started to yell, and I thought "Drops not stones" and then barked at her "I need to calm down! I am going to the listening spot!" And marched over and sat down... she came up to me and asked why I was sitting in the listening spot. I replied that I love her too much (Love and Logic) to shout at her, so I am using my calm and patience to chill out and be gentle with her (Virtues Project); then we can talk about something that would work for both of us (Consensual Living). She sat with me, and when I had taken a few moments to meditate on different solutions to our conflict (instinct), we talked about solutions and she had some great ideas. We went with her idea and solved our conflict and got off to school... late, but conflict-free.


----------



## mamazee

Instincts are not by definition good. There are instincts that would be bad for a parent. I get angry, I want to strike out. Someone hits me, I want to hit back and harder.

We need to balance instinct, knowledge, logic, common sense, etc. All have a place in decision making. Reading books can expand our knowledge base, and gaining knowledge is a good thing. It can also open our minds to looking at things differently, which IMO is also good.


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
This is assuming all people are wonderful and beautiful and have had a wonderful upbringing themselvs.
Authentic and present...means I would beat the s&%t out of my son half the day. Ive had A LOT of therapy for my abusive neglectful childhood.

that is a very hard childhood you've had, indeed.

not addressing this specifically to you, but, i think there is a general tendency to confuse authentic with conditioning. being authentic does not mean one behaves illogically or inappropriately. such behavior comes out of conditioning and this is where people want to refer to experts and give them the credit for de-conditioning them. and that is fine, except when books and experts start to supersede intuition and instinctual parenting. here i refer to those moments and dynamics that lie between the lines of any book. sometimes it becomes an unspoken/unofficial rule to parent in such ways as are outlined in book A or B and automatic disdain or frowning upon those who deviate or don't follow the 'rules', so to speak. just my personal observation.


----------



## PrennaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
<snip>
sometimes it becomes an unspoken/unofficial rule to parent in such ways as are outlined in book A or B and *automatic disdain or frowning upon those who deviate or don't follow the 'rules', so to speak.* just my personal observation.

I've seen this, too. This is what I was referring to a few pages back. One approach becomes somebody's gospel, and then anything else is dismissed, often disdainfully.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
As for parents "admitting" using their instints, I wouldn't think that's something anyone needs to "admit" to. I mean, of course I use my instincts. And I'd hazard to say most folks here do at least on some level. Is it that you don't encounter many moms who actually _talk_ about it that bothers you?

hmmm...let me see how to explain this. It's not that people do not talk about it as much as they don't acknowledge that feeling they get. I find people have a difficult time giving themselves credit for what they already seem to "know."--especially woman/mothers. I'll use this example.

I was 16 years old when I gave birth to my first child. I did certain things because they "felt right." One of them was allowing her to sleep on her stomach (choir, save it. I am not telling parents to do the same, okay.) I also nursed her and allowed her to sleep in my bed. I wore a sling for the first few months, and rode in the back seat with her. Notice I didn't use any of the labels we have for this kind of parenting.

When I went to the pediatrician, and admitted to her my daughter was sleeping in my bed on her stomach, she pulled out pamphlet after pamphlet. She cited statistics and "facts" but the longer she talked the more she sounded foolish because it went against everything I was experiencing. She went into a spill about only breast feeding for the first three months, and allowing my child to .....That doctor may have knew lots of things BUT she didn't know me and my child.

I'm very in-tuned with my children. Their needs are my needs. No bragging here but after the first year, mothering becomes effortless. Do I ever feel like I want to scream? You damn right. And if I do, no guilt. So, I give myself A LOT of credit. I have not lived thirty years on this earth just to have a book override everything I believe. Now, I am not saying this is what everyone is doing, but in my opinion if you have three and four children, you should KNOW A LOT about what works and doesn't work in your home with your children. It's not science. It's natural. After my second child, I stopped buying parenting books. I stopped opening them too. In fact, my old parenting books are already highlighted, underlined and waiting to be passed on to my children should they decide to become parents.

I am not saying people just need to talk about using their instincts, or intuition but I think if they admitted it to themselves they would give themselves much more credit than they do, and acknowledge that raising children is not so scientific. AND not feel so guilty. Listen, for whatever reason people seem to be taking the naturalness out of parenting and making it more like a puzzle that needs to be solved.

One last thing, I have not met one person who did NOT know beating a child is wrong. They may have did it because it was all they knew BUT when it all boiled down they KNEW it was wrong.

I am not talking about spanking. I am talking about ABUSE. And although many people consider spanking a child abuse, there are parents who spank and love their children like they love life itself, so I don't want to get caught up in that.


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
I've seen this, too. This is what I was referring to a few pages back. One approach becomes somebody's gospel, and then anything else is dismissed, often disdainfully.

no, no...i don't mean approach, what i am saying is applicable to those who cannot look beyond shows, 'experts' and books. approach is usually more for those looking to align themselves with nature and fundamentals.


----------



## PrennaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
no, no...i don't mean approach, what i am saying is applicable to those who cannot look beyond shows, 'experts' and books. approach is usually more for those looking to align themselves with nature and fundamentals.

I knew that was what you were referring to. And the word _approach_, as I used it, is in context... an author, a t.v. producer, a doctor, whatever, can delineate a certain set of how-to's and the end-product may be called an approach. As in: "Supernanny's approach to discipline includes heavy use of time-outs and scheduling." Or "The UP approach looks at praise and punishment, and asks parents to look at their reasoning behind, and the long-term effects of, these tools."

eta:And those how-to's may or may not be useful to some, but are often looked at as some kind of gospel to the exclusion of other modalities that may be of equal or even greater (but sometimes lesser) value.


----------



## babygrace

ah, but, as with most other things and in particular, parenting, approach should take on more than a set of how-to's. if only it were as simple as that, all of us would be so relieved! that is why i tend to look at tools (books, shows etc) as outlining certain sets of principles, if you will. i will stop at that before i drag this interesting (and enlightening) discussion to a mere semantics level.


----------



## allgirls

I think the problem comes when people are conditioned to go against their instincts by their culture.

I know many many people who would have circ'd their child because it is just the way things are done in their culture.

I don't have sons so I've never had to face this decision for myself but I know people who have. It was their research, their reading that triggered them to go "hey, that's right, it doesn't make sense to do that" and make a different decision because of their research.

I think it's perfectly fine if you have a complete handle on it and things are going swimmingly to not research and read.

However I discovered along the way that knowledge combined with instinct works best for me and my favourite way of gathering knowledge is from reading about the subject, exploring differing opinions, picking and expanding and applying those that ring true for me. I also learn in other ways. from people I meet, this forum, workshops I attend and lead. Also from just doing it. I have been a mother for 18 years and my kids have taught me as well.

I've been lately reading up on the virtues project. I've started to apply it. This is not a change to my parenting. It's more of an enhancement to it. I discovered it here and it was fascinating to me as it aligned with how we try to live our lives and raise our children. Only it takes it a step further. It's working well for us and seems to really be exciting for my children as well. There is always something to learn









I also read a parenting book lately that left me







because it was a philosophy that does not allign with my world view at all.

I think one of the best discipline books I've ever read is Buddhism for Mothers by Sarah Napthali...it was a discipline book for me that helps me in my own personal journey as a mother. As a student of spirituality I read all sorts of sacred books as well and utilise those things that ring true in my life. All of the sacred books are valuable to me..but I certainly don't subscribe to every tenet set forth in all the world religions. But I've still read them.

And of course for me my spiritual journey and my journey as a mother are completely intertwined.

I don't know that I'm a better mother without the knowledge, we can't go back and unlearn things. All I know is I love to read.

My dh said today about a totally different topic..how do we know what good is if we never see any bad to compare it to. Simple but true.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
All I know is I love to read.

That's me, too -- and maybe that's the crux of the matter.

In a similar way, I love writing -- and I've sent some extremely long emails to a new friend. We get into some interesting discussions while our kids are playing, but there are so many interruptions some things just get lost.

She has seemed just as "into" our discussions, and often initiates more discussions the next time we get together. But she's never responded to the long "discussiony" emails I've sent.

I asked her about it, and she said she really doesn't enjoy writing -- and now that she doesn't "have" to write for school, she doesn't do it anymore than necessary.

I think some folks feel the same way about reading. And that's okay! Just so long as they don't bash us book-lovers. It takes all kinds to make up the world!


----------



## mammal_mama

Of course, I realize that some folks are avid book-readers about other subjects -- but just don't care to read about parenting issues. That's fine, too. To each her own!


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Well the thing is that Supernanny isn't going and helping parents quietly regain control. If she were, she wouldn't be a cultural force. She's doing it on television, and that means her practices become up for debate.

I still personally believe that the show at times - enough times that I don't think I personally have seen an episode without it, although I would guess I've seen about 5 - desensitizes people to screaming, upset children and frames that distress as something to be 'stamped out' through physical force.

I think it's good to have people challenge the underlying philosophy and principles of both Supernanny and Alfie Kohn and anyone else who engages in public discourse. What I don't agree with is "well those families are in trouble and she helps them! [for the course of the show]" as a defense. It's the same defense that has been used for many child rearing practices for centuries - beatings, spankings, and so on.

I don't doubt the good intentions of the show (on a surface level; underneath it is a show designed to make money for its corporation) nor do I deny that some of the things they show are positive. But that doesn't mean that it's all good.

As for your last paragraph, wow. Everything I read and see informs my "authentic self" in some way whether I dismiss it or accept it, leave it on the shelf or pull it down when a problem is on my mind. Story/writing is a very deep human way to communicate cultural practice.

Eh, I don't consider Supernanny to be a 'cultural force'. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, though.

I also disagree that Supernanny is about 'physical force'. If you simply mean placing a child in the 'naughty chair', than I guess I would agree. However, I don't see the goal of the naughty spot as 'desensitizing' parents to their children's 'distress'.

To my knowledge, Supernanny is totally against spanking and/or beating your kid into submission, so I don't know why this is continually brought up?

Of course, everything you read and see informs how you perceive the world.

Being 'authentic' to me, means resisting the 'policing' of my mothering by anyone who isn't present in every moment, in every situation, every mood, everyday.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i'm just interested to see what kind of impact AP/NP/GD will have on our society. will we be able to tell who was raised by mothers who breastfed and those who did not? will i be able to tell the difference between the mother who used a "time out" chair and the mother who chose to "time-in." I'm not just raising my children naturally without expecting something. I am raising them to GO OUT and treat others as I have treated them. i have three children, if one chooses another road I trust that my other two will make up for that.

their watching us now. absorbing our every move, i think it's going to be interesting to see how they treat one another.

There are many AP/NP/GD-raised adults currently existing amongst us in our society. As someone previously mentioned (perhaps you, I AM Mother?) this type/style of parenting is not at all new. I think that we could see the results of our efforts by looking at the results of the efforts of those who have parented similarly before us.
However, there are always so many variables to consider when evaluating someone's behaviour.
I like to think that our loving, kind, respectful, gentle, instinctual, efforts (which to me, seem to require less effort) will do more good than harm, and much more good than more coercive, controlling, disrespectful parenting methods.


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Quote:



I am not saying people just need to talk about using their instincts, or intuition but I think if they admitted it to themselves they would give themselves much more credit than they do, and acknowledge that raising children is not so scientific. AND not feel so guilty. Listen, for whatever reason people seem to be taking the naturalness out of parenting and making it more like a puzzle that needs to be solved.


Even with my abusive childhood - I do find that these things are instincutal ...wearing your baby, breastfeeding them, having them in your bed at night. I do not want to leave my child to cry, or leave him all alone in a dark room at night, or have him 3 foot away from me in a cold plastic buggy when he could be cuddled up close to my chest in a nice warm soft sling...
I do think A LOT of parents go against their instincts here - and because people say 'this and this' and 'that and that' about it all. So many people I know think that 'co-sleeping' is dangerous and that our children will only gain independence if pushed to it which means that breastfeeding them and co sleeping and wearing them in a sling is just 'making a rod for your own back'. They leave them to cry and 'suck it up' and maybe even spank because its what we 'do' in our society - never questioning it yet feeling guilty and upset about it - trying to consol themselves by saying 'its for their own good'. This says to me and I can see it in the parent - the turmoil they go through when they do these things, their body is screaming because they are going against every instinct it has when it comes to their babies.

But Alfie Kohn and SN - are about dicipline. They are not about instinct. Dicipline means to teach and we learn it by being taught it. Dicipline in a lot of ways is conditioned into us. This is why I also mention the fact I had a very abusive childhood and my first instinct is to hit out - spank - beat, etc..when those things are triggered. Yes, I know they have been conditioned and I am even lucky to know this. But the mother who leaves her child to CIO for 'their own good' without questioning it has been conditioned as well.

Sure - some dicipline is about all those other human instincts we feel. A lot of them stem from the simple fact that we are human, we are mamals, when we have a baby our really only one instinct is to keep them safe and we do this by doing all those 'natural' things like breastfeed, babywear and co sleep, etc. But that is only part of it. The rest of it does not always come so natural to people.

There are many 'AP' societies out there. I do not think for a mintue many of them stop to question why they do things though. Our society is no different. We do things very differently and many people do not stop to question why. The few of us - many of us here on MDC do though. We say 'hey wait...' maybe we think our insticts are telling us something different or maybe we read something as a teenager (as a friend of mine did - she ran across a Dr.Sears book when she was 15 and that has stuck in her mind every since...now at nearly 30 with 2 children, she raises them in a much more 'AP' way than she herself was raised which was in an emotionally abusive home) .... our society needs these books on 'dicipline' and sometimes, they even need the ones that tell us about our 'instincts'.

I like reading...maybe even I love it! Sure, I dont need a book to tell me that co-sleeping is safe and that actually it lowers the rate of SIDS instead of what many people like to believe about it. I do need to read books on dicipline though - they ground me and confirm a lot of what I already choose to believe because I do not want to control my children, rather live with them harmoniously...but I still need these books because sometimes my path gets dark and I need a bit of light on it to see more clearly and they certainly help me out!

I also need these books for other reasons. I do not feel I need to justify the way I parent but sometimes other people are interrested. And sometimes I just can not sit back any longer and watch what is happening take place and I can see how much hurt a parent is feeling and how much support they need from me as a friend. These books help there - these books with all their 'scientific fact'. I can read Alfie Kohn and agree without him having to load me up with all the research done on it...but lets face it, many people cant. Many people need 'proof' of why something is the way it is - of why it should be that way. Why should I not spank? Why does spanking not work? What else should I do? Why does that work better?

I do not think Alfie Kohn at all has taken the naturalness out of parenting. (nor for that matter, any other book that is on my shelf).

We try our best to live consensually. Yes - I put a lable on my parenting because when I say 'CL'...you get a general idea of what I am on about. Thats what words are for. If I say 'co-sleep', you get a general idea of what I am on about just like if I say 'pizza'...you get a general idea that I am talking about a food that is round with sauce, veggies, and cheese on top. I have no problem with these sort of 'labels'...the are just another 'word' in the dictionary to me.

Quote:



Here's an example of how all the tools in my tool-kit blend: This morning, I was ready to choke dd... she was driving me absolutely bananas. I started to yell, and I thought "Drops not stones" and then barked at her "I need to calm down! I am going to the listening spot!" And marched over and sat down... she came up to me and asked why I was sitting in the listening spot. I replied that I love her too much (Love and Logic) to shout at her, so I am using my calm and patience to chill out and be gentle with her (Virtues Project); then we can talk about something that would work for both of us (Consensual Living). She sat with me, and when I had taken a few moments to meditate on different solutions to our conflict (instinct), we talked about solutions and she had some great ideas. We went with her idea and solved our conflict and got off to school... late, but conflict-free.


This is a very good example! I will point out here, that even though some of us love our books and may refer to them and their examples to help us parent...even with all their 'scientific proof'...we at least _give it thou_ght! This is one major BIG difference I see between any mother here on MDC (no matter what you choose to call yourself be it UP or AP or CL) and the 'mainstream' parents. Alfie Kohn questions and proposes and just set a light on your own path - he does not say 'do this and this step by step'. SN on the other hand...says 'do this and this' without question. I have seen very few shows of SN...there is never any 'well this study has been done and says to do this so this why we do it'...there is never any questioning regarding the actual dicipline. The only question every asked is 'how do I control my children and make them do what I want them to do - how do I make them 'behave' '.... Many people I know who do CIO do not question it. They do it because 'it works'... but why does it 'work'? People that want to do it, just ask how to do it. If they knew maybe why doing CIO gives a certain result that goes against every instinctual bone in their body - maybe they wouldn't do it!

Sometimes I wonder why I am going on. I am going on - and I will address this to you 'I-AM-Mother' because it seems at first that you discredit Alfie Kohn. And then that reading any parenting type of book is wrong and against our instinct. And then that parents have a problem with listening to their instinct. You are talking to mothers here on MDC! lol...We are discussing parents that have probably never even heard of MDC and care not to venture here. They do not even care to use cloth nappies let alone venture into a more 'natural' way to parent. Remember first we were discussing AK and SN. The first few pages of this post did not stray from that path. AK is pretty good and SN is borderline neglectful and abusive but usually a much better way to 'parent' and/or at least 'dicipline' their children than the route they were on before, at least a start - certainly not for any of us!...and I think that pretty much sums up how most of us feel about the matter. I would die of a heart attack right now if any of the people I know _in real life _even knew who AK was!...but they all know who SN is, so maybe they might see other paths availalbe to them if they ran across that article. I think this post was originally posted to show us that article because a lot of us will say 'yeah! - go AK' ...but then it sort of seemed like you were saying AK is bad - reading a parenting book at all is bad - use you instinct - etc. Your comments just seemed a bit close minded - at least to me (as I wont speak for other people). And then you kinda topped it off with a 'I am better than thou' attitdue with some extreme vagueness and refusal to explain yourself because you know, we are just stupid and do not get what you have been trying to say???....with the rest of what else you said could be anything anyone here on MDC would write. If maybe you were arguing against Gina Ford - a lot more of what you would be saying would make some sense. It just seems one minute you are 'against' us and then the next that you are agreeing with us. I am not too sure.

I actually have a big problem with people saying they use their instinct - because it is actually used a lot and tbh...too freely. I have no problem saying it myself when it comes to those I do use my instinct for (co sleeping, etc) ...but, at least in this country, its used far too much for the wrong things. One that it always seems to be used for is...'My instincts are telling me to wean my baby at 4 weeks'...I am sorry, but these people need some medical and scientific facts about why though should not be shoving baby food into their month old babys mouth! Instincts?...I dont think so. Its become a handy 'excuse' though. Your instincts said what?...well okay...'instincts' and all - so you must be right...right? You would be surprised how much 'my instincts are telling me' is used - and probably disgusted at how they are used! So I think even if you said 'well my instincts are telling me not to bully my child but to live with them consensually'...people may look at you with a funny eye because the 'instincts' thing has almost become an old line.

I think if we were to try to get parents to 'admit' to the instincts that are really there - the ones that really matter, it would take a lot of badgering. I can see me now pestering a friend doing CIO on her baby...'Do you feel it? - Tell me you feel it!...Cant you feel your heart breaking...cant you feel every bone in your body crying out to hold our baby and be there for her...cant you cant you cant you...feel your instincts and obey them!....Can you feel it can you can you can you?....FEEL IT!'.... I cant see that resulting in a 'Yes okay I feel it!...What do I do about it?...I cant - I wont! - But but but ...society...rods...backs...I must not give in!...Ill ive in!...My instinct -there you are!'.... It would probably result in 'who the heck do you think you are? piss off! Dont tell me how to parent' and end the relationship! You know, the old...'how dare you be judgmental' - that J word we throw around often. Our society is selfish...this is the root of all of our problems. I have no doubt that even the one doing CIO can feel their instinct. Will even admit to it! I have many parents admit to me how 'bad' they feel for spanking but do it anyhow because... insert myth regarding selfish reason. I dont want a child hanging off my boob because I want to go party every night. I dont want a child in my bed, they will never get out then and how will I have sex and I just like the king size bed all to myself anyhow. I need to control them because thats easy and thoughtless and I want them to do what I say when I say it so I can do what I want when I want. etc...

Personally I find the way I parent 'easy'. Sure, I give it a lable. Yes I read books - witout them I may not be where I am today as the parent I am today. But its easy (how many times do we say 'imagine having to get up and walk down a hall every few hours in the night to nurse your baby?! - sounds like more work than co sleeping to me!'...'They' see our parenting as 'easy though...you know this, so they call it permissive! lol...But the way I choose to parent is completely and utterly self-less!...When I want to be selfish, thats when I find it hard. Thats when I stray from my path. Thats when I want to control and sometimes feel the need to stray from my instincts.


----------



## popsicle sticks

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
So then, what is Kohn's practical advice for preventing/stopping aggression among siblings who are less than 2 years apart (and 3 and under)?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
My interpretation of his advice would be to instill a sense of morality and empathy. He writes how time-outs often leave the child angry and focusing on the punishment instead of thinking about what got them punished. For example, when a child hits a sibling a parent might say "it really hurts sibling when you hit him, see how sibling is crying? it made sibling sad" or something along those lines.

Ok, I'm still working my way through the thread so forgive me if this has been addressed already. We had very nearly the same situation when mine were small. The whole development of empathy and relationship is a wonderful thing, however for us it was best reserved for times that were not already emotionally intense for either myself or the child. The best way to prevent an attack from an older sibling was to watch him like a hawk, and step in before he had an opportunity to strike. If contact was made and the assault continued or was turned towards myself when I intervened, then ds was sent to his room for a break from dealing with people (because obviously he needed one). True, for some kids that might be torture which is why I would never give it a cart blanche recommendation; for my introverted ds it was calming. So am I to understand that Kohn would disapprove of how I handled that?


----------



## mammal_mama

^A big, Yeah that (to Ann's post)! Go, Ann!


----------



## allgirls

I have removed some posts for review. Please refrain from personally attacking each other, Alphie Kohn, and supernanny.

We are all parenting as best we can. Give each other the benefit of the doubt and if you are going to jump to conclusions, jump to the best possible ones.

Carry on










allgirls


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *popsicle sticks* 
So am I to understand that Kohn would disapprove of how I handled that?

Personally, I don't think so. I think the main point is to be respectful and considerate of your little person. If your child feels respected then I don't think Kohn would disapprove. Like you mentioned, everyone and every situation is different.


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *popsicle sticks* 
Ok, I'm still working my way through the thread so forgive me if this has been addressed already. We had very nearly the same situation when mine were small. The whole development of empathy and relationship is a wonderful thing, however for us it was best reserved for times that were not already emotionally intense for either myself or the child. The best way to prevent an attack from an older sibling was to watch him like a hawk, and step in before he had an opportunity to strike. If contact was made and the assault continued or was turned towards myself when I intervened, then ds was sent to his room for a break from dealing with people (because obviously he needed one). True, for some kids that might be torture which is why I would never give it a cart blanche recommendation; for my introverted ds it was calming. So am I to understand that Kohn would disapprove of how I handled that?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommoo* 
If your child feels respected then I don't think Kohn would disapprove.

you are the mother, you know this is what works for your son...so why should it matter whether kohn (or anyone else) approves or disapproves of it?!


----------



## popsicle sticks

Oops, double post!


----------



## popsicle sticks

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
you are the mother, you know this is what works for your son...so why should it matter whether kohn (or anyone else) approves or disapproves of it?!

I'm only interested because I'm not well versed on Kohn's ideas and given what I've heard I wonder how they mesh with reality and different personalities. I'm satisfied with how I handled those situations in the past, for sure.


----------



## Mommoo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
you are the mother, you know this is what works for your son...so why should it matter whether kohn (or anyone else) approves or disapproves of it?!


I don't know why you quoted me in your response. Just to clarify, I personally was not commenting on whether or not anyone should care if Kohn approved. I was simply answering the question. My answer to the question of whether Kohn would approve was that yes, likely, if the child didn't feel disrespected.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
you are the mother, you know this is what works for your son...so why should it matter whether kohn (or anyone else) approves or disapproves of it?!

It might matter because:

Quote:

This forum has a specific aim: to help parents learn and apply gentle discipline methods in raising their children.
So if people are working on applying gentle discipline methods and there is an author who is well versed in the subject, a mother might want to know how her method(s) compare.

I seriously feel like we've reached the realm of shaming the mothers here who are not "authentic" or "instinctual" and who want to read parenting books and apply them to their lives.


----------



## mamazee

Also, you can be authentic, and instinctual even, AND read and learn more. Why is this false dichotomy being presented? This thread is frustrating.


----------



## popsicle sticks

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
It might matter because:
So if people are working on applying gentle discipline methods and there is an author who is well versed in the subject, a mother might want to know how her method(s) compare.

Yes, you phrased that more clearly than I did, thank you









I think the instinct vs learning thing might be related in part to personality, and that doesn't make one better or worse than another, just different. I myself like to read (I haven't gotten to Kohn yet obviously) and I just use what makes sense to me.


----------



## kalimay

Quote:

Ok, I'm still working my way through the thread so forgive me if this has been addressed already. We had very nearly the same situation when mine were small. The whole development of empathy and relationship is a wonderful thing, however for us it was best reserved for times that were not already emotionally intense for either myself or the child. The best way to prevent an attack from an older sibling was to watch him like a hawk, and step in before he had an opportunity to strike. If contact was made and the assault continued or was turned towards myself when I intervened, then ds was sent to his room for a break from dealing with people (because obviously he needed one). True, for some kids that might be torture which is why I would never give it a cart blanche recommendation; for my introverted ds it was calming. So am I to understand that Kohn would disapprove of how I handled that?
Popsiclesticks,
I do think he would disapprove but I read UP a couple years ago so I could be off. But your response was to control your child by removing him from the situation. Don't get me wrong, I myself think what you did was respectful and necessary to keep your younger child from harm and to help your older child calm down. Maybe some of the people who are followers of Kohn have a better idea but I think what he would have you instead help your child find a solution that they are comfortable with so they remain in control of the situation.
When I read UP I often wondered what he would do if he was caring for young children who were closely spaced in age because most of the methods he discussed, and again this was a while ago, I remember thinking they wouldn't work if you had more than one young child.

From UP

Quote:

One basic need all children have, Kohn argues, is to be loved unconditionally, to know that they will be accepted even if they screw up or fall short. Yet conventional approaches to parenting such as punishments (including "time-outs"), rewards (including positive reinforcement), and other forms of control teach children that they are loved only when they please us or impress us. Kohn cites a body of powerful, and largely unknown, research detailing the damage caused by leading children to believe they must earn our approval. That's precisely the message children derive from common discipline techniques, even though it's not the message most parents intend to send.


----------



## homeschoolingmama

The other night I watched a bit of Super Nanny and was disgusted. I rarely watch that show and now I remember why!
In this particular episode the kids didn't want to eat everything on their plate. (Particularly the veggies) There was 6yo twin boys and a 4yo girl. One of the twins ate them and got to leave the table. The other 2 sat at that table and cried for over 2 hrs. At about 2 hrs the 6yo boy ate his and got up. The mom came over and lavished praise on him telling him what a good boy he is. As she was hugging him her daughter was sobbing, holding her arms out to her mom and her mom ignored her. All the while the nanny (not super in my books) stood watch to make sure mom didn't cave.







Finally after hrs of seclusion and crying the little girl fell asleep at the table. Mom carried her upstairs to bed and left her. Now how in the heck is that positive? What did that teach her daughter? At the end mom was looking into the camera and said, "I won."
I guess that depends on her definition of what winning is.
I will not watch it again.


----------



## hipumpkins

Quote:


Originally Posted by *homeschoolingmama* 
The other night I watched a bit of Super Nanny and was disgusted. I rarely watch that show and now I remember why!
In this particular episode the kids didn't want to eat everything on their plate. (Particularly the veggies) There was 6yo twin boys and a 4yo girl. One of the twins ate them and got to leave the table. The other 2 sat at that table and cried for over 2 hrs. At about 2 hrs the 6yo boy ate his and got up. The mom came over and lavished praise on him telling him what a good boy he is. As she was hugging him her daughter was sobbing, holding her arms out to her mom and her mom ignored her. All the while the nanny (not super in my books) stood watch to make sure mom didn't cave.







Finally after hrs of seclusion and crying the little girl fell asleep at the table. Mom carried her upstairs to bed and left her. Now how in the heck is that positive? What did that teach her daughter? At the end mom was looking into the camera and said, "I won."
I guess that depends on her definition of what winning is.
I will not watch it again.

OMG!! That made me cry.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *homeschoolingmama* 
The other night I watched a bit of Super Nanny and was disgusted. I rarely watch that show and now I remember why!
In this particular episode the kids didn't want to eat everything on their plate. (Particularly the veggies) There was 6yo twin boys and a 4yo girl. One of the twins ate them and got to leave the table. The other 2 sat at that table and cried for over 2 hrs. At about 2 hrs the 6yo boy ate his and got up. The mom came over and lavished praise on him telling him what a good boy he is. As she was hugging him her daughter was sobbing, holding her arms out to her mom and her mom ignored her. All the while the nanny (not super in my books) stood watch to make sure mom didn't cave.







Finally after hrs of seclusion and crying the little girl fell asleep at the table. Mom carried her upstairs to bed and left her. Now how in the heck is that positive? What did that teach her daughter? At the end mom was looking into the camera and said, "I won."
I guess that depends on her definition of what winning is.
I will not watch it again.

Wow! That does not sound like anything I have ever seen on SN; nothing about that sounds positive.


----------



## lolalola

Quote:

One basic need all children have, Kohn argues, is to be loved unconditionally, to know that they will be accepted even if they screw up or fall short. *Yet conventional approaches to parenting such as punishments (including "time-outs"), rewards (including positive reinforcement), and other forms of control teach children that they are loved only when they please us or impress us. Kohn cites a body of powerful, and largely unknown, research detailing the damage caused by leading children to believe they must earn our approval.* That's precisely the message children derive from common discipline techniques, even though it's not the message most parents intend to send.
Thanks for posting this.

See, I agree with Kohn that children need to feel loved unconditionally, regardless of how many times they 'screw-up', or fall short of expectations...so do adults.

What I disagree with is the bolded. Why is this research so widely unknown? How did he get access to it? I guess I'll have to break down and borrow UP, again.









I just don't believe that the conventional (according to Kohn) approaches to 'discipline' (TO's, R&P's) teach children that they are 'unloved'. I'm just not buying it. I'm not criticizing anyone here who believes that, I just don't. It seems to me that there is a bit of projecting onto children, our own memories of childhood.

I need evidence!


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Eh, I don't consider Supernanny to be a 'cultural force'. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, though.

I also disagree that Supernanny is about 'physical force'. If you simply mean placing a child in the 'naughty chair', than I guess I would agree. However, I don't see the goal of the naughty spot as 'desensitizing' parents to their children's 'distress'.

To my knowledge, Supernanny is totally against spanking and/or beating your kid into submission, so I don't know why this is continually brought up?

Of course, everything you read and see informs how you perceive the world.

Being 'authentic' to me, means resisting the 'policing' of my mothering by anyone who isn't present in every moment, in every situation, every mood, everyday.

I definitely agree with you on the last.

For the cultural force, I guess I just have heard a few people refer to her in their conversations about parenting (on the bus and the like). It seems like everyone knows her... I do, and I don't have cable tv.









But that last is probably why I have a view of her as using physical force... the first show I ever saw with her in it had her coaching a mother on how to lead a child to time out by the arm rather than carrying her because then she wouldn't get "tired out too early." That really shocked me; that it was an endurance battle pulling this child from the stairs to the naughty spot. I don't see that as abusive exactly, but I certainly see it as physically domineering, when you are learning techniques to move your child from one spot to another to enforce a punishment.


----------



## chfriend

Re: the cultural force thing.

I work somewhere that I regularly had people giving me unsolicted parenting advice from the SN episode they had viewed the night before until...

I turned to one of them and said "SN can kiss my @ss."









I subsequently explained that I thought it was exploitative to broadcast children's lives for other people's entertainment.

I don't get drive-by parenting advice anymore.


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
It might matter because:

Quote:

This forum has a specific aim: to help parents learn and apply gentle discipline methods in raising their children.

So if people are working on applying gentle discipline methods and there is an author who is well versed in the subject, a mother might want to know how her method(s) compare.

I seriously feel like we've reached the realm of shaming the mothers here who are not "authentic" or "instinctual" and who want to read parenting books and apply them to their lives.

and all i am saying is that it is possible to parent gently in a way that does not have to meet with someone's approval or disapproval or a need to compare, especially when it works right for them. that is why i was surprised why a mama (thanks popsicle sticks for setting me right on the nature of your query, though) was second-guessing herself.

as for the second part of your post, wow, that really is not the intent of my posts at all! i myself enjoy reading mothering and many of the thoughts resonate with me which is why i am here.


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I seriously feel like we've reached the realm of shaming the mothers here who are not "authentic" or "instinctual" and who want to read parenting books and apply them to their lives.

I agree. I also find it a lot more useful to read and write about our personal experience with the methods we're discussing, versus commenting on our observations of other parents, or worse, critiquing other children's behavior.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote: One basic need all children have, Kohn argues, is to be loved unconditionally, to know that they will be accepted even if they screw up or fall short. *Yet conventional approaches to parenting such as punishments (including "time-outs"), rewards (including positive reinforcement), and other forms of control teach children that they are loved only when they please us or impress us. Kohn cites a body of powerful, and largely unknown, research detailing the damage caused by leading children to believe they must earn our approval.* That's precisely the message children derive from common discipline techniques, even though it's not the message most parents intend to send.

FYI - The above is the only piece of Kohn's work that I've read. I have to say I agree with the first line 100%. I would also argue that that is the majority of parents view as well. I just don't think we all have the same approach, which is why we all turn out to be such unique individuals.

If the bolded part is an indication of the rest of his work I doubt that I would agree with many of his views. I don't think he's giving much credit to parents or children in general.

Because I tell DS "great job!!" when he poops in the toilet or put him in a timeout for hitting DD I'm damaging him?? Does it count that I spent hours before the T/O playing dinkies, singing, reading, telling him that I love him, making him a healthy lunch, hugging & kissing him, etc. Or that I redirected 3 or 4 times before the T/O and explained to him why hitting is wrong and how it made DD feel. Or that he'd pooped in his undies the last 3 times and all I said was awww, hope we make it next time ... with a hug and kiss.

Parenting is so subjective and there are so many variables for each individual/situation. I just don't see how you can say that punishment and positive reinforcement are damaging without seeing each situation and how they were applied.

I'm sure Kohn has some philosophies that I would get behind just as SN probably has a few good ideas. I think most parents have enough common sense to pick and choose what fits for their family and leave the rest behind.


----------



## BlueSkyJennifer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kalimay* 
When I read UP I often wondered what he would do if he was caring for young children who were closely spaced in age because most of the methods he discussed, and again this was a while ago, I remember thinking they wouldn't work if you had more than one young child.

From UP

I have 2 who are 21 months apart and UP works great for us. I read it when ds was still a young toddler and dd was a new babe. I never looked back. I don't do any punitive (my kids have no idea what a "time out" is and my son asked a few months back, "Mommy, what does it mean to be punished"). I am not sure what "methods" you are referring to, but I never had any trouble implementing any of the fantastic suggestions in this brilliant book. I am particularly grateful to Mr. Kohn for writing this book, because it has had a huge impact on me, my life, my parenting, my children's lives and, most importantly, the kind of relationship I now have with my children. THANK YOU THANK YOU ALFIE!!!


----------



## BlueSkyJennifer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
If the bolded part is an indication of the rest of his work I doubt that I would agree with many of his views. I don't think he's giving much credit to parents or children in general.

I'm sure Kohn has some philosophies that I would get behind just as SN probably has a few good ideas. I think most parents have enough common sense to pick and choose what fits for their family and leave the rest behind.

I think part of what you are missing in trying to assess a book you haven't read is the power of the research that Alfie is discussing. This book was so much more to me than just "Alfie's philosophies"; there is a significant body of research that supports this. Some of these studies followed children for decades into adulthood.

I disagree with your statement about him not "giving much credit to parents or children in general". I am not sure what you are basing that on since you haven't read the book?


----------



## babygrace

i don't think anyone means to invalidate the research based findings. but, extrapolating data from research and applying them on a general basis could be an overstatement.


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
I have 2 who are 21 months apart and UP works great for us.

ITA. Mine are 2 and 4 1/2, and dh and I read it together, then read it again. So much of it just felt right to us. In fact, I would say the UP approach, while not my first reaction in all situations, feels more instinctual.







I feel like I can nurture my children in all situations, even when they make mistakes.

My sister was using time outs regularly with her older children (2, 5, and 7), and while she was visiting, her dh picked it up and couldn't put it down. They haven't said anything about it being difficult to do with closely spaced children, either.







I think that punitive approaches to discipline do _appear_ easier and more effective at first glance. But when we read the book and understood it, it was clear to us that UP was actually easier and more effective for our our discipline goals.

(Disclaimer: I am writing about my family and not making judgements about how anyone else does things.)


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
I think part of what you are missing in trying to assess a book you haven't read is the power of the research that Alfie is discussing. This book was so much more to me than just "Alfie's philosophies"; there is a significant body of research that supports this. Some of these studies followed children for decades into adulthood.

I disagree with your statement about him not "giving much credit to parents or children in general". I am not sure what you are basing that on since you haven't read the book?

I based my comments on the little blurb posted on here. I'm certainly not condemning his book/work I was just commenting on the impression I got from the blurb.

To say that punishment/reward teaches our children "that they are loved only when they please us or impress us." doesn't give me much credit for my parenting outside of punishments/rewards. If, lets say 1% of the time, my children are being punished/rewarded; from the posted blurb, I would surmise that Kohn thinks that that 1% un-does the other 99% of my parenting interactions. Everything I do is because I love my children unconditionally and I think I convey that very well every day.

I'll give our kids some credit as well and say that I think most see that punishment was given because they hurt sibling, cat, whatever, not because mom/dad doesn't love them.

As for his research, I'm not sure how you follow someone from childhood into adult hood and then decipher what part of their parenting formed them. I can't see how you would know if another form of parenting would have made any difference in the outcome either. There is way more to how someone comes to be the person they are than parenting alone. Social influence, certain events, day to day experiences, what is "born" in each of us, etc.


----------



## PrennaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *homeschoolingmama* 
The other night I watched a bit of Super Nanny and was disgusted. I rarely watch that show and now I remember why!
In this particular episode the kids didn't want to eat everything on their plate. (Particularly the veggies) There was 6yo twin boys and a 4yo girl. One of the twins ate them and got to leave the table. The other 2 sat at that table and cried for over 2 hrs. At about 2 hrs the 6yo boy ate his and got up. The mom came over and lavished praise on him telling him what a good boy he is. As she was hugging him her daughter was sobbing, holding her arms out to her mom and her mom ignored her. All the while the nanny (not super in my books) stood watch to make sure mom didn't cave.







Finally after hrs of seclusion and crying the little girl fell asleep at the table. Mom carried her upstairs to bed and left her. Now how in the heck is that positive? What did that teach her daughter? At the end mom was looking into the camera and said, "I won."
I guess that depends on her definition of what winning is.
I will not watch it again.

uke

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
Re: the cultural force thing.

I work somewhere that I regularly had people giving me unsolicted parenting advice from the SN episode they had viewed the night before until...

I turned to one of them and said "SN can kiss my @ss."









I subsequently explained that I thought it was exploitative to broadcast children's lives for other people's entertainment.

I don't get drive-by parenting advice anymore.

















: Nice!


----------



## BlueSkyJennifer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
I based my comments on the little blurb posted on here. I'm certainly not condemning his book/work I was just commenting on the impression I got from the blurb.

To say that punishment/reward teaches our children "that they are loved only when they please us or impress us." doesn't give me much credit for my parenting outside of punishments/rewards. If, lets say 1% of the time, my children are being punished/rewarded; from the posted blurb, I would surmise that Kohn thinks that that 1% un-does the other 99% of my parenting interactions. Everything I do is because I love my children unconditionally and I think I convey that very well every day.

I'll give our kids some credit as well and say that I think most see that punishment was given because they hurt sibling, cat, whatever, not because mom/dad doesn't love them.

As for his research, I'm not sure how you follow someone from childhood into adult hood and then decipher what part of their parenting formed them. I can't see how you would know if another form of parenting would have made any difference in the outcome either. There is way more to how someone comes to be the person they are than parenting alone. Social influence, certain events, day to day experiences, what is "born" in each of us, etc.

You say, "I can't see how..." and "I'm not sure how...", but again, if you aren't willing to read the book, then I guess you will never know. I think the research clearly shows that 1% of your parenting can have an impact on your relationship with your children. I read the book, and also from my own experience (childhood) I know this to be true. I am surprised by your attempts to disregard research you have not read.


----------



## Think of Winter

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
To say that punishment/reward teaches our children "that they are loved only when they please us or impress us." doesn't give me much credit for my parenting outside of punishments/rewards...Everything I do is because I love my children unconditionally and I think I convey that very well every day...I'll give our kids some credit as well and say that I think most see that punishment was given because they hurt sibling, cat, whatever, not because mom/dad doesn't love them.

Of course you love your children unconditionally. No one has suggested that parents who use punishment love their children less. The research that is presented in UP (in abundance) relates to how a _child_ perceives the discipline, and there is no correlation with how smart or perceptive your child is.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
As for his research, I'm not sure how you follow someone from childhood into adult hood and then decipher what part of their parenting formed them.

Well, I guess this boils down to whether you have faith in research and the scientific method. If you do, then you should really read the book. If you don't, then there's probably no point. But it is explained really well, and I thought it was very readable.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
You say, "I can't see how..." and "I'm not sure how...", but again, if you aren't willing to read the book, then I guess you will never know. I think the research clearly shows that 1% of your parenting can have an impact on your relationship with your children. I read the book, and also from my own experience (childhood) I know this to be true. I am surprised by your attempts to disregard research you have not read.

I never said I was not willing to read the book, just that I haven't. I stated a couple of times that I was only commenting on the blurb that someone posted.

I also never said that 1% of parenting did not impact my relationship with my child. Everything I do impacts my children, whether it is "parenting" or not. What I was saying is that AK makes it sound like the 99% of the time I am not punishing/rewarding has little impact on my kids since if I punish/reward they will think that I *only love them when they please or impress me* &#8230; This seems to be a very broad statement with no room for individual parents/children/situations.

As for the research, I am not trying to disregard it. Again, I was saying that since I haven't read it I don't see how he could come to some of the conclusions.

I'm sorry you seem to be offended by my response. I am simply commenting from my perspective as a parent who uses the occasional t/o, "good job!!" with lots of love, hugs, and discussion.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Think of Winter* 
Of course you love your children unconditionally. No one has suggested that parents who use punishment love their children less. The research that is presented in UP (in abundance) relates to how a _child_ perceives the discipline, and there is no correlation with how smart or perceptive your child is.

Well, I guess this boils down to whether you have faith in research and the scientific method. If you do, then you should really read the book. If you don't, then there's probably no point. But it is explained really well, and I thought it was very readable.

I guess what I'm trying to say (not very well I guess) is that he seems to be lumping all children, parents, punishments, and rewards into one category and making statements without exception.

As far as research &#8230; it seems you can pretty much find research that supports any view on any given subject.


----------



## mammal_mama

Dh and I recently had a little debate about what constitutes punishment. He is moving closer and closer to believing in gentle discipline -- but he periodically asks, "How are they going to learn not to do something if there's never any punishment?"

Well, the other day I shared with him how our 3yo had suddenly started scratching and kicking other children at the park -- without anyone having done anything to her, and then I got her and carried her back to where I was sitting on the ground, and just held her in my lap for a while, restraining her with my arms wrapped around her (because she was crying and trying to run right back into the play area), and talked with her.

She started saying, "I'll be gentle now!" And I asked if she wanted to talk with the children she'd hurt, and she walked with me to each child and told them she was sorry and she wouldn't hurt them any more. And she went on playing for a couple more hours until we left, with hardly a problem.

Dh informed me that what I did was punishment, because she didn't like having to sit in my lap when she wanted to play. I said I felt that her sudden outbreak of violence (lashing out with absolutely no provocation) was a cry for my help and attention.

It's true that she cried and struggled and wanted to run right back and play, so maybe she wasn't really crying out for me to restrain her -- but I didn't feel I could just allow her to run loose and keep hurting more kids. So maybe she was really crying for me to get up and follow her around the playground, rather than sitting and talking with my friend?

Maybe it was punitive for me to restrain her in a big bear-hug in my lap, when I probably could have met her need for attention by shadowing her and keeping really close, close enough to prevent her from striking again. But I just really felt like sitting and chatting with my friend. I was available when dd wanted to come to me for hugs and love, I just didn't feel like running around the playground.

And, the thing is, she usually does fine these days, playing while I sit reading a book -- but the other day, I was deep in conversation with my friend, and I think she wanted that attention on her.

So, I probably should have taken a few minutes and just played with my dd (after talking with her about not hurting her friends), maybe the restraint was unnecessarily punitive ... or maybe it was jumping the gun, to move right into restraining her without spending some time playing with her first, to see if that helped her over the rough spot.

I'd love input on this -- even if it makes people think I'm not "instinctual" enough.


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
I guess what I'm trying to say (not very well I guess) is that he seems to be lumping all children, parents, punishments, and rewards into one category and making statements without exception.

As far as research &#8230; it seems you can pretty much find research that supports any view on any given subject.

Of course there are exceptions.
I was abused in my childhood. I went from one foster home to the next. I have suffered abuse of all kinds. You know, research suggests that with my childhood I should have depression, anger issues, and that I am likely to contiue the cycle of abuse that was done onto me. For many people with the childhood that I had - this holds very true. They may go on to abuse their own children, etc. For a handful of us, we seem to not fit any mould.
But that doesn't make my childhood 'ok'.

People get defensive when it comes to AK...becuase you think 'hey wait a mintue...I LOVE my child - dont you dare tell me that I dont!'... But hes not. I do not have the book to quote as a friend is borrowing it...But he says right away somewhere in the first few chapters that we all love our children, but what matters most is not only that you tell them this, that you _show_ them this. Sure...maybe theres some small group of children out there that sits on the naughty step and thinks 'gee...my mummy really really loves me'. Does that still make it 'ok' though? I dont think so.

I_'ll give our kids some credit as well and say that I think most see that punishment was given because they hurt sibling, cat, whatever, not because mom/dad doesn't love them._

I dont think its either. I dont think they get a punishment and think 'mum/dad loves me so much!'...but I also dont think they get a punishment and think 'mum/dad doesnt love me'. Love has nothing to do with it ...which is what I think the problem is. Maybe your child doesnt think 'mummy doesnt love me when she does this...'...but they also are not thinking you do.

Leaving 'unconditonality' and 'love' aside... Hes goes further into why else we should not use punishment/rewards/praise...etc... For me, this is how its summed up and why we ouselves choose not to use punishments/rewards/praise/etc:

Punishments: You did something, I as the adult, mother do not like/do not aprove of/maybe when caught up in the moment with my own issues - just fine plain annoying, a burdeon, etc (ive got my snapping moments too - im only human)... So I, as the adult, as the one that is older and bigger will be a bully unto you. You do as I say or else! ...I will punish you. We do not do that, so this is your punishment. Maybe a toy/priveldge taken way. Maybe the 'naughty step' for so many mintues. Maybe you should just go to your room and think about that!

There are different kinds of punishments and I think they teach our children different kinds of things - but not what we _really_ want to teach them. Most of us, at least I think so, want our children to do the right thing for the right reason. Right? We do not hit, steal, bite, kill, hurt, etc...becaues they are wrong. We dont really need to get into the philisophical reasons why - especially with a 3 year old. ...But by punishing our children to show them this: we are teaching them to be selfish. We do not hit our sister because the punishment for that is not nice. (nevermind how your sister feels about it!) We do not pour chocolate syrup all over Grandmas cream carpet because you will sit on that chair and I will ignore you until you stop crying - where maybe I will then force a sorry out of you (which means nothing because I am just teaching you to be a parrot). (nevermind how Grandma feels). And all of this ignores the underlying cause. Why did you hit your sister? Is something going on? What about your feelings? Why did you pour chocolate syrup all over the carpet? Were you exploring? Many people that I know who use punishments to 'discipline' their children do not look deep into their child - whats going on in there? They do not look to solve the problem either. I often hear 'they just do not listen!...I do not know how many times I have had to set you on that naughty step - they will not behave!'... Nevermind the childs needs. AK gets us to think about that though... Maybe you hit your sister because you feel I love her more than you and are angry about that. And then AK gets us to brainstorm with our children and come up with consensual solutions. What can we do about that? I do love you. AK gets us to take our children seriously - listen to them, let them help in the problem solving. Work _with_ our children, not _do things to_ them. Maybe the boy who hit his sister suggests that they could have an hour of special time to themselves everyday, story time or cuddle time, so that he can feel more invovled and feel like he is getting some attention too. He is sorry for hitting his sister, he didnt mean that - there was underlying problem there and its being solved together as a family. We all face similar issues in our own families. We as adults even face these issues. Sometimes I snap at my son - I am sorry for snapping, should I be punished for that? Will it make me never snap again? No... Maybe my mind is full, I am thinking about taxes and the house is a mess and I have to help organise a party for a friend, etc...That obviously does not make what I did okay - but if I can listen to myself and my needs, then I can prevent doing things that are not who I truely am by 'solving' so to speak, the underlying problem. Dealing with those things is an appropriate way that does not hurt anyone. I help my son do the same exact thing.

Rewards are the same coin. They say, well done for pleasing me - now I will please you. They can make a child selfish. A child can go out of their way to do what seems like the right thing but for the wrong reason. Maybe we even know adults like this. Gosh, so and so is so nice...but they are after something. The saying 'why are you being so nice huh?...what are you after?'... Our society has gotten to the point that you must be after something for pleasing others! Rewards/praise are just manipulative to our child. They do something, we give them a treat....because we want them to continue to those things. We want you to continue cleaning your room, we want you to continue eating all your veggies, to continue playing 'nicely'...etc. If it 'works' ...its because the reward was something our child was after. I really want my chocolate biscuit - so I will preform! If it doesnt work, it was not worth the effort. I brainstormed these thoughts with a friend once who read a borrowed book from me. Her conclusion was that she will just use bigger rewards and bigger punishments with her children as they get older and things like a chocolate biscuit were not tempting enough to 'behave'...I think she missed the whole idea.

Sure..maybe you could do both. You could use conventional punishments with your child. You were naughty, did something you shouldnt have done, you stat on the naughty step or got a privledge taken away, etc, so now we will talk about it and problem solve....twice as much actually, its like using two different parenting methods - making twice as much work for yourself! lol...I think that sends mixed messages and is probably more work than worth. I skip being the bully...I skip showing my son who is the boss...showing him might from wrong and just get down to the core of it all.

And yeah...ive got my own personal experience as well. I remember my childhood all too clearly. When I was punished...sent to my room for example -the last thing I was thinking about was why I was sent there. When I was spanked, the only thing I was thinking about was how I could better 'get away' with it next time - not get caught. In fact, not matter what the punishment, and this just proves one of the theories, I did not think 'I should not do that because it is not the right thing to do' ....I thought 'how I can do this _and_ avoid the un-nice punishment I may get if I got caught and/or what punushment might I recieve for this if caught, and will it be wroth it?'... A lot of the time, I did not care... If I got the joy of spreading jam all over the sofa for a few moments of pain on my bottom....maybe that day I thought it was worth it. Why I shouldnt have done that - was not something I thought about. And I was and still am a very clever person







lol

I want my son to do the right thing for the right reasons. I can not help him to see this if I am teaching him to do the right thing to avoid a punishment or to do what he wishes because he can 'get away' with it or to do something 'good' for his own benefit. At the end of the day, I would like for him to be emotionally healthy as well. I can not do that if I am showing him how to be a bully or using my love and affection as a tool for discipline by withholding it or lavishing it on him when he acts a certain way. After that...everything else seems to just fall into place. It was not because he was born 'easy' or that I was blessed with a lot of patience. It may look easy...'permissive' on the outside - but a lot of work goes into it from all parties in this family. I am faced with very similar problems every parent is faced with ...and maybe some that not every parent is faced with (my son has sensory processing disorder for example - which raises a whole bunch of different issues to confront)...we just handle things differently, we have a different perspective on life but we manage to get there in the end. Its not about 'results' ...but I am pretty content with it all.

I see rewards/punishments/praise, etc...as the quick easy fix. My child is depedent upon me. I think I could easily bend him to my will if I wished. Because thats what rewards/punishments/praise, etc...are mostly about. Control. It takes a lot to step aside and think differently. To think 'I do not need to control my child/ren' - Because or society has this way of thinking you know...that our children will not grow up to be decent human beings if we do not control them from the moment they are born. Its a myth though. And all of this requires one thing _every_ relationship thrives on (besides love)...trust! We need to trust ourselves and our children. Perhaps this is about perspective as well. I have heard parents say 'well I dont trust my child...'... How about 'I trust my child'...I trust them to have natural human nature. I trust the to be curious. ...etc... Which is a more positive way of looking at something that could otherwise be seen as negative. We keep drawing at the table because I trust my son to be artistic for example...? lol


----------



## GuildJenn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
I guess what I'm trying to say (not very well I guess) is that he seems to be lumping all children, parents, punishments, and rewards into one category and making statements without exception.

As far as research &#8230; it seems you can pretty much find research that supports any view on any given subject.

To add to Ann's wonderful post...

I am speaking from ignorance about UP but I have read similar books. I don't think the core message of the books I have read is "if you ever punish or ever reward your child you are lousy."

I think the core question is "does a system of punishment and rewards get us the family structure, relationship, and future adults that we are trying to achieve?"

It's not "will this one time ruin everything" but "does this one time ADD anything." Even further: "is this reversing the goals we're trying to achieve?" In that sense you do have to wonder if your 1% is making you have to work harder.

Not in terms of feeling love, but in terms of raising kids who make decisions not based on fear of the consequences.

Maybe it's because I work in a creative industry, but I honestly see more adults whose fear of failure/lack of praise/reward/the metaphorical time out holds them back than I do out of control adults who need a time out. 

By the way this is not particularly new. In How to talk so kids will listen... the whole issue of praise is really well addressed. That section was a lightbulb moment for me - that praise is centered around MY feelings and may or may not reflect my child's feelings. If there's a disconnect, what my child ends up feeling is frustation and shame - the opposite of what I was trying to achieve - and may even act out more, or learn to disregard his or her own feelings/sense of mastery and achievement.

I wanted to add I love this conversation.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
Of course there are exceptions.
I was abused in my childhood. I went from one foster home to the next. I have suffered abuse of all kinds. You know, research suggests that with my childhood I should have depression, anger issues, and that I am likely to contiue the cycle of abuse that was done onto me. For many people with the childhood that I had - this holds very true. They may go on to abuse their own children, etc. For a handful of us, we seem to not fit any mould.
But that doesn't make my childhood 'ok'.

People get defensive when it comes to AK...becuase you think 'hey wait a mintue...I LOVE my child - dont you dare tell me that I dont!'... But hes not. I do not have the book to quote as a friend is borrowing it...But he says right away somewhere in the first few chapters that we all love our children, but what matters most is not only that you tell them this, that you _show_ them this. Sure...maybe theres some small group of children out there that sits on the naughty step and thinks 'gee...my mummy really really loves me'. Does that still make it 'ok' though? I dont think so.

I_'ll give our kids some credit as well and say that I think most see that punishment was given because they hurt sibling, cat, whatever, not because mom/dad doesn't love them._

I dont think its either. I dont think they get a punishment and think 'mum/dad loves me so much!'...but I also dont think they get a punishment and think 'mum/dad doesnt love me'. Love has nothing to do with it ...which is what I think the problem is. Maybe your child doesnt think 'mummy doesnt love me when she does this...'...but they also are not thinking you do.

Leaving 'unconditonality' and 'love' aside... Hes goes further into why else we should not use punishment/rewards/praise...etc... For me, this is how its summed up and why we ouselves choose not to use punishments/rewards/praise/etc:

Punishments: You did something, I as the adult, mother do not like/do not aprove of/maybe when caught up in the moment with my own issues - just fine plain annoying, a burdeon, etc (ive got my snapping moments too - im only human)... So I, as the adult, as the one that is older and bigger will be a bully unto you. You do as I say or else! ...I will punish you. We do not do that, so this is your punishment. Maybe a toy/priveldge taken way. Maybe the 'naughty step' for so many mintues. Maybe you should just go to your room and think about that!

There are different kinds of punishments and I think they teach our children different kinds of things - but not what we _really_ want to teach them. Most of us, at least I think so, want our children to do the right thing for the right reason. Right? We do not hit, steal, bite, kill, hurt, etc...becaues they are wrong. We dont really need to get into the philisophical reasons why - especially with a 3 year old. ...But by punishing our children to show them this: we are teaching them to be selfish. We do not hit our sister because the punishment for that is not nice. (nevermind how your sister feels about it!) We do not pour chocolate syrup all over Grandmas cream carpet because you will sit on that chair and I will ignore you until you stop crying - where maybe I will then force a sorry out of you (which means nothing because I am just teaching you to be a parrot). (nevermind how Grandma feels). And all of this ignores the underlying cause. Why did you hit your sister? Is something going on? What about your feelings? Why did you pour chocolate syrup all over the carpet? Were you exploring? Many people that I know who use punishments to 'discipline' their children do not look deep into their child - whats going on in there? They do not look to solve the problem either. I often hear 'they just do not listen!...I do not know how many times I have had to set you on that naughty step - they will not behave!'... Nevermind the childs needs. AK gets us to think about that though... Maybe you hit your sister because you feel I love her more than you and are angry about that. And then AK gets us to brainstorm with our children and come up with consensual solutions. What can we do about that? I do love you. AK gets us to take our children seriously - listen to them, let them help in the problem solving. Work _with_ our children, not _do things to_ them. Maybe the boy who hit his sister suggests that they could have an hour of special time to themselves everyday, story time or cuddle time, so that he can feel more invovled and feel like he is getting some attention too. He is sorry for hitting his sister, he didnt mean that - there was underlying problem there and its being solved together as a family. We all face similar issues in our own families. We as adults even face these issues. Sometimes I snap at my son - I am sorry for snapping, should I be punished for that? Will it make me never snap again? No... Maybe my mind is full, I am thinking about taxes and the house is a mess and I have to help organise a party for a friend, etc...That obviously does not make what I did okay - but if I can listen to myself and my needs, then I can prevent doing things that are not who I truely am by 'solving' so to speak, the underlying problem. Dealing with those things is an appropriate way that does not hurt anyone. I help my son do the same exact thing.

Rewards are the same coin. They say, well done for pleasing me - now I will please you. They can make a child selfish. A child can go out of their way to do what seems like the right thing but for the wrong reason. Maybe we even know adults like this. Gosh, so and so is so nice...but they are after something. The saying 'why are you being so nice huh?...what are you after?'... Our society has gotten to the point that you must be after something for pleasing others! Rewards/praise are just manipulative to our child. They do something, we give them a treat....because we want them to continue to those things. We want you to continue cleaning your room, we want you to continue eating all your veggies, to continue playing 'nicely'...etc. If it 'works' ...its because the reward was something our child was after. I really want my chocolate biscuit - so I will preform! If it doesnt work, it was not worth the effort. I brainstormed these thoughts with a friend once who read a borrowed book from me. Her conclusion was that she will just use bigger rewards and bigger punishments with her children as they get older and things like a chocolate biscuit were not tempting enough to 'behave'...I think she missed the whole idea.

Sure..maybe you could do both. You could use conventional punishments with your child. You were naughty, did something you shouldnt have done, you stat on the naughty step or got a privledge taken away, etc, so now we will talk about it and problem solve....twice as much actually, its like using two different parenting methods - making twice as much work for yourself! lol...I think that sends mixed messages and is probably more work than worth. I skip being the bully...I skip showing my son who is the boss...showing him might from wrong and just get down to the core of it all.

And yeah...ive got my own personal experience as well. I remember my childhood all too clearly. When I was punished...sent to my room for example -the last thing I was thinking about was why I was sent there. When I was spanked, the only thing I was thinking about was how I could better 'get away' with it next time - not get caught. In fact, not matter what the punishment, and this just proves one of the theories, I did not think 'I should not do that because it is not the right thing to do' ....I thought 'how I can do this _and_ avoid the un-nice punishment I may get if I got caught and/or what punushment might I recieve for this if caught, and will it be wroth it?'... A lot of the time, I did not care... If I got the joy of spreading jam all over the sofa for a few moments of pain on my bottom....maybe that day I thought it was worth it. Why I shouldnt have done that - was not something I thought about. And I was and still am a very clever person







lol

I want my son to do the right thing for the right reasons. I can not help him to see this if I am teaching him to do the right thing to avoid a punishment or to do what he wishes because he can 'get away' with it or to do something 'good' for his own benefit. At the end of the day, I would like for him to be emotionally healthy as well. I can not do that if I am showing him how to be a bully or using my love and affection as a tool for discipline by withholding it or lavishing it on him when he acts a certain way. After that...everything else seems to just fall into place. It was not because he was born 'easy' or that I was blessed with a lot of patience. It may look easy...'permissive' on the outside - but a lot of work goes into it from all parties in this family. I am faced with very similar problems every parent is faced with ...and maybe some that not every parent is faced with (my son has sensory processing disorder for example - which raises a whole bunch of different issues to confront)...we just handle things differently, we have a different perspective on life but we manage to get there in the end. Its not about 'results' ...but I am pretty content with it all.

I see rewards/punishments/praise, etc...as the quick easy fix. My child is depedent upon me. I think I could easily bend him to my will if I wished. Because thats what rewards/punishments/praise, etc...are mostly about. Control. It takes a lot to step aside and think differently. To think 'I do not need to control my child/ren' - Because or society has this way of thinking you know...that our children will not grow up to be decent human beings if we do not control them from the moment they are born. Its a myth though. And all of this requires one thing _every_ relationship thrives on (besides love)...trust! We need to trust ourselves and our children. Perhaps this is about perspective as well. I have heard parents say 'well I dont trust my child...'... How about 'I trust my child'...I trust them to have natural human nature. I trust the to be curious. ...etc... Which is a more positive way of looking at something that could otherwise be seen as negative. We keep drawing at the table because I trust my son to be artistic for example...? lol

I would never suggest that your abusive upbringing was 'ok'. If you took my response to mean this in any way, please realize that is certainly not how I feel. My responses speak to my experiences, my family, and my views only.

I realize there are extremes in parenting; excessive use of punishment, rewards, physical punishment, love withdrawal, abuse, neglect, etc. I think you are referring to these extremes for a lot of your reply.

I do not lavish praise on my children, aim to control them, I am not a bully, I am not trying to "bend them to my will" and I would never physically punish them. I don't think this would be most people's parenting either and I would assume that this would be damaging to the parent/child relationship.

I agree with a lot of your post in the way that I would handle a lot of situations and your overall view of how you are raising your son. I just don't think anything other than what you are doing is necessarily damaging or wrong.

My children see how DH and I interact with ourselves, both of them, and the people around us. We treat our children the same way we treat each other &#8230; with respect for their views, wishes, feelings, ideas, etc. We enjoy our children and our life. I like to think that this is what impacts our children the most and what they will grow up and embrace of their childhood.


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Dh and I recently had a little debate about what constitutes punishment. He is moving closer and closer to believing in gentle discipline -- but he periodically asks, "How are they going to learn not to do something if there's never any punishment?"

Well, the other day I shared with him how our 3yo had suddenly started scratching and kicking other children at the park -- without anyone having done anything to her, and then I got her and carried her back to where I was sitting on the ground, and just held her in my lap for a while, restraining her with my arms wrapped around her (because she was crying and trying to run right back into the play area), and talked with her.

She started saying, "I'll be gentle now!" And I asked if she wanted to talk with the children she'd hurt, and she walked with me to each child and told them she was sorry and she wouldn't hurt them any more. And she went on playing for a couple more hours until we left, with hardly a problem.

Dh informed me that what I did was punishment, because she didn't like having to sit in my lap when she wanted to play. *I said I felt that her sudden outbreak of violence (lashing out with absolutely no provocation) was a cry for my help and attention.*

It's true that she cried and struggled and wanted to run right back and play, so *maybe* she wasn't really crying out for me to restrain her -- *but I didn't feel* I could just allow her to run loose and keep hurting more kids. So *maybe* she was really crying for me to get up and follow her around the playground, rather than sitting and talking with my friend?

*Maybe* it was punitive for me to restrain her in a big bear-hug in my lap, when I probably could have met her need for attention by shadowing her and keeping really close, close enough to prevent her from striking again. But I just really felt like sitting and chatting with my friend. I was available when dd wanted to come to me for hugs and love, I just didn't feel like running around the playground.

And, the thing is, she usually does fine these days, playing while I sit reading a book -- but the other day, I was deep in conversation with my friend, and I think she wanted that attention on her.

So, I *probably should have* taken a few minutes and just played with my dd (after talking with her about not hurting her friends), *maybe* the restraint was unnecessarily punitive ... or *maybe* it was jumping the gun, to move right into restraining her without spending some time playing with her first, to see if that helped her over the rough spot.

I'd love input on this -- even if it makes people think I'm not "instinctual" enough.









i wouldn't say you are instinctual enough but that after you made a decision based on how you felt a lot of doubt came into play. maybe this, maybe that. you did fine.


----------



## ann_of_loxley

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
I would never suggest that your abusive upbringing was 'ok'. If you took my response to mean this in any way, please realize that is certainly not how I feel. My responses speak to my experiences, my family, and my views only.

I realize there are extremes in parenting; excessive use of punishment, rewards, physical punishment, love withdrawal, abuse, neglect, etc. I think you are referring to these extremes for a lot of your reply.

I do not lavish praise on my children, aim to control them, I am not a bully, I am not trying to "bend them to my will" and I would never physically punish them. I don't think this would be most people's parenting either and I would assume that this would be damaging to the parent/child relationship.

I agree with a lot of your post in the way that I would handle a lot of situations and your overall view of how you are raising your son. I just don't think anything other than what you are doing is necessarily damaging or wrong.

My children see how DH and I interact with ourselves, both of them, and the people around us. We treat our children the same way we treat each other &#8230; with respect for their views, wishes, feelings, ideas, etc. We enjoy our children and our life. I like to think that this is what impacts our children the most and what they will grow up and embrace of their childhood.

No, I did not think you meant or implied that...I was simply using it as an example...using that to flow to the next paragraph.
I would not say I was using extremes either to make my point. I have friends who 'tap' their child hands sometimes to get them to 'behave' a certain way. They don't beat them by any means. But was that little tap every now and then okay? Was it necessary?...I don't think so. Neither do I think a little bit of punishment here and there is okay either. A little bit of naughty step here - a little bit of 'good boy' there.... I think it all makes a difference. We live without any of this - for our family, I know it can be done and I believe it is best done this way.

Quote:

I do not lavish praise on my children, aim to control them, I am not a bully, I am not trying to "bend them to my will" and I would never physically punish them. I don't think this would be most people's parenting either and I would assume that this would be damaging to the parent/child relationship.
By this statement I would asume you try to live consensually with your child/ren. But by your other posts, this does not seem to be the case.
But you are right - It is damaging to the parent/child relationship - for me this includes all, even a tad bit of it here and there, uses of punishment/praise/rewards. They are all controlling tactics, no matter how you want to look at it.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *I-AM-Mother* 
i wouldn't say you are instinctual enough but that after you made a decision based on how you felt a lot of doubt came into play. maybe this, maybe that. you did fine.









Thanks I-AM-Mother!

I honestly didn't start questioning 'til my conversation with dh.

It was weird -- because I was telling him about what happened that day with dd, as an example of how dd could learn without punishment. Then dh threw me for a loop by saying it *was* punishment. That when she hurt the other kids, she had to go through something she didn't want (sitting on my lap when she wanted to go play), so she figured out that if she wanted to keep playing, she couldn't hurt anyone.

I felt like I was responding to dd, though. If she was having so much fun playing, then why just go up and start kicking and scratching kids out of the blue? I felt like that was her way of saying she needed me to help her get back on-track.

I guess what I'm wondering is -- does anyone here see what I did as punitive? The only other option I could see would have been for me to just spend some time playing with her/shadowing her, to see first if that attention from me solved the problem. But if she'd kept trying to hurt others when I was right there, I still would have eventually had to take her off to the side and hold her for a bit.

Not to punish her, not to make her go through something she didn't want (though she definitely didn't want to be taken away from the play area) -- but to protect the other children, and also to help her get to a place where she could have fun without endangering others.

I'm wondering if anyone has ideas ... I did have carrots and water available, but I suppose something high-protein would have been a good idea. We didn't have a lot of snack-options in the house that day, but I could have made hardboiled eggs or brought peanut butter to dip the carrots in. Maybe that would have helped.

Though I must say, dd did just great after the time being held in my lap, so I don't think in this case that it was hunger related.


----------



## BlueSkyJennifer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Thanks I-AM-Mother!

I honestly didn't start questioning 'til my conversation with dh.

It was weird -- because I was telling him about what happened that day with dd, as an example of how dd could learn without punishment. Then dh threw me for a loop by saying it *was* punishment. That when she hurt the other kids, she had to go through something she didn't want (sitting on my lap when she wanted to go play), so she figured out that if she wanted to keep playing, she couldn't hurt anyone.

I felt like I was responding to dd, though. If she was having so much fun playing, then why just go up and start kicking and scratching kids out of the blue? I felt like that was her way of saying she needed me to help her get back on-track.

I guess what I'm wondering is -- does anyone here see what I did as punitive? The only other option I could see would have been for me to just spend some time playing with her/shadowing her, to see first if that attention from me solved the problem. But if she'd kept trying to hurt others when I was right there, I still would have eventually had to take her off to the side and hold her for a bit.

Not to punish her, not to make her go through something she didn't want (though she definitely didn't want to be taken away from the play area) -- but to protect the other children, and also to help her get to a place where she could have fun without endangering others.

I'm wondering if anyone has ideas ... I did have carrots and water available, but I suppose something high-protein would have been a good idea. We didn't have a lot of snack-options in the house that day, but I could have made hardboiled eggs or brought peanut butter to dip the carrots in. Maybe that would have helped.

Though I must say, dd did just great after the time being held in my lap, so I don't think in this case that it was hunger related.

To me, it sounds like what happened was more protective use of force, and so I would not classify it as punitive per se (even though it wasn't what she wanted, and she had no choice. It was not done strictly to "teach her a lesson" after the fact, or as a punishment. It was done to keep her and others safe.)


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
Of course there are exceptions.

your post adds yet another dimension to the discussion...information is filtered through the prism of personal experience which alters our perception/understanding of a given (in this case it's parenting) subject. therefore, it is helpful to keep in mind the relative and subjective aspects of a particular philosophy. it just keeps matters in perspective.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
To me, it sounds like what happened was more protective use of force, and so I would not classify it as punitive per se (even though it wasn't what she wanted, and she had no choice. It was not done strictly to "teach her a lesson" after the fact, or as a punishment. It was done to keep her and others safe.)

Yes, that's how I see it!

And, actually, I don't think protective use of force (to keep someone from being hurt) is even contrary to non-coercive philosophies like TCS and CL -- though I suppose that since I endeavor to be consensual, it may have been better for me to attempt giving her more attention, and staying close to her as she played, rather than using force as a first resort.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
I would not say I was using extremes either to make my point. I have friends who 'tap' their child hands sometimes to get them to 'behave' a certain way.

See, for me this is extreme.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
We live without any of this - *for our family*, I know it can be done and *I believe* it is best done this way.

I think this is wonderful, if it works for your family. That is part of the point I'm trying to make. What works for some doesn't for others.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
... I would asume you try to live consensually with your child/ren.

I think consentually sounds like us for sure









It sounds like you are doing a wonderful job raising your DS ... so glad you've broken the cycle of abuse ... All the best


----------



## sweetpeppers

Quote:


Originally Posted by *4evermom* 
Control over my child is not my goal.

And I'm quite confident my ds would act as apparently unreasonable as the kids on tv in those circumstances.









(Personally I think those kids are behaving perfectly reasonable considering how they are being ordered about by a stranger, having their parents listening to that stranger instead of them, having sudden radical changes made with no warning or explanation.)

Amen. Any parents that would agree to have their family (in particular their children's poor behavior) put on display for millions of people's entertainment is highly suspect in my opinion, if not utterly contemptible. I think the whole thing really messed up if you want my opinion.


----------



## BlueSkyJennifer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
I think consentually sounds like us for sure










I am also confused by your reference to your parenting as consensual. If you are on the path of punishments and rewards, then you are not on the path of Consensual Living as it is defined and understood as a term around here. I am guessing you are not really familiar with what the practice of CL is?

Here is an excerpt from http://www.consensual-living.com/Essay3.htm

Quote:

There are several key factors that help create an environment where consensual living can thrive. First, there needs to be a climate of respect and trust. Trust in a child's ability to know their body and know their mind. Respect for their feelings as true, valid and important. If a child feels safe and comfortable they can explore their feelings and are more interested in understanding the feelings of those around them. *There is no room for punishments or rewards in this environment. Punishments and rewards are really just tools of manipulation and when you are working together as a team for shared solutions there is no need to manipulate.*
See what I mean?


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
I am also confused by your reference to your parenting as consensual. If you are on the path of punishments and rewards, then you are not on the path of Consensual Living as it is defined and understood as a term around here. I am guessing you are not really familiar with what the practice of CL is?

Here is an excerpt from http://www.consensual-living.com/Essay3.htm

See what I mean?

My mistake. I thought she meant consensual in the broad sense of the word, not as a parenting method/style.

I did not realize that there were different parenting methods/labels until I joined MDC. CL is was one I had not heard of &#8230; and I'm sure there are more.

I realize everyone parents differently, I guess I just assumed it was according to what came naturally to them and what works with their family rather than by a certain style/method.

If I had to describe our family/parenting I would use the word consensual along with many other words. Gentle, peaceful, respectful, fun, etc. We're on our own path. I'm sure we don't fit any label, which is just fine with us









I think it would be impossible (for me) to find a book/method that someone else has written out that I would follow to the letter without exception. I'm sure there are some I agree with in general ... I agree with a lot of what some posters are saying on this thread but I also take exception to some things.

I think parenting is very subjective. I think my timeout and other's timeouts are very different. What I call extreme is different than what some consider as extreme. Someone else's praise is probably my encouragement. I consider a lot of things "damaging" to my children that others probably do without any thought as to how it impacts their kids.

Now, if only I could fit all this into my signature ...


----------



## allgirls

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
Now, if only I could fit all this into my signature ...



















Let me know. I feel the same way. I don't subscribe to a particular"philosophy" I subscribe to a more general approach as well.

I'd be more inclined to say I subscribe to them all and make up stuff as I go along as well.

But I'm definitely gentle. That's for sure.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 









Let me know. I feel the same way. I don't subscribe to a particular"philosophy" I subscribe to a more general approach as well.

I'd be more inclined to say I subscribe to them all and make up stuff as I go along as well.

But I'm definitely gentle. That's for sure.

I think gentle sums it well


----------



## Wildflower

Sorry, nak and too busy to read the whole thread, but wanted to pop in to say I have a friend who works in editing that show, and he says the whole thing is SOOOO fake! He helps splice together film clips to the point of actually fabricating new sentences out of old ones (listen for slight changes in the speakers tone of voice) to make it look like a happy ending every week, which is hugely inaccurate, according to my friend who sees alllllll the footage.


----------



## BlueSkyJennifer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
I realize everyone parents differently, I guess I just assumed it was according to what came naturally to them and what works with their family rather than by a certain style/method.

You might consider that this is what feels natural to other people. It feels blissfully natural to me. I was already doing it and it was wonderful to stumble across a book that reinforced what I already knew in my own heart with stunning arguments and research. Do you think people are following methods that feel unnatural to them?


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
Do you think people are following methods that feel unnatural to them?

you might be surprised. but, yes, some do.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
you might be surprised. but, yes, some do.

I've met one mother who said she let her baby cry-it-out while her instincts screamed for her to pick her up.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
You might consider that this is what feels natural to other people. It feels blissfully natural to me. I was already doing it and it was wonderful to stumble across a book that reinforced what I already knew in my own heart with stunning arguments and research.

That's how I feel about my parenting-style, too!


----------



## Greenmama2AJ

I think that many parents don't do what feels natural, but rather what they are taught is the "right" thing to do. CIO is a great example of this.

I think what's interesting in this debate is that there is consensus that parenting styles can be placed on a scale - with coercive/punitive at one end and permissive on the other.

What is being debated is where do we draw the line on that scale as to what is acceptable behaviour and punishment and what isn't?

When Mammal Mother wrote about forcing her daughter to sit on her lap - that *is* a punishment. I think her point proves though that punishments (mostly called "consequences" by us gentle folk who hate to think we would punish a child) are not a negative thing in themself.
What is negative is the way that punishment is applied and why you are applying a punishment in the first place.

Obviously, Mammal-Mama is a loving, gentle parent who has her daughters best interests at heart. She teaches her child the limits in our culture and society - which are very valuable things to learn, not purely from a safety point of veiw, but because children need to learn the "rules" so that can be embraced by others as cooperative members of their society. And if that means you need to sit on mama's lap until you can interact without hurting others, then the punishment is not only fair but gentle.

Punishment in itself isn't the real issue. The real issue is with how or why we punish our children.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greenmama2AJ* 
When Mammal Mother wrote about forcing her daughter to sit on her lap - that *is* a punishment.

I'd love to hear more opinions about this! I wonder if my daughter perceived it as a punishment? What I was hoping to communicate was that hurting other people is a problem. We don't like to be hurt, others don't like it either. And I wanted her to feel secure that I was paying attention and was available to help her work through whatever problem she was experiencing.

But I guess I was also wanting her to stop hurting my friend's kids, so that I could enjoy visiting with my friend, and so my friend would want to continue hanging out with us. Maybe that motive made it a punishment? Also, I'll admit that I didn't want my friend to think I wasn't taking her children's wellbeing seriously.

Ultimately, though, I feel like dd wasn't having all that much fun, or she wouldn't have been hurting the kids. I do feel she was crying out for some help from me. But, again, maybe I could have helped her through the difficult feelings without having to restrain her, just by staying closer to her.

I have occasionally felt a need to restrain dd or remove her from certain situations, because it was the only way I saw to keep her from hurting someone. I still don't see how it could be a punishment, if it was the only way to protect someone from being hurt.







But I do want to work harder at not moving to restraint as a *first* resort.


----------



## babygrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I've met one mother who said she let her baby cry-it-out while her instincts screamed for her to pick her up.

that would be an example from one end of the spectrum, yes.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
AP, CLW, co-sleeping, tandem nursing, these are all thing that like UP just felt most natural to me and THAT is why I do them

I'm pretty sure we are saying the same things in this regard.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
"I just assumed it was according to what came naturally to them and what works with their family rather than by a certain style/method."

If you read just before this in my post, I mentioned that I never knew there were different parenting method/labels. That is what I was referring to. You are quoting only part of a statement and reading a lot into it that is not there.

My previous reply was in response to your post saying you were confused when I used the word consensual because you didn't think I seemed to be following the book/CL method. I was trying to clarify that I do what feels right for us and consensual is one of the words I would use to describe our household even though we do not follow CL or any other method.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
She seemed to be implying that us UP folks on this thread are just going for the named style of UP even though it must feel unnatural to us.

Wow, really not sure where I implied any of this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
I know, I should just tune it out!

Feel free







I do not and was not judging anyone's parenting. I'm just stating that our family does not fit into any particular style or method.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
I do not and was not judging anyone's parenting. I'm just stating that our family does not fit into any particular style or method.









I'm sorry if you felt attacked! It's just that many of us who connect with styles like UP, AP, unschooling, and so on, often hear others saying things like, "You should just do what works for your family and not worry about the 'label'" -- as if anyone who's brainstorming about how to better apply the principles they've been learning is just trying to "fit in" to some particular style.

I see now that you're not saying that, you're just talking about your family.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 







I'm sorry if you felt attacked! It's just that many of us who connect with styles like UP, AP, unschooling, and so on, often hear others saying things like, "You should just do what works for your family and not worry about the 'label'" -- as if anyone who's brainstorming about how to better apply the principles they've been learning is just trying to "fit in" to some particular style.

I see now that you're not saying that, you're just talking about your family.

I don't feel attacked, just missunderstood









I find it hard to get my thoughts down in text as they are in my head. It's frustrating that sometimes people take from my replies something that I did not intend, imply, believe in, agree with, etc.

I guess that is one of the hazards of this kind of communication. Thanks for understanding.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greenmama2AJ* 
I think that many parents don't do what feels natural, but rather what they are taught is the "right" thing to do. CIO is a great example of this.

I think what's interesting in this debate is that there is consensus that parenting styles can be placed on a scale - with coercive/punitive at one end and permissive on the other.

*What is being debated is where do we draw the line on that scale as to what is acceptable behaviour and punishment and what isn't?*

*When Mammal Mother wrote about forcing her daughter to sit on her lap - that is a punishment. I think her point proves though that punishments (mostly called "consequences" by us gentle folk who hate to think we would punish a child) are not a negative thing in themself.
What is negative is the way that punishment is applied and why you are applying a punishment in the first place.*

Obviously, Mammal-Mama is a loving, gentle parent who has her daughters best interests at heart. She teaches her child the limits in our culture and society - which are very valuable things to learn, not purely from a safety point of veiw, but because children need to learn the "rules" so that can be embraced by others as cooperative members of their society. And if that means you need to sit on mama's lap until you can interact without hurting others, then the punishment is not only fair but gentle.

Punishment in itself isn't the real issue. The real issue is with how or why we punish our children.

You've said it so much better than I have been trying









I consider what mammal_mama did to be a time out (just not like SN would do it, or how I would do it), but that is just my perception of the situation.

Do I think there was a different way to handle the situation &#8230; sure &#8230; there are probably lots of ways she could have handled it. Mammal_mama did what she felt was best in that particular situation as it was unfolding. If she's thought about it since and feels there is a better way to handle it if it occurs again then that's great. This is how I see parenting &#8230; assessing each situation, responding to it, learning from it, then moving on to the next &#8230; that's how we learn and grow as people/parents.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 
I consider what mammal_mama did to be a time out (just not like SN would do it, or how I would do it), but that is just my perception of the situation.

I guess I perceive time out as "depriving my child of my loving presence" -- and since I wasn't doing that, I didn't see it as a punishment but simply as coercion, which I prefer not to engage in ...

But you guys have sure got me thinking ... sounds like more of you agree with my dh than not.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
*I guess I perceive time out as "depriving my child of my loving presence"* -- and since I wasn't doing that, I didn't see it as a punishment but simply as coercion, which I prefer not to engage in ...

But you guys have sure got me thinking ... sounds like more of you agree with my dh than not.

I think everyone's perception of a time out is probably different. That is my issue with the blanket statement that punishment/rewards are wrong/damaging.

I am very present and loving during what I call time out with my son.


----------



## BlueSkyJennifer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *H & J's Mom* 

If you read just before this in my post, I mentioned that I never knew there were different parenting method/labels.

Wow, so you had never even heard of Attachment Parenting? I'm curious how you found this board.


----------



## H & J's Mom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
Wow, so you had never even heard of Attachment Parenting? I'm curious how you found this board.

Nope, never heard of it until I joined MDC.

I found this board when i was searching the net for info on an issue with my DS. It brought up a thread from here concerning the same issue so I joined to post my question concerning DS.

After that I started reading all these great threads and got hooked


----------



## I-AM-Mother

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlueSkyJennifer* 
Wow, so you had never even heard of Attachment Parenting? I'm curious how you found this board.

i never heard of the labels until I came on board either. now i have a better understanding of some of the labels


----------



## allgirls

I am returning this thread. I have removed several posts for user agreement violations.

Please keep in mind the following when posting.

*1.Do not post in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, name-calling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.*

_and_

*8. Do not post to a thread to take direct issue with a member. If you feel a member has posted or behaved inappropriately in a discussion, communicate directly with the member, moderator or administrator privately and refrain from potentially defaming discussion in a thread*

I feel this is a worthwhile topic and a fantastic discussion. Please abide by the MDC user agreement so that it can continue.

Allgirls


----------



## I-AM-Mother

yesterday i made a comment which many of you may have taken as a slight. i meant nothing by it. if anyone was offended it was not my intentions.


----------

