# Whats wrong with "no!"?



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Let me start by saying I don't agree with hitting or shaming. I don't agree with teaching a child with anger.

It seems like there is this whole movement in AP mom communities to not be negative AT ALL, and it seems to be to their detriment and the detriment of their child.

Example: I run a daycare and work with strictly toddlers. I have a family who was adamant about not using the world "No!". She really fell into this "positive discapline" thing to the extreme. Of course, she just had to come up with all sorts of "creative" ways to say "no"........"not for babies" "don't", etc etc. What's the point?

But the worst part is that she'd say these phrases in a kind, sweet, doting voice. Her daughter would hit her in the face violently and she'd sweetly say "Please don't hit mama!!!". What the heck is that teaching the kid? Oh yeah.......that you get positive attention when you hit!







:

It seems like the GD pendulum, if you will, has really swung to an almost dysfunctional extreme of being nice to your kids no matter what. What's wrong with saying "no"? What's wrong with setting boundries and limits? What's wrong with letting children know there are negative consequences to some things? I don't think that letting them know, say, hitting is a bad thing means you have to beat them. But firmly letting them now that it's not ok to hit friends just teaches them that...........if you hit friends, people will be unhappy with you! In real life, not everyone is always going to give you positive attention for everything you do.

I see a lot of posts here where parents ask for help with a big issue.........hitting, biting, other violent behavior.......and the first response is "well why are they doing it". I'm sorry, but I don't CARE WHY my 3 year old hit another kid, it's no ok. We'll talk about it and share our feelings AFTER he knows that it's not ok. It seems like it's just making excuses for bad behavior to say "Well, she hit because she was really tired". So you're teaching your kid that it's ok to be violent to others if you have a good excuse to do so?

I get a little worried at the AP label at times because it just seems so often lately it's associate with "those parents"..........those parents you see in the mall or the grocery store who have a child abusing the crud out of them and all the while the parent is gently cooing "Whats wrong bunny? Mommy doesn't like it when you hit me with that spatula!". YKWIM?

I guess what I want to know is..........why isn't it ok to say no? Why isn't it ok to teach children that they will evoke negative responses from people if they hurt them? I understand the concept of GD in terms of not wanting to abuse or harm a child. Does that mean it's not ok to allow a child to feel badly abut their actions?


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
But the worst part is that she'd say these phrases in a kind, sweet, doting voice. Her daughter would hit her in the face violently and she'd sweetly say "Please don't hit mama!!!". What the heck is that teaching the kid? Oh yeah.......that you get positive attention when you hit!







:

Well, I think that also teaches a kid really poor methods of enforcing boundaries. I agree that it's very unhealthy, but not because of the "negative/positive" attention thing.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
It seems like the GD pendulum, if you will, has really swung to an almost dysfunctional extreme of being nice to your kids no matter what. What's wrong with saying "no"? What's wrong with setting boundries and limits? What's wrong with letting children know there are negative consequences to some things? I don't think that letting them know, say, hitting is a bad thing means you have to beat them. But firmly letting them now that it's not ok to hit friends just teaches them that...........if you hit friends, people will be unhappy with you! In real life, not everyone is always going to give you positive attention for everything you do.

Again, I don't think is particular to GD. I have a friend who uses T/O and CIO, but here's how she puts her kid in T/O.

"Sweetie, you can't hit. Mommy doesn't want you to hit honey, okay? Come on, you're having a time-out for that, okay? No more hitting, okay?"

I don't think that's a very clear or effective message.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I see a lot of posts here where parents ask for help with a big issue.........hitting, biting, other violent behavior.......and the first response is "well why are they doing it". I'm sorry, but I don't CARE WHY my 3 year old hit another kid, it's no ok. We'll talk about it and share our feelings AFTER he knows that it's not ok. It seems like it's just making excuses for bad behavior to say "Well, she hit because she was really tired". So you're teaching your kid that it's ok to be violent to others if you have a good excuse to do so?

You really don't care? You don't think it would make any difference in your discipline if you knew the exact reason your three year old hit someone? What if it was because a bigger kid kept taking away her toys? What if it was because she was resentful of a younger sibling?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you should condone hitting. But I think most people post because they have a CHRONIC hitting problem, and want to stop it. If that's the case, you've got to look at the causes.

I don't think GD is about being "nice" to your child at all costs. Just like all of AP, it's about being proactive rather than reactive. Instead of focusing on the punishment that will be harsh or scary enough to get your dc to stop hitting, GD parents tend to focus on setting their children up for success. What can be wrong with that?


----------



## littleaugustbaby (Jun 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah* 
You really don't care? You don't think it would make any difference in your discipline if you knew the exact reason your three year old hit someone? What if it was because a bigger kid kept taking away her toys? What if it was because she was resentful of a younger sibling?

ITA. With kids, especially young ones, they act out because they are not mature enough to get a good handle on their emotions. So they resort to tantrums, hitting, grabbing, etc.

You can't fix a problem if you don't know what caused it. The whole point of GD is to teach kids to work through their feelings, rather than arbitrarily punishing them, which serves no purpose.

If a child misbehaves and your immediate reaction is to tell them that it is wrong or not ok, then it puts the child on the defensive (and IMO, it is shaming), which makes it really difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion about feelings, or how to better handle themselves the next time.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I see a lot of posts here where parents ask for help with a big issue.........hitting, biting, other violent behavior.......and the first response is "well why are they doing it". I'm sorry, but I don't CARE WHY my 3 year old hit another kid, it's no ok. We'll talk about it and share our feelings AFTER he knows that it's not ok. It seems like it's just making excuses for bad behavior to say "Well, she hit because she was really tired". So you're teaching your kid that it's ok to be violent to others if you have a good excuse to do so?

I don't think there's anything wrong with no, per se. I have no problem with telling ds "DO NOT HIT ME!!!" But I think that a "no" should be followed by a "yes." That means that the reason he is hitting definitely matters. How else could I help him not hit the next time? How am I going to teach him better ways to express himself and his impulses if I don't understand what those impulses are?
It's not "oh, he hit me but he has a reason so it's ok." It's that if I know that he's hitting me because he wants my attention, I can help him learn acceptable ways to let me know that he wants my attention.

Just saying "no, don't hit" doesn't address what they need to learn. The impulse is still there. He'll still want to get my attention. So either he's going to keep hitting to get it, or he's going to have to try to figure it out on his own, which could take some time and go through some other less than acceptable methods. If I help him figure it out, we both benefit, and additionally he learns that even though some ACTIONS are not acceptable, I understand that the reason behind the action was legitimate, and that I will work with him to find better way to express it.


----------



## MrsAprilMay (Jul 7, 2007)

Young children have a hard time understanding negative words. I remember an ECE professor in college telling me that when you say to a young child "Don't run" they actually hear "Do run."

I also feel that simply saying no or don't doesn't help the child figure out what they should do instead. For example, I say "Walk" instead of "Don't run" or "Hitting hurts. Use gentle hands with so&so." Instead of "Don't hit so&so." If I can see a reason why she hit, like so&so took her toy, I try to empathize with her. "So&so took your toy. You feel sad/angry/frustrated/whatever." And then I offer her a solution: "Do you want to ask so&so for your toy back, or do you want to play with this one instead?" As she gets older, I'll lighten up on my suggestions and encourage her to find her own solutions.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

See, Ime negative instructions like "don't grab toys from Lily" have a place, as long as they are followed by a positive instruction "If you want something she's playing with, offer to trade for something else."
I tried the no negatives before, and it left me feeling like ds had to figure out for himself exactly what I was trying to change, or if I was trying to change anything at all. So, to him, I might be saying "offer to trade something" as a helpful suggestion, and not that he shouldn't grab toys from her.

Additionally, I don't necessarily care if he offers to trade or not. I just want him to NOT grab.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsAprilMay* 
Young children have a hard time understanding negative words. I remember an ECE professor in college telling me that when you say to a young child "Don't run" they actually hear "Do run."

I also feel that simply saying no or don't doesn't help the child figure out what they should do instead. For example, I say "Walk" instead of "Don't run" or "Hitting hurts. Use gentle hands with so&so." Instead of "Don't hit so&so." If I can see a reason why she hit, like so&so took her toy, I try to empathize with her. "So&so took your toy. You feel sad/angry/frustrated/whatever." And then I offer her a solution: "Do you want to ask so&so for your toy back, or do you want to play with this one instead?" As she gets older, I'll lighten up on my suggestions and encourage her to find her own solutions.

I don't buy that one bit. I run a daycare with toddlers, and you know what? They all know what "no" means. They all know when I say "Don't hit your friend" that they need to stop. I think toddlers are more clever than we think. When I see parents avoiding no, I see toddlers little wheels turning, knowing they are going to get away with whatever they want to do.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
See, Ime negative instructions like "don't grab toys from Lily" have a place, as long as they are followed by a positive instruction "If you want something she's playing with, offer to trade for something else."
I tried the no negatives before, and it left me feeling like ds had to figure out for himself exactly what I was trying to change, or if I was trying to change anything at all. So, to him, I might be saying "offer to trade something" as a helpful suggestion, and not that he shouldn't grab toys from her.

Additionally, I don't necessarily care if he offers to trade or not. I just want him to NOT grab.


I really hate that approach. A lot of parents here do it, and then for some reason it's the OTHER kids fault when the kid DOESNT want to trade, and the first kid still ends up upset. Whats wrong with "That's Junes turn now, you can play with X Y or Z". Whenever I have a parent try to do this "Oh you want this toy? Oh, your crying? Oh lets see if so and so will let you have a turn/trade/etc" it always leaves one kid crying and I don't think it teaches a good lesson at all. When I see parents using this approach, it's usually just a weak excuse to get their kid whatever he or she wants.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
I don't think there's anything wrong with no, per se. I have no problem with telling ds "DO NOT HIT ME!!!" But I think that a "no" should be followed by a "yes." That means that the reason he is hitting definitely matters. How else could I help him not hit the next time? How am I going to teach him better ways to express himself and his impulses if I don't understand what those impulses are?
It's not "oh, he hit me but he has a reason so it's ok." It's that if I know that he's hitting me because he wants my attention, I can help him learn acceptable ways to let me know that he wants my attention.

Just saying "no, don't hit" doesn't address what they need to learn. The impulse is still there. He'll still want to get my attention. So either he's going to keep hitting to get it, or he's going to have to try to figure it out on his own, which could take some time and go through some other less than acceptable methods. If I help him figure it out, we both benefit, and additionally he learns that even though some ACTIONS are not acceptable, I understand that the reason behind the action was legitimate, and that I will work with him to find better way to express it.


I understand what you're saying, but it seems like it has flawed methodology. I don't understand why you can't, say, reprimand a toddler who's punching you to get attention and then, when they've calmed, say "If you want mama, just say Mama" or whatever you want to use to get your attention.

Just saying "dont hit!" certain does teach them that they need to find other ways to get your attention/get what they want! Kids are SMART! If Timmy can't hit to get your attention, he WILL find another way to get it. Caudling it seems counterproductive, in practice, to me.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I really hate that approach. A lot of parents here do it, and then for some reason it's the OTHER kids fault when the kid DOESNT want to trade, and the first kid still ends up upset. Whats wrong with "That's Junes turn now, you can play with X Y or Z". Whenever I have a parent try to do this "Oh you want this toy? Oh, your crying? Oh lets see if so and so will let you have a turn/trade/etc" it always leaves one kid crying and I don't think it teaches a good lesson at all. When I see parents using this approach, it's usually just a weak excuse to get their kid whatever he or she wants.

Hmmm...it seems like you are making a lot of assumtions about something that I picked simply as an example.
I could have said "Ds, don't hit me with that book. If you want me to read to you, put the book in my hand." Or "Don't let the water run if you're not using it. Turn it off when you're done." I was just saying that negatives seem to be useful in telling kids exactly WHAT isn't ok for them to do, and that positives are useful in telling them some options that they can do instead.

In the situations that I tell ds to offer to trade, half of the time "Lily" (who is a year younger, and generally doesn't care what she's playing with) is happy to trade. In that case, it works for everyone. The other half of the time, she doesn't want to, and she keeps what she had, and I go from there with ds. "She doesn't want to trade. You can play with x while you wait for her to be done with y."
I REALLY don't see anything wrong with trying to trade a 2yo for a different toy that she's likely going to be just as happy with anyways. Ds is aware that it's Lily's choice whether to take the trade or not.

Just because you see that particular phrase used in a certain way, doesn't mean that everyone who uses it is doing the same thing.

I don't use that method with kids who are closer to ds's age, because it's just not the same. But with kids closer to his age (actually the friends he has are a bit older), they find solutions between themselves most of the time. When they don't, we (the parents) just facilitate solution finding.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I understand what you're saying, but it seems like it has flawed methodology. I don't understand why you can't, say, reprimand a toddler who's punching you to get attention and then, when they've calmed, say "If you want mama, just say Mama" or whatever you want to use to get your attention.

Just saying "dont hit!" certain does teach them that they need to find other ways to get your attention/get what they want! Kids are SMART! If Timmy can't hit to get your attention, he WILL find another way to get it. Caudling it seems counterproductive, in practice, to me.

I'm not sure where you're getting coddling from. I'm not talking about coddling. I'm talking about helping my 3yo find acceptable ways to express himself.
I do not allow hitting. It's not ok. I don't even allow him to play hit me. It makes me very uncomfortable. But I'm not sure what you mean by "reprimand." I tell him "Don't hit me. I don't like to be hit." I might explain further why I don't like it- it hurts, I don't like the way it feels, etc. That's the extent of the "reprimanding" that I do. That's all that it takes for ds to know, um, not to hit me.

I'm sure that ds would find other ways to express himself, but why not help them find a solution that works for both of us? That way, he doesn't have to go through trial and error, and *I* know what he's trying to express by it. I can certainly envision a dc trying a different tactic, only to find that it doesn't work, or that Mom doesn't intrepret it correctly, etc.
Also, in the heat of the moment, it's hard to think of and use alternatives, and not resort to our instinctual response. It's hard for adults too, and we are more capable of looking back and evaluating our interactions. We have a better understanding of how our actions affect others, and what is likely to work, and what effects certain actions are likely to have.

Example- when he was about 2 (a little younger) he went through a phase of hitting me with his book. He was trying to get me to read to him. I did the "don't hit me" thing, I left the room, I threatened to not read at all, I yelled







...he KNEW that hitting me with the book wasn't the best way to get me to read to him. But he was still doing it, because he hadn't yet figured out what to do instead.
As soon as I said to him "if you want me to read to you, put the book in my hand" he stopped hitting me with books. He hasn't hit me with a book since the minute I said those words. He knew a better way to express himself, so he used it.

I've had so many situations like that, that I totally believe in giving acceptable alternatives. It just works, at least for us.


----------



## ktmama (Jan 21, 2004)

Personally, I don't use "no" a lot because, if I overuse it, it loses it's effectiveness when I DO need it, like in a safety related situation. Also, it's not very instructive in terms of teaching my dd what I WOULD like her to do.

_If a child misbehaves and your immediate reaction is to tell them that it is wrong or not ok, then it puts the child on the defensive (and IMO, it is shaming), which makes it really difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion about feelings, or how to better handle themselves the next time._

Just wanted to add that I totally disagree with this. It's not shaming to tell a child that their behavior is wrong/bad/inappropriate/unacceptable, but it IS shaming to tell a child that HE/SHE is wrong or bad. IMO, it's our job as parents to guide (discipline) our children into adulthood and interpreting our culture's norms for them in a gentle way is the best way to do it.


----------



## babygrace (Aug 23, 2006)

agree with ktmama. nothing wrong, per se, with 'no'.


----------



## dulce de leche (Mar 13, 2005)

Anothermama, it sounds like you expect these scheming, manipulative children to do the worst thing possible that they "can get away with".


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ktmama* 
Just wanted to add that I totally disagree with this. It's not shaming to tell a child that their behavior is wrong/bad/inappropriate/unacceptable, but it IS shaming to tell a child that HE/SHE is wrong or bad. IMO, it's our job as parents to guide (discipline) our children into adulthood and interpreting our culture's norms for them in a gentle way is the best way to do it.

I think it's hard for most young children to separate their behavior from themselves. An older child, yes, they can understand that they are not made entirely of what they do. But a two year old? I don't think so. You tell them, "Hitting is bad!" I think they're going to hear, "You are bad!"


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I don't buy that one bit. I run a daycare with toddlers, and you know what? They all know what "no" means. They all know when I say "Don't hit your friend" that they need to stop.

So why does it keep happening, then?


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

My life plan is to be nice to my kids no matter what. And my family is not particularly dysfunctional.

The best reason I've heard in discussions around this is that people (including children people) hear you best when you frame things positively. So, if you want to communicate effectively, tell people what they can do.

For example, my just turned 7 year old was talking to her 23 month old cousin when we were drawing with salt on the table, "That's [your brother's] salt. He wants to draw in it right now. Here is your salt. How about you draw in that?"

To which I said, "Someday you are going to be an amazing mother."


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
See, Ime negative instructions like "don't grab toys from Lily" have a place, as long as they are followed by a positive instruction.

I agree with this, but I also don't have much of a problem with saying "no" followed by explanation of why not.

I think GD is much like AP - there's no one definition, but there are guiding principles.

For me, I don't use harsh punishment, I don't spank, I don't shame, and I don't say something without trying to explain why/why not or making into some sort of learning experience.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ktmama* 
Personally, I don't use "no" a lot because, if I overuse it, it loses it's effectiveness when I DO need it, like in a safety related situation. Also, it's not very instructive in terms of teaching my dd what I WOULD like her to do.

_If a child misbehaves and your immediate reaction is to tell them that it is wrong or not ok, then it puts the child on the defensive (and IMO, it is shaming), which makes it really difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion about feelings, or how to better handle themselves the next time._

Just wanted to add that I totally disagree with this. It's not shaming to tell a child that their behavior is wrong/bad/inappropriate/unacceptable, but it IS shaming to tell a child that HE/SHE is wrong or bad. IMO, it's our job as parents to guide (discipline) our children into adulthood and interpreting our culture's norms for them in a gentle way is the best way to do it.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
agree with ktmama. nothing wrong, per se, with 'no'.


I agree with you guys.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah* 
So why does it keep happening, then?


I think that in the toddler years in particular, there will always be slip ups. It's their nature. They will often act before thinking and thats ok, but I don't think it's helping them to just go on as if their actions have no negative consequences. My son got to a point where if he pushed or hit he'd immediately look at me, because he knew it was a no no. Actually, now, my son is to the point where if he hits or pushes, I just say his name, and he cries because he knows he's going to not be able to play with his friends.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dulce de leche* 
Anothermama, it sounds like you expect these scheming, manipulative children to do the worst thing possible that they "can get away with".


nevermind.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ktmama* 
Personally, I don't use "no" a lot because, if I overuse it, it loses it's effectiveness when I DO need it, like in a safety related situation. Also, it's not very instructive in terms of teaching my dd what I WOULD like her to do.

Just wanted to add that I totally disagree with this. It's not shaming to tell a child that their behavior is wrong/bad/inappropriate/unacceptable, but it IS shaming to tell a child that HE/SHE is wrong or bad. IMO, it's our job as parents to guide (discipline) our children into adulthood and interpreting our culture's norms for them in a gentle way is the best way to do it.

I agree...........I was reading a phych study a while back about how we naturally develop a concept of personal shame..........I think that as long as it's not imposed by another, it's not necessarily a bad thing. It's how we learn from our actions.....if we feel a healthy amount of guilt or shame from our actions, we usually naturally learn not to do them again, right?


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Not much, in & of itself. My issue is - as has been brought out - it loses it's *shock* value when overused & I think it's CRUCIAL to have a word that gets IMMEDIATE attention in a real emergency. When I scream "NO!" my kids stop & listen immediately, they know I'm yelling over something worth stopping to listen to.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I think that in the toddler years in particular, there will always be slip ups. It's their nature. They will often act before thinking and thats ok, but I don't think it's helping them to just go on as if their actions have no negative consequences. My son got to a point where if he pushed or hit he'd immediately look at me, because he knew it was a no no. Actually, now, my son is to the point where if he hits or pushes, I just say his name, and he cries because he knows he's going to not be able to play with his friends.

What if he can't see you? What if he knows you aren't watching? Then what does he do? Cry? Or do the wheels start turning about what he can get away with next?


----------



## mamabear&babybear (Dec 20, 2004)

After carefully reading your post it seems to me that you have more of a problem with people who seemingly don't discipline than with people who don't use the word no. I try not to tell my girls no but that doesn't mean that I let them hit me either. I also don't always use a sweet, doting voice. If they hit me I use an assertive voice to tell them that hitting hurts and then as a pp said give them alternatives to hitting. The latter part is the reason to figure out why they are hitting. I don't try to keep my dc from feeling bad about/owning their actions. I do help them cope with those feelings, make amends for their actions and sometimes remove themselves from the situation.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama*
I think that in the toddler years in particular, there will always be slip ups. It's their nature. They will often act before thinking and thats ok, but I don't think it's helping them to just go on as if their actions have no negative consequences. My son got to a point where if he pushed or hit he'd immediately look at me, because he knew it was a no no. Actually, now, my son is to the point where if he hits or pushes, I just say his name, and he cries because he knows he's going to not be able to play with his friends.

I think there is a difference between letting them feel negative consequences for their actions and imposing illogical consequences for their actions.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I don't buy that one bit. I run a daycare with toddlers, and you know what? They all know what "no" means. They all know when I say "Don't hit your friend" that they need to stop. I think toddlers are more clever than we think. When I see parents avoiding no, I see toddlers little wheels turning, knowing they are going to get away with whatever they want to do.

Then why not say "Stop!" It's clearer, and it's a more direct way of teaching what you want a child to do.

Or take another situation: Say your child is climbing on the back of the couch about to stand up and you say "No!" (a perfectly reasonable thing for me to say because behind our couch is a plate glass window and I don't want to see my 3 year old fall through it), that gets her attention, but it doesn't tell her what I need her to do to keep her safe. "No, get down from the back of the couch" or "no, sit on the couch".

I don't avoid 'no' at all costs, that's silly. It's a perfectly good and useful word of the language. But, I do limit it so when I say it, my kids know that I am really trying to get their attention.

When my kids were toddlers, if they asked to watch TV at a time when it wasn't possible or if they wanted marshmallows 5 minutes before dinner, I could sometimes avoid a major meltdown by saying "Let's do that after dinner!" "No" simply made them cry. Now that they're 3 and 6, they understand that "after dinner" means "no" and they'll complain. But they can usually make it through. And they trust that when I say "after dinner" I will do it after dinner.

I think there's a difference between avoiding "no" and not disciplining a child. When my kids hit, I tried first to say "gentle, gentle" and help them be gentle with their hands so they understood. Thankfully, I didn't have kids who hit a lot. But when they were tempted to, "Gentle!" was much more effective than "no" because they knew exactly what I was talking about. If they still hit, I stood up and said "I don't like to hold you/be with you when you hit me." They have gone up to their rooms when they are out of control.

But, I don't assume that shouting "no!" at them is going to teach them to do what's appropriate. I need to demonstrate that, apply that and be with them while they learn.


----------



## LilyGrace (Jun 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I think that in the toddler years in particular, there will always be slip ups. It's their nature. They will often act before thinking and thats ok, but I don't think it's helping them to just go on as if their actions have no negative consequences. My son got to a point where if he pushed or hit he'd immediately look at me, because he knew it was a no no. Actually, now, my son is to the point where if he hits or pushes, I just say his name, and he cries because he knows he's going to not be able to play with his friends.

This is where I have a hard time with mainstream discipline. My goal of disciplining my children is to get them to do 3 things:

1. Understand how their actions affect others.
2. Think their way through a series of potential actions.
3. Be sorry when they slip up - acknowledge the mistake, fix it, and prevent it in the future.

Saying "no" does not afford my children these lessons. Which gives more information:
_That hurts!_
or
_No!_ ?

Giving them the information they need gives them the tools to use next time. Discipline is a progressive thing.

I have a hard time with mainstream discipline, like you just demonstrated, because the child is not responsible for his own actions - the parent is. If you were not around to enforce the rules, the lesson of right from wrong isn't there. How his actions affect others, replacement actions.....those lessons are missing. It's also fear based, and learning how to do right should not stem from a fear of doing wrong. It's disconnected, and the child doesn't learn how to be sorry. Maybe he'd learn how to say the word, but the actions that truly make up being sorry are still the parent's, not the child's.

I do not agree with being singsongy and happy all the time for the same reason. One of the first rules my children learn is _your rights end where mine begin._ I don't give up the right to be safe and respected simply because the interaction is with a child. I don't need to take being hit or hurt from a 4yo. I am calm, I state the problem, state the fix (in the early years, less as they get more creative), and follow through. _That hurts!_ followed by removing the child from my lap and keeping my distance until I'm calm enough again - _you need to touch me gently, like this. Good!_ or _when you're angry, you can show me like this_ (make sign for 'angry'.)

If we focus on the tools, the need for the word 'no' cuts down dramatically. The need for external discipline also drops.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsAprilMay* 
Young children have a hard time understanding negative words. I remember an ECE professor in college telling me that when you say to a young child "Don't run" they actually hear "Do run."

I'm not sure I buy that either. Kids do have a hard time with negatives, but "Don't run" is a pretty simple directive. Unless they have a language disorder, they're likely to be able to understand don't by 18-20 months.

I think a more reasonable explanation is that by saying "don't run" you don't give them anything else to think about. They're still thinking about running. If, instead, you say "walk!" then they can think about walking.

Or take yourself as an example. If a you're talking to a friend in a restaurant, and they say "Don't look over your shoulder, but...." what's your first instinct? To look over your shoulder! But, if were looking over your shoulder and your friend said "Hey, look up there!" You'd look up there.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Oh, and I wanted to add:
I'd also argue that the parents who want you to avoid "no" but who using "don't" or other negatives are really just playing with semantics - "don't" is as negative as "no" is. And maybe not as useful.


----------



## LilyGrace (Jun 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
I'm not sure I buy that either. Kids do have a hard time with negatives, but "Don't run" is a pretty simple directive. Unless they have a language disorder, they're likely to be able to understand don't by 18-20 months.

I think a more reasonable explanation is that by saying "don't run" you don't give them anything else to think about. They're still thinking about running. If, instead, you say "walk!" then they can think about walking.

Or take yourself as an example. If a you're talking to a friend in a restaurant, and they say "Don't look over your shoulder, but...." what's your first instinct? To look over your shoulder! But, if were looking over your shoulder and your friend said "Hey, look up there!" You'd look up there.


I've studied a few different languages and this makes sense to me. When you're still trying to grasp the vocabulary, your brain will focus on what it last heard, in this case "run". The other words are less important and 'run' becomes what the sentence is about. It takes another 20 seconds or so for the rest of the sentence to be processed in a young child. I like the grammatical structure of ASL and how the word order is different depending on what's most important - teacher, pay attention!- instead of pay attention to the teacher!

I agree, giving them the action _to do_ is better than focusing on the negative.


----------



## laoxinat (Sep 17, 2007)

We have to differentiate between a child's _understanding_ of a word and their _developmental need_ to separate and/or individuate. A child knows the 'meaning' of the word 'no' long before he/she gains the ability to put self in the place of other, and until then, mama or daddy will have to step in, on occasion to protect the rights of others.
laoxinat


----------



## littleaugustbaby (Jun 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah* 
I think it's hard for most young children to separate their behavior from themselves. An older child, yes, they can understand that they are not made entirely of what they do. But a two year old? I don't think so. You tell them, "Hitting is bad!" I think they're going to hear, "You are bad!"

ITA. Little kids don't process that stuff well.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between:

"NO! Do not throw toys!"

and

"It's not nice to throw toys, even if you are really mad. Somebody can get hurt. Let's let Katie have a turn with the toy first, and when she is done, it can be your turn..." and so on.

But if you jump to that knee-jerk "No! Bad! Wrong!" reaction, there is a really good chance that you're going to end up with a really upset, ashamed little kid, and that will ruin your chances of having an actual productive conversation in the matter. Especially if you have a sensitive kid who interprets: "hitting is bad" = "you are bad" = "I don't like you!"

ETA: There is nothing wrong with saying no and setting boundaries, and I do believe that it is very important to set boundaries. I just think that you have to be very careful about how you do it.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I'm with you, anothermama, I don't think there is a thing wrong with 'no,' and I have seen GD turned into over-passivity waaaaay too much!


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
They will often act before thinking and thats ok, but I don't think it's helping them to just go on as if their actions have no negative consequences. My son got to a point where if he pushed or hit he'd immediately look at me, because he knew it was a no no. Actually, now, my son is to the point where if he hits or pushes, I just say his name, and he cries because he knows he's going to not be able to play with his friends.

ah, I think I see where you're coming from- are you saying that they need to experience negative consequences in order to learn not to do certain things? Perhaps I'm misreading it though.

That could be the big difference in our opinions. I don't think that kids need to experience negative consequences in order to learn not to hit. I think that my ds did learn that there were negative consequences when he hit- and that negative consequence was that I didn't like it. But there were never any consequences imposed on him.
He did learn very quickly not to hit (ie, a few times hitting over a few days, max). I didn't want to teach him that hitting has negative consequences, I wanted to teach him what to do instead of hitting to express himself and get his needs met.

On the same note, the grabbing toys is improving quickly too. When two other kids are fighting over the same toy, I hear ds trying to give them information, and trying to find a solution.

eta- just wanted to say again that I'm agreeing with you that there's nothing wrong with saying "no."


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
I think a more reasonable explanation is that by saying "don't run" you don't give them anything else to think about. They're still thinking about running. If, instead, you say "walk!" then they can think about walking.

Or take yourself as an example. If a you're talking to a friend in a restaurant, and they say "Don't look over your shoulder, but...." what's your first instinct? To look over your shoulder! But, if were looking over your shoulder and your friend said "Hey, look up there!" You'd look up there.

exactly. Don't think of a pink elephant...


----------



## IndyNanny (Sep 20, 2007)

I think a good, firm "no" has it's place - like if someone is about to get hurt. I prefer to say "stop" instead, though. Ex - "Stop hitting me." I also agree that whatever words you do use shouldn't be "sing- songy".


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

There is a time and a place for "no." But there are reasons to limit its use too.

We don't use "no" with our infants, for example, because we just don't feel it serves a purpose. Infants haven't yet developed impulse control and so commanding them "no!" doesn't make much sense IMO. We prefer re-direction in a positive, encouraging manner. So if, for instance, one of my babes was hitting me, I'd probably grab her hand and show her gentle touch rather than just saying "no."

Also, we really want to encourage exploration and we like to create as positive an environment for this as possible. Studies show that kids who get their hands slapped exhibit less curiosity. I think overuse of "no" and "stop" and "don't", etc. can have the same stifling effect.

With older kids, we do use "no" at times but we try not to overuse it because it can lose its emphasis and because overuse can create a lot of negativity. If possible, we prefer to show our kids what TO do rather than what NOT to do. Our goal is to gently and respectfully guide and teach our children. So no, "no" is not always bad or wrong, but if overused or used in place of active teaching, I do think it does more harm than good.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah* 
What if he can't see you? What if he knows you aren't watching? Then what does he do? Cry? Or do the wheels start turning about what he can get away with next?

I'm always watching..............mwahahahahahaha

Ok, seriously, I just don't really leave him unsupervised with other kids his age......I mean, he's only 3. Is that weird?

He can be super sneaky when he's alone, but at least he's not hurting anyone else.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabear&babybear* 
After carefully reading your post it seems to me that you have more of a problem with people who seemingly don't discipline than with people who don't use the word no. I try not to tell my girls no but that doesn't mean that I let them hit me either. I also don't always use a sweet, doting voice. If they hit me I use an assertive voice to tell them that hitting hurts and then as a pp said give them alternatives to hitting. The latter part is the reason to figure out why they are hitting. I don't try to keep my dc from feeling bad about/owning their actions. I do help them cope with those feelings, make amends for their actions and sometimes remove themselves from the situation.

I think there is a difference between letting them feel negative consequences for their actions and imposing illogical consequences for their actions.

Well, you're right, but it often seems that all goes hand in hand..........

And I agree, I don't think illogical consequences help them learn a darn thing, but I think natural negative consequences can be a good thing. I don't think of it as a bad thing if my kid feels badly about what they did to someone else. And there seems to be this kind of running theme among moms I know who GD in that they don't EVER want to MAKE their kid feel badly, ykwim?


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
ah, I think I see where you're coming from- are you saying that they need to experience negative consequences in order to learn not to do certain things? Perhaps I'm misreading it though.

That could be the big difference in our opinions. I don't think that kids need to experience negative consequences in order to learn not to hit. I think that my ds did learn that there were negative consequences when he hit- and that negative consequence was that I didn't like it. But there were never any consequences imposed on him.
He did learn very quickly not to hit (ie, a few times hitting over a few days, max). I didn't want to teach him that hitting has negative consequences, I wanted to teach him what to do instead of hitting to express himself and get his needs met.

On the same note, the grabbing toys is improving quickly too. When two other kids are fighting over the same toy, I hear ds trying to give them information, and trying to find a solution.

eta- just wanted to say again that I'm agreeing with you that there's nothing wrong with saying "no."

I think maybe we're two sides of the same coin.......you said it yourself, your son learned there was a negative consequence to hitting you.









And that's all I mean.......it seems like there is a huge part of parents who GD, not just here but that I know IRL, who avoid letting their child experience ANYTHING negative at all in regards to their actions.......and if all their behavior results in positive attention, whats teaching them what is right and wrong??


----------



## carfreemama (Jun 13, 2007)

I remember being about 8 months pregnant and having a friend over. She was feeling sick and run-down and just needed some nurturing. She had brought over her dd, who was about 6 at the time. Her daughter wanted to go outside in our backyard, but her mother would have had to go out with her. Her mother wanted to stay and visit with me and wasn't really up for playing outside, anyway. And it was raining. And I was about to serve supper. Her daughter had already pitched a couple of fits during the visit; pretty major ones, too, over stuff that seemed pretty minor (mind you, I had yet to have my own child!). Anyway, the mom proceeded to give every imaginable reason why her dd could not go outside. She tried to offer alternatives. But the girl just wouldn't let up. What I noticed was that the mother never actually said the word 'no.' She said "well, it's raining" and "we're here to visit, and "you can play outside when we get home," etc. And it seemed in that situation that, by not just saying 'no,' which is clearly what she meant, the child kept thinking there was room to negotiate. Needless to say, another meltdown ensued. I promised myself, then and there, that my child would learn to hear the word 'no.' Not in a mean way, just a matter-of-fact, ask me for what you want; sometimes the answer will be yes, and sometimes no. I wanted her to learn to hear the word 'no,' experience disappointment and learn to work through it and get over it, while she was young. I wanted 'no' to feel like a normal part of life, not a catastrophe. So I use 'no' right away if that's the honest answer to a request and there really isn't room for negotiation. Anything else just isn't fair, IMO, in those situations. That's actually mostly how I use the word, actually. And I DO try to say yes a lot, try to compromise, etc. But if she's just not hearing 'no' when that's what I mean, I'll say very clearly, "I'm saying no" or "the answer to your question is no. Now let's go find a yes." Just so there's no confusion.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

I'm actually seeing a lot more agreeing than disagreeing.

It seems that the mamas that don't want to overdue "no" are not totally against saying it, and still will sometimes allow natural, potentially negative consequences for their child. I am the same way, we don't go around yelling "No! No! No!" but try to give more guidance than that.

But, as a former nanny, I think I know what the OP is talking about w/ parents that use that sing-songy voice and don't want child to experience *any* negativity which ends up creating Little Autumn's and Andrew's that have every whim catered to, b/c the Little Darling needs to ONLY have positive-ness in their precious life.

It made me want to uke then and makes me want to uke now.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
And there seems to be this kind of running theme among moms I know who GD in that they don't EVER want to MAKE their kid feel badly, ykwim?

Well, I don't ever want to make my kid feel bad. I have, lots of times. But I don't want to, and I don't know that when I did it was the best choice.

I don't have a problem w/my kids hitting me. I can't think of the last time they did. I would like to think that is because I'm really good at maintaining my boundaries. But I also have to be honest and admit that it might have something to do with that "scary mommy" that comes out once in a while. The one that yells and gets super mad and sometimes spanks.

So I guess if I could trade, it would be okay if my kids hit me more because they were more trusting of me. Because kids grow out of hitting, but I don't think they grow out of trust issues.

Anyway, my point is that people come to GD, and to all parenting, from lots of different backgrounds. Maybe those parents that you are disparaging that don't say "no" clearly enough are trying to avoid being the dictators that their parents were. Who knows?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I dunno, I just think that in many cases "no!" is not nearly as effective as positive phrasing and giving children (and adults too!) the tools and knowledge of what *to* do.

Imagine this, imagine I am at a job and my superior comes up to me "I DID NOT WANT THE REPORT DONE IN THIS WAY!" and walks away. Is that effective? Sure, (s)he communicated their displeasure and yeah I sure got the message that they don't want something. Now what to do? Sit on my hands not knowing what the heck to do, why they didn't like it, what exactly was displeasing? Do I ask or are they too upset? Do I change it or is it ruined? I would respond so much better to "you know what, in the future could you make your references clearer, this is so hard for me to read!" ( or whatever ). It isn't that they are "coddling" me, or "making sure" I am never "upset", it is that the most effective and respectful (and imo kind) way to work with someone instead of against them is to empower them with the knowledge of knowing what *to* do.

Or my husband... say I come up to him "hey babe, do you want to order out tonight?"

NO.

Um.... okay...."Do you want to *go* out?"

NO.

Um....

How rude. Does he want to cook? Does he want me to cook? Did he already eat? Is there something else he wants to do? What the heck is going on here?

I imagine that is how children must feel a lot of times.

We rarely use *no* around here -- we almost always tell dd what we would prefer or spell our boundaries out. Instead of NO HITTING when she was little, we would say "touch gently" --- instead of NO RUNNING! we would say, please walk slowly (near water or whatever). This is tremendously effective in our experience, as it sets us all up for success rather than confusion, failure, and adversarial exchanges.

So while I don't think no is "wrong" neccessarily, it certainly isn't my first option...

...and what exactly is wrong with not wanting to hurt my child's feelings? I am not saying I never have or will, but it certainly is never, ever, ever my goal and I think that is a beautiful goal to aspire to.








Sarah, thanks for your post


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I don't think most of us are just arbitrarily saying 'no' with no further communication, explanation, or elaboration.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I don't think most of us are just arbitrarily saying 'no' with no further communication, explanation, or elaboration.


Right. I feel like the context of the OP has been a bit lost.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy* 







Sarah, thanks for your post









Thank you!


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

Your post is very negative but perhaps its just because you dont really understand Gentle Dicipline....or maybe even that of attatchment parenting.

Quote:

After carefully reading your post it seems to me that you have more of a problem with people who seemingly don't discipline than with people who don't use the word no.








:

Quote:

It seems like the GD pendulum, if you will, has really swung to an almost dysfunctional extreme of being nice to your kids no matter what.
No it hasnt. And if this is what you honestly think about GD - then its clear you dont understand what GD is.

Quote:

But the worst part is that she'd say these phrases in a kind, sweet, doting voice. Her daughter would hit her in the face violently and she'd sweetly say "Please don't hit mama!!!". What the heck is that teaching the kid
?

I wouldnt call that GD either. I would in fact use the same words though. 'Please dont hit' - but I wont be using a kind sweet doting voice...I wont be shouting either. My voice would be neutral. A simple phrase, a simple direction, a simple request - 'please do not hit me'.
and...

Quote:

Well, I think that also teaches a kid really poor methods of enforcing boundaries. I agree that it's very unhealthy, but not because of the "negative/positive" attention thing.








:
I will also say there that I think alot of people can get confused by GD. GD does not mean no dicipline. But people can think it does because they associate dicipline with punishment. We ourselves do not punish in this house - but we do use dicipline and dicipline in this house is exactly what it says it is - teaching.

Also - Did she say she was 'ap'. Did she say she was using GD? Because I wouldnt assume anything about anyone - even if thats what they told me because actions can speak louder than words. Their child, their business - not my place to sit back and judge them. And they shouldnt need to explain anything to you either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anothermama
I see a lot of posts here where parents ask for help with a big issue.........hitting, biting, other violent behavior.......and the first response is "well why are they doing it". I'm sorry, but I don't CARE WHY my 3 year old hit another kid, it's no ok. We'll talk about it and share our feelings AFTER he knows that it's not ok. It seems like it's just making excuses for bad behavior to say "Well, she hit because she was really tired". So you're teaching your kid that it's ok to be violent to others if you have a good excuse to do so?

Quote:

You really don't care? You don't think it would make any difference in your discipline if you knew the exact reason your three year old hit someone? What if it was because a bigger kid kept taking away her toys? What if it was because she was resentful of a younger sibling?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you should condone hitting. But I think most people post because they have a CHRONIC hitting problem, and want to stop it. If that's the case, you've got to look at the causes.

I don't think GD is about being "nice" to your child at all costs. Just like all of AP, it's about being proactive rather than reactive. Instead of focusing on the punishment that will be harsh or scary enough to get your dc to stop hitting, GD parents tend to focus on setting their children up for success. What can be wrong with that?








: <<< couldnt have said it better myself!

Quote:

ITA. With kids, especially young ones, they act out because they are not mature enough to get a good handle on their emotions. So they resort to tantrums, hitting, grabbing, etc.

You can't fix a problem if you don't know what caused it. The whole point of GD is to teach kids to work through their feelings, rather than arbitrarily punishing them, which serves no purpose.

If a child misbehaves and your immediate reaction is to tell them that it is wrong or not ok, then it puts the child on the defensive (and IMO, it is shaming), which makes it really difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion about feelings, or how to better handle themselves the next time.
and that! lol

In fact - it was the whole word 'NO!' that brought me to GD.
When I had my son I was determined to not have a child run around shoutting 'NO!' aggressivly at me, anyone all the time. In fact, I was to find that it was these mothers who just use 'NO!' all the time with their children that have these children. So I told myself I would not use the word 'no'. This does not mean I dont dicipline or dont help to set boundaries with my child. This also doesnt mean I have a child who walks all over me. In fact, not to boast







...lol....I think we are a pretty good exampl of GD! I have a kind, polite, considerate, well manned, positivly behaved young man on my hands and hes such a terrific two!







:







lol...

We do on the other hand use the word 'stop'...if...get this!...we want him to 'stop a behaviour'...if we want him to _stop_ a behaviour why would be use no? 'Stop' is much more effective and appropriate. We do of course use the world 'no' but appropriatly in context. 'Would you like some more peas? No? Okay!'...Not just 'NO!'.... If overused it also looses its effectivness. I have seen this. Treat your children how you want to be treated because eventually they will certainly copy you and treat you the way you treat them. I dont know how many parents I have seen have their children shoutting 'NO!' aggressivly at them...its not very nice is it?!

Slightly off topic

Quote:

Young children have a hard time understanding negative words. I remember an ECE professor in college telling me that when you say to a young child "Don't run" they actually hear "Do run."
Its because children hear the last word that you say - so they are hearing run. Changing 'donts' to 'do' is being positive -but it also sets boundaries. Its not saying dont ever say no - its just changing no around so that your children will hear you. Its being respectful of them. Instead of saying 'dont run' you could say 'please walk'...they will hear 'walk' not 'run' then. This is why GD focuses on a positive 'YES!' environment. Its not saying that GD never say no or set boundaries! lol Some people have said they dont agree with this? - perhaps its the way the person I have quoted has explained it. But its really amazing (and worth trying if you dont already) - subtle linguistic ques really make a difference!

My friend had the daughter who agressively would shout 'NO!' at you. My son one day said it to her daughter. My friend was complely taken aback. She said 'but you dont say no!'...without offending her I suggested that he probably picked it up from other children (kinda hinting to her)... She stopped and though a bit and said 'You know, I probably do say 'no' to my daughter alot'. I gave her some tips on how to not use no/dont and how to change it to a 'do' instead. She started to do this and you should have seen the transformation it made in her daughter! For one she was running around shoutting 'NO!' agressivly at anyone anymore - in turn my son stopped saying this! lol

So whats wrong with no you ask?

Quote:

This is where I have a hard time with mainstream discipline. My goal of disciplining my children is to get them to do 3 things:

1. Understand how their actions affect others.
2. Think their way through a series of potential actions.
3. Be sorry when they slip up - acknowledge the mistake, fix it, and prevent it in the future.

Saying "no" does not afford my children these lessons. Which gives more information:
That hurts!
or
No! ?

Giving them the information they need gives them the tools to use next time. Discipline is a progressive thing.










Sorry ive quoted a lot of people - but you have all said it before I could! haha


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karina5* 
Right. I feel like the context of the OP has been a bit lost.

Yes, thank you.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ann_of_loxley* 
Your post is very negative but perhaps its just because you dont really understand Gentle Dicipline....or maybe even that of attatchment parenting.
..

Sorry ive quoted a lot of people - but you have all said it before I could! haha

Your opening statement was so offensive I really couldn't read much further............


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
Your opening statement was so offensive I really couldn't read much further............









ITA. I am totally with you on this issue (and apparently on a few others). And I am very AP, and I consider myself GD also (although I do say no and everything is not a consensus based decision). I am a loving, respectful parent, and I also do not coddle my child or walk on eggshells lest I destroy her fragile psyche.

If you wanna say no, dude! Say no. They will live on and they will also have far more important things to talk about in therapy than 'my mother said no instead of finding creative sing song alternatives whenever I screwed up.'

eta - I also wonder about the real lives of folks who can be so rude to other mamas on the subject of how important it is to be nice to children.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 







ITA. I am totally with you on this issue (and apparently on a few others). And I am very AP, and I consider myself GD also (although I do say no and everything is not a consensus based decision). I am a loving, respectful parent, and I also do not coddle my child or walk on eggshells lest I destroy her fragile psyche.

If you wanna say no, dude! Say no. They will live on and they will also have far more important things to talk about in therapy than 'my mother said no instead of finding creative sing song alternatives whenever I screwed up.'

eta - I also wonder about the real lives of folks who can be so rude to other mamas on the subject of how important it is to be nice to children.









Dude, are we the same person??







:


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

thismama, I swear, I want to start a fan club for you.









Ditto what she said.

We say NO and DON'T when it's the most succinct way to quickly communicate the inappropriateness of an action. If there is no urgency it is much easier to find a "positive" way to phrase it.

ITA with whoever pointed out that sometimes if you give alternative instructions (what *to* do instead of what *not* to do, or "it is raining outside" instead of "we cannot go outside right now; it is raining") kids are confused - well, can we go outside or not?

Don't get me wrong, I try very hard to find mutually agreeable solutions with my child whenever possible and I do think that the overuse of "no" and "don't" is unhelpful.

But, there is definitely a place for "no" in our household and it does not make us any less GD/AP.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama* 
thismama, I swear, I want to start a fan club for you.









Well, I'm actually anothermama. My secret is out.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy* 
I dunno, I just think that in many cases "no!" is not nearly as effective as positive phrasing and giving children (and adults too!) the tools and knowledge of what *to* do.

Imagine this, imagine I am at a job and my superior comes up to me "I DID NOT WANT THE REPORT DONE IN THIS WAY!" and walks away. Is that effective? Sure, (s)he communicated their displeasure and yeah I sure got the message that they don't want something. Now what to do? Sit on my hands not knowing what the heck to do, why they didn't like it, what exactly was displeasing? Do I ask or are they too upset? Do I change it or is it ruined? I would respond so much better to "you know what, in the future could you make your references clearer, this is so hard for me to read!" ( or whatever ). It isn't that they are "coddling" me, or "making sure" I am never "upset", it is that the most effective and respectful (and imo kind) way to work with someone instead of against them is to empower them with the knowledge of knowing what *to* do.

That's what I was trying to say earlier, only your example is better.
You *could* end up figuring out what to do about the report, but it's much easier if your boss tells you exactly what to do to fix it. Less trial and error- you might think it was spelling errors, and fix it all only to find out that wasn't the problem at all!
Only difference with me, is that I think that saying "I don't want the report this long." followed by a "what to do" sometimes is more clear than leaving out the negative "instruction" but I definitely agree that the positive is most helpful.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I don't think most of us are just arbitrarily saying 'no' with no further communication, explanation, or elaboration.

Except that the op said

Quote:

Just saying "dont hit!" certain does teach them that they need to find other ways to get your attention/get what they want! Kids are SMART! If Timmy can't hit to get your attention, he WILL find another way to get it. Caudling it seems counterproductive, in practice, to me.
I was saying that telling them what to do instead is much more helpful then having them go through the trial and error of coming up with that alternative themselves.

(I swear I'm not picking on you anothermama. I like these types of discussions)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
My son got to a point where if he pushed or hit he'd immediately look at me, because he knew it was a no no. Actually, now, my son is to the point where if he hits or pushes, I just say his name, and he cries because he knows he's going to not be able to play with his friends.

Here, it really sounds like you're saying that YOU are imposing a related consequence. If he hits, and knows that he can't play anymore, I'm guessing that you are the one deciding play time is over.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I think maybe we're two sides of the same coin.......you said it yourself, your son learned there was a negative consequence to hitting you.









And that's all I mean.......it seems like there is a huge part of parents who GD, not just here but that I know IRL, who avoid letting their child experience ANYTHING negative at all in regards to their actions.......and if all their behavior results in positive attention, whats teaching them what is right and wrong??

I'm all for kids learning that there are consequences to their actions. Natural ones. It's natural for me to be upset if ds hits me. But I wouldn't impose a "time to stop playing" consequence if he hit me or a friend.
I definitely leave my 3yo unsupervised with friends! What else is the point of play dates, if not to be able to get some stuff done! lol

But, after all this, I think I see that your original point is against those who refuse to let their kids see that there's anything wrong with what they do. I've never been that type (though when ds went through his super sensitive phase, I did watch my wording and tone very carefully. If someone made it sound like he did something wrong, and he should have known better, he'd burst out in tears. It was much more effective to say it as "oops, this happened, don't do that for this reason. Do this instead"). I tell ds "I don't really feel like going outside. It's cold." and "No, I am not getting up from my dinner to make lemonade for you." but I do offer some suggestions like "We can play trains in here" or "I'll make it for you after dinner."

It reminds me of my aunt- ds was about 18 mos old and he hit her (for fun, I guess). I said something like "Don't hit. People don't like to be hit. If you want to x, do y instead." My Aunt jumped in right away and said "oh no it didn't hurt! he can hit me. he didn't do anything wrong..." like she was protecting him from my wrath!!! lol.

Actually, thinking about it more, I have seen what you're talking about (I was reminded by your "what's teaching them right from wrong" line). I remember wondering the same thing about people who always talk in a pleasant voice, even when they're being hit. Then they're surprised that their kid keeps hitting! lol. I don't know that I think it's because the kid interprets it as positive reinforcement. Just that...the kid isn't being taught what not to do, and what to do instead. So, yeah, if those parents were more willing to show their honest feelings, I'm sure it would be much more clear to the kids what's acceptable and what's not. They don't have to hurt their kids feelings, just don't sugarcoat their honest feelings.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I wouldn't impose a 'time to stop playing' consequence for occasional hitting either. But I also know kids who hit a LOT. And, they don't care if someone else is upset, truly, at least not enough to stop the behaviour. So you get these mothers repeatedly explaining ad nauseum in sing songy tones that "hitting hurts our friends!"

Um, they know that, and sometimes that is the whole point. It just becomes ridiculous, and pathetic, and kids can see that. If sing songy explanations about harm done don't work, time to move on up to something else, because repeated hitting is not okay.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
If sing songy explanations about harm done don't work, time to move on up to something else, because repeated hitting is not okay.

Quite true!


----------



## lovemyfamily6 (Dec 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy* 
I dunno, I just think that in many cases "no!" is not nearly as effective as positive phrasing and giving children (and adults too!) the tools and knowledge of what *to* do.

Imagine this, imagine I am at a job and my superior comes up to me "I DID NOT WANT THE REPORT DONE IN THIS WAY!" and walks away. Is that effective? Sure, (s)he communicated their displeasure and yeah I sure got the message that they don't want something. Now what to do? Sit on my hands not knowing what the heck to do, why they didn't like it, what exactly was displeasing? Do I ask or are they too upset? Do I change it or is it ruined? I would respond so much better to "you know what, in the future could you make your references clearer, this is so hard for me to read!" ( or whatever ). It isn't that they are "coddling" me, or "making sure" I am never "upset", it is that the most effective and respectful (and imo kind) way to work with someone instead of against them is to empower them with the knowledge of knowing what *to* do.

Or my husband... say I come up to him "hey babe, do you want to order out tonight?"

NO.

Um.... okay...."Do you want to *go* out?"

NO.

Um....

How rude. Does he want to cook? Does he want me to cook? Did he already eat? Is there something else he wants to do? What the heck is going on here?

I imagine that is how children must feel a lot of times.

We rarely use *no* around here -- we almost always tell dd what we would prefer or spell our boundaries out. Instead of NO HITTING when she was little, we would say "touch gently" --- instead of NO RUNNING! we would say, please walk slowly (near water or whatever). This is tremendously effective in our experience, as it sets us all up for success rather than confusion, failure, and adversarial exchanges.

So while I don't think no is "wrong" neccessarily, it certainly isn't my first option...

...and what exactly is wrong with not wanting to hurt my child's feelings? I am not saying I never have or will, but it certainly is never, ever, ever my goal and I think that is a beautiful goal to aspire to.








Sarah, thanks for your post

CC, again I am in awe of your parenting! This was such a good post and why I aspire to be more like you.







What a terrific example.

And Sarah, I love reading your posts too because I've seen a lot of similarities between us before and I'm always impressed with what you have to say. It also helps me remember that it's a journey and I won't necessarily be able to be completely GD, even though it's my ideal, all the time. And that it's okay, I haven't failed, I just need to move on and try hard to do better next time.


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

What I said was offensive?....Well I am sorry but I did find your post very negative. If anything, it was you being quite offensive to this mother you used as an example and having a go at GD/AP. Thats exactly how I read it since thats exactly what you were ranting about.


----------



## Elvirnon (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleaugustbaby* 
ITA. Little kids don't process that stuff well.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between:

"NO! Do not throw toys!"

and

"It's not nice to throw toys, even if you are really mad. Somebody can get hurt. Let's let Katie have a turn with the toy first, and when she is done, it can be your turn..." and so on.

Why does it have to be either/or? My response would usually sound like a combination of the two; a stern warning (which usually stopped the behavior) followed by an explanation, if I felt that the situation warranted it. Mind you, I'm not talking about toddlers here, and I'm not talking about nitpicking every little instance of annoying behavior. By the time my girls were 4-5, they were very well aware of certain ground rules. If one of them hit the other, the hitter was not going to get an earful about how hitting hurts and it's not ok - she'd known that for years! A "Hey! You know better. If you two can't respect each other, you need to separate yourselves." was all that was needed, and now that they're older, they don't even need that anymore. Has anyone here claimed that yelling "No! Don't do that!" is, in and of itself, the most that a parent should ever need to say to a kid about the issue at hand? Because I haven't seen it, just a lot of insinuations that it's been suggested.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

I'm sorry I must be missing the context.

Was the post to legitimately ask why some people avoid using the word no with toddlers or to complain that someone who is dropping their young child off at daycare is being too nice to them?


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I guess what I want to know is..........why isn't it ok to say no?

Mostly because I despise when my kids learn to use it back at me.









That sucks.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I see a lot of posts here where parents ask for help with a big issue.........hitting, biting, other violent behavior.......and the first response is "well why are they doing it". I'm sorry, but I don't CARE WHY my 3 year old hit another kid, it's no ok. We'll talk about it and share our feelings AFTER he knows that it's not ok. It seems like it's just making excuses for bad behavior to say "Well, she hit because she was really tired". So you're teaching your kid that it's ok to be violent to others if you have a good excuse to do so?

No.










Okay, let me elaborate. I think the reason to try to figure out _why_ a little kid is hitting, biting or otherwise acting out is so that you can prevent those conditions from happening in the future. Otherwise, you can only say no when it happens again and again.

I think GD requires really clear limit setting (or giving information, or whatever) because otherwise it's not D., it's just G.

With a little one of three, I would interrupt the behavior first. It doesn't really matter whether you say "no," or "we don't hit" or "no hitting"--stopping the behavior in the moment is first.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I get a little worried at the AP label at times because it just seems so often lately it's associate with "those parents"..........those parents you see in the mall or the grocery store who have a child abusing the crud out of them and all the while the parent is gently cooing "Whats wrong bunny? Mommy doesn't like it when you hit me with that spatula!". YKWIM?

Yes, I think people are confused about what it means to do gentle discipline.

I have a few thoughts on this. One of my son's key issues is that he's a little passive. He was telling me that another child at preschool bit him. I said, "And what did you say?" and he said, "I said ow."










That, my dears, is the wrong answer.

Barking "no! no!" isn't what we want, because we want vocabulary development. I think we react against that kind of command because we associate it with attempting to elicit mindless obedience. Still, we have to model sticking up for ourselves in all relationships, including in relationship with the children themselves. Children will not learn good things from their mothers acting like doormats.

I don't want my child to stand and whine at me, "I'm thirsty!" I want him to say, "May I please have a glass of juice?" and then to roll with whatever answer he gets. (and I generally say yes to polite requests.) So that's how I'm trying to act. I'm trying, in every relationship, to ask very politely and firmly for what I want. That includes saying, "I don't want you to bite me, that's not acceptable behavior."

Believe me, a three year old can learn to say "acceptable behavior."


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovemyfamily6* 
CC, again I am in awe of your parenting! This was such a good post and why I aspire to be more like you.







What a terrific example.

Well shucks, flattery will get you EVERYWHERE with me









Seriously thank you so much it is very humbling to know someone feels this way







:


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
Mostly because I despise when my kids learn to use it back at me.









That sucks.

Well, IMO kids have every right to say no about the areas they control. As we have the right to say no about the areas we control. Boundaries and respect for yesses and nos are a good thing.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 

Believe me, a three year old can learn to say "acceptable behavior."

Darn tootin' they can. A 3-year-old can even use "exasperated" appropriately.







:

To the OP, I think there are two issues here, the issue of the sugary sweet "not my little angel baby cakes" syndrome where no matter what the child is doing it's met with sweety sweet requests....and as you said, and many comfirmed, that to most of us is not GD. Gentle, to most of us, does not equal milquetoast, which is probably why many hackles were up initially.

I've found that in my parenting, the more specific I am, the easier it is for my kids to understand what I want from them. So instead of "good", I use kind, polite, thoughtful, gentle, helpful - and instead of "bad" I use rude, bossy, rough, impolite. And I also fully agree with PP who said any time you can tell them what TO do it's far more effective than just telling them what not to do.

Having said that, you would probably hear things like, "No hitting! Be gentle with your brother." or, "Stop screaming. If you want help, just say help." in my household quite a bit these days. DD is rather, erm, spunky right now.







:







So while I don't think "No" and "Don't" in and of themselves are not evil words to be saying, I feel that there is a lot more you can say in a brief sentence that will help your kid to move past what they need to stop and get to what they should do instead.

re: parents who never want their kids to experience anything negative, I think there's 2 groups within that...the group that fits into the "not my little angel baby cakes" parents described above, who really aren't doing their kids any favors because they aren't guiding them into appropriate social behaviours...and then parents who are just as kind to their kids as they would be to any other person they knew, especially ones they love - who don't believe their kids are completely innocent all the time, but also don't believe that they are manipulative brats, and don't go out of their way to shame their kids, but don't go out of their way to sheild them from negative feelings, either.

At this point I'm just repeating what several others have said, so I'll just shut up now.







:


----------



## macca (Jan 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
Mostly because I despise when my kids learn to use it back at me.









That sucks.











Look, I've got a healthy respect for "no" and all that... but an occasional "yes" from DD would be nice too


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

I think there is value in questioning the use of the word "no", and my relationship with dd has definitely benefited from strategies that avoid the word "no".

Then again, sometimes a firm "no" is really the most effective communication.

Something really important to for me: when we are "disciplining", we are teaching more than the lesson at hand. We are also constantly teaching--through modeling--social and communication skills. If I want my children to have a broad set of skills, I should use a broad range of (appropriate) methods. In some cases, I definitely want my dc to say, clearly and firmly, "No!" By being selective with "no", I can model how to use that word effectively and appropriately. This become especially important, in my mind, as my child grows and spends more time in the company of others (children and adults) without me. I want to know that I have modeled how to set and maintain a personal boundary.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
I'm sorry I must be missing the context.

Was the post to legitimately ask why some people avoid using the word no with toddlers or to complain that someone who is dropping their young child off at daycare is being too nice to them?

Was this post legitimately to ask the intent of the OP, or was it to make a judgment about her intent?








Sorry, couldn't resist!


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well, IMO kids have every right to say no about the areas they control. As we have the right to say no about the areas we control. Boundaries and respect for yesses and nos are a good thing.

Yeah but the sucky part is when the 2 yr old JUST learned it and its her answer for EVERYTHING. And I am pregnant and stressed and tired and I am like







: PLEASE SAY YES DD, PLEASE...JUST THIS ONCE????!!!!!







:

Quote:

Look, I've got a healthy respect for "no" and all that... but an occasional "yes" from DD would be nice too








:


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
I'm sorry I must be missing the context.

Was the post to legitimately ask why some people avoid using the word no with toddlers or to complain that someone who is dropping their young child off at daycare is being too nice to them?


Well if the question is legitimate in and of itself, I was really wondering. I merely used that as an example to illustrate my point, rather than, say, point out posts here where I see similar advice given.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Was this post legitimately to ask the intent of the OP, or was it to make a judgment about her intent?








Sorry, couldn't resist!


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 

Just saying "dont hit!" certain does teach them that they need to find other ways to get your attention/get what they want! Kids are SMART! If Timmy can't hit to get your attention, he WILL find another way to get it. Caudling it seems counterproductive, in practice, to me.

Well adults are smart, too. But, let's say you were working in an office. You turn in a report to your boss. Which would you find more effective:
1) Don't do your reports like this.
2) In the future, could you make sure your reports include the earnings from the last quarter? That way, we can see the comparative data and we'll have a better sense of how to move forward.

When someone--adult or child--is learning, it is far easier to understand what is expected when...he or she is actually told what's expected.

I do use "no" with my dd--especially as an attention-getter if she's doing something dangerous. But if she doesn't understand why I'm saying "no", then how is she supposed to learn how to express herself in a more positive way. To me "No! Please don't put your hands in the dog's face. It upsets her. Look, here's how we pet the dog gently. See? She likes that." is going to do far more good in the long run than "No! Stop that!"

I don't think that's "coddling". I think it's teaching my daughter how to coexist with the people and creatures in her life, offering her instruction while acknowledging that she's a human being who is simply trying to express herself and make sense of her world.

ETA: Captain Crunchy...I didn't read the whole thread...I see you used the work analogy as well! And to the OP...I'm not, FTR, interested in protecting my dd from any negative consequences of her actions. I am, however, interested in actually helping her find productive solutions and ways to express herself.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
No.

Barking "no! no!" isn't what we want, because we want vocabulary development. I think we react against that kind of command because we associate it with attempting to elicit mindless obedience. Still, we have to model sticking up for ourselves in all relationships, including in relationship with the children themselves. Children will not learn good things from their mothers acting like doormats.
"

Believe me, a three year old can learn to say "acceptable behavior."


I've been thinking on this all day.........and I think it's just a lot of applying really complicated ideas to really simple little brains. Today, when I took my kids outside, one child tried to take a car away form another.......and I said "No, Jane". And she stopped. And she didn't stop and sit there staring dumbing not knowing what to do........she full well knew that I was catching her doing something she shouldn't and she stopped and went a car she COULD have. I think kids learn these things naturally, in a normal environment........they learn their alternatives. I see so many parents getting down in the face of a two year old and having these very complicated conversations about their "options" and about really complex ideas, and I see the 2 year olds tuning out and often realizing they can get away with anything because the worst outcome is undivided attention from mom or dad. KWIM?

Maybe the people I know IRL who apply GD are misusing it, and goodness I hope so. I just see a lot of justifying bad behavior and making excuses and over complicating things that don't need to be so.

And, vocabulary.........it always kind of cracks me up because even the parents I know who honestly NEVER use "no" in their home eventually end up with a toddler who says no.







I think it's a great, empowering thing for a toddler to learn! It's simple, easy to learn, and effective. Granted, I hate it too when my toddler says it to me, but what are ya gonna do!









I think that, again, in a normal environment in a healthy home, your child is going to learn enough vocabulary as it is. I personally used the Happiest Toddler on the Block theory with my son, and he's the biggest chatterbox I know for a 3 year old!!!


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NYCVeg* 
Well adults are smart, too. But, let's say you were working in an office. You turn in a report to your boss. Which would you find more effective:
1) Don't do your reports like this.
2) In the future, could you make sure your reports include the earnings from the last quarter? That way, we can see the comparative data and we'll have a better sense of how to move forward.

.











Someone else used this analogy and, while it makes me laugh, it doesn't apply. Kids aren't grown ups. Kids aren't doing detailed things which require instruction.......they are hitting mom or hitting a friend or taking a toy. In my experience if you say "Don't hit her" the child has a basic understanding that they need to find another way to express their displeasure with their friend. But, primary is not hitting.

Anyways.........I think I'm just repeating things I've already said.........


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

something that I am *trying* to be aware of is to use the positive instead of the negative...it seems to work better....when I remember to do it.

Like instead of "Dont hit her" say "touch her gentle."

Or

"Dont climb the slide!" I say "Up the steps!"

Man, those arent the best examples....but I think the "What *CAN* you do" works better than "You *Cant* do that."

As far as practicing what I preach. I totally suck.


----------



## LilyGrace (Jun 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 









Someone else used this analogy and, while it makes me laugh, it doesn't apply. Kids aren't grown ups. Kids aren't doing detailed things which require instruction.......they are hitting mom or hitting a friend or taking a toy. In my experience if you say "Don't hit her" the child has a basic understanding that they need to find another way to express their displeasure with their friend. But, primary is not hitting.

Anyways.........I think I'm just repeating things I've already said.........










The thing is though, is that a child can go through several different 'no's in order to find a 'yes'. It's much simpler to focus on the 'to do's.

You say that children are not doing detailed things, but they are. Social nuances are very detailed. I have the child who did/does not understand a lot of these and had to be taught from the very beginning what different faces mean. It is a very complicated thing especially when teaching it to one who has a mind like computer.

You say it's too drawn out to give options. Only if you make it so. You can give a direct instruction and still be GD, or maintain a respectful relationship with a child. You can say "you need to find a different toy. He is playing with that one right now" and mean the same thing as "No! Stop doing that!"

I don't find it very respectful to tell a child NO and then stick him in time out because he didn't find a YES all on his own. I find that shameful on the part of the teacher.


----------



## rachellanigh (Aug 26, 2006)

No is an answer to a question. Not an order. The words stop or danger work just in well in place of most no's.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
: In my experience if you say "Don't hit her" _the child has a basic understanding that they need to find another way to express their displeasure with their friend_. But, primary is not hitting.


But, of course, we must also teach them the alternative ways to express their displeasure.

The alternative could also be said.....In my experience, if you say "Hitting hurts. Please use words" the child has the basic understanding that hitting is inappropriate.

Different approaches work better with different children. I think the real problem arises when we stick with a method because we feel that the philosophy is best, but it isn't working for our child. I've recently experienced this point, and it took me a while to sort it out.


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 









Someone else used this analogy and, while it makes me laugh, it doesn't apply. Kids aren't grown ups. Kids aren't doing detailed things which require instruction.......they are hitting mom or hitting a friend or taking a toy. In my experience if you say "Don't hit her" the child has a basic understanding that they need to find another way to express their displeasure with their friend. But, primary is not hitting.

Anyways.........I think I'm just repeating things I've already said.........









I agree that if you say "No!" that the child has a basic understanding that they need to find another way to express their displeasure. I disagree that finding the other way isn't a "detailed thing which requires instruction." Social interactions are incredibly complex--the "rules" of good behavior require that we surpress many many urges, emotions, and actions which we feel naturally--for a child, who has far less experience navigating the waters of cultural norms, and who has done so in many fewer contexts than an adult, and who naturally has far less impulse control, finding that "other way" can be quite complicated indeed. I have a close relative with Asperger's syndrome--if you don't believe that social interaction is *incredibly* complicated, you should watch someone who doesn't always have the ability or tools to respond in socially acceptable ways to what's going on around her.

I guess I don't see what is to be gained by *not* offering the child a better to express himself. Why not follow the "Don't hit her" with "If you want to play with that toy, you may ask him nicely to share. Or, you can wait your turn and play with this instead.

I also think some of what you're saying here is colored by your personal experience. Now and then I see a kid "getting away with murder"--hitting another child without repercussions, etc.--but more often I see kids whose social interactions are ridiculously proscribed precisely b/c the parent is afraid of allowing the child to, well, be a child. In other words, a very young toddler takes a ball from my young toddler. My daughter doesn't even notice. But the parent immediately snatches the ball away, says "NO! We have to share!", then gives the ball back to my dd (who has probably lost interest). The parents is No-No-Noing, when the child is simply behaving like a regular child and isn't really doing any harm If your child hits my daughter and she starts to cry, then, yes, I expect you to intervene--if our children are just interacting like normal children and no one is bawling, then for pete's sake just let them interact and learn. Let them navigate their social world. What I see is parents who don't have any compunction about hurting their own child's feelings, but are afraid to the point of absurdity of hurting another child's feelings.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
I've been thinking on this all day.........and I think it's just a lot of applying really complicated ideas to really simple little brains.

No, anothermama.

I'm basing my ideas on the research of Hart and Risley. They did longitudinal studies of toddler language acquisition that showed there were long term benefits to using more words with toddlers. (You can see a description of their research in a summary of their book, here:

http://www.brookespublishing.com/sto...1979/index.htm)

I don't have a problem with the word no, but I take exception to the idea that we should use it alone because young children are too dumb to pick up the idea if we use more complex language.

Look, you are going to find ineffective discipline all along the philosophical spectrum. Toddlers are challenging, and they are way more challenging to their parents than to a caregiver.

I just starting hanging out on this forum after some time away and nearly every thread is about a three year old who has suddenly gotten really defiant, is running into the street, throwing tantrums, and hitting. Some threads are about two or four year olds. (Or as I like to think of it, kids with "three year old-ness" that started early or hung on extra long.)

I did say no, and I still do, but that's by far my least effective strategy. I wouldn't hand out advice to other people that involved analyzing a kid's behavior and preventing meltdowns if that didn't work for me. I understand you are advocating having a spine, and I think that's important, but I think you're getting a lot of the particulars of your argument wrong.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
No, anothermama.

I'm basing my ideas on the research of Hart and Risley. They did longitudinal studies of toddler language acquisition that showed there were long term benefits to using more words with toddlers. (You can see a description of their research in a summary of their book, here:

http://www.brookespublishing.com/sto...1979/index.htm)

I don't have a problem with the word no, but I take exception to the idea that we should use it alone because young children are too dumb to pick up the idea if we use more complex language.

Look, you are going to find ineffective discipline all along the philosophical spectrum. Toddlers are challenging, and they are way more challenging to their parents than to a caregiver.

I just starting hanging out on this forum after some time away and nearly every thread is about a three year old who has suddenly gotten really defiant, is running into the street, throwing tantrums, and hitting. Some threads are about two or four year olds. (Or as I like to think of it, kids with "three year old-ness" that started early or hung on extra long.)

I did say no, and I still do, but that's by far my least effective strategy. I wouldn't hand out advice to other people that involved analyzing a kid's behavior and preventing meltdowns if that didn't work for me. I understand you are advocating having a spine, and I think that's important, but I think you're getting a lot of the particulars of your argument wrong.


Uhm, I'm familiar with those studies, as well as others which contradict it, I was a sociology major with an emphasis in childhood development........

Which is neither here nor there. I can disagree with it and I really wasn't looking to get into a pissing match nor was I looking to start whipping out falacious debate tactics.........I wasn't even looking to debate.

Sorry if I offended you. I think I'm right. I see it in practice every day. But if you disagree, that's ok.

I don't advocate using ONLY no, and I didn't say kids are dumb. I think their psychology is not as complex, that is all. I believe they catch on to human interaction and concepts. And my whole point was simply that I think many parents use the umbrella of GD to be over indulgent and it's not really helping these kids grasp those concepts of human interaction.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
And my whole point was simply that I think many parents use the umbrella of GD to be over indulgent and it's not really helping these kids grasp those concepts of human interaction.

Sure. But, then it's not *GD* that's producing over indulgent kids--it's something else that people are calling GD. Which, frankly, kind of makes it neither here nor there in terms of what most people are practicing.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

The4OfUs I







you and agree with everything you said.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 








In my experience if you say "Don't hit her" the child has a basic understanding that they need to find another way to express their displeasure with their friend. But, primary is not hitting.

But how does she figure out that other way to express her displeasure? She can either figure it out herself, after perhaps a few failed ideas, or an adult can give her some ideas to give her a head start in succeeding.

It's almost like making it easier for them to comply. I'm all for making my life easier!


----------



## verde (Feb 11, 2007)

anothermama, I agree with much of what you said. I also think that sometimes we overlook the simple and straightforward and try to overanalyze every nuance of every sentence. And like the OP, I've witnessed some of those conversations in which parents seem almost afraid to say no and I agree that it can be maddening.

Having said that, to address the original question, I do say "no" but I try to save it for special occasions -- usually those dealing with safety. I try not to use it a lot for everyday things. As a result, when I do say no, my DD listens because she knows I'm serious.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Anything, if used to much, becomes ineffective. Saying "no" too often does diminish it's impact, IMO.

I love these discussions but I always feel that it ultimately comes down to the individual child and parent and their relationship above and beyond any technique or word or philosophy.

I certainly agree that "no" alone isn't terribly helpful. I always try to give my kids alternatives to their impulses to hit or push. I feel like that's my job to guide them, not just to call out when they've blown it. But I don't think the OP was suggesting that one doesn't explain alternatives...but maybe I'm wrong on that. I'm assuming that a firm "no" is followed up with some guidance as to what other action or words would be appropriate.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Was this post legitimately to ask the intent of the OP, or was it to make a judgment about her intent?








Sorry, couldn't resist!

Yeah, my question is a laugh riot.

I have no interest in trying to convince someone to parent the way I do. I'm happy to answer people actual questions about *why* someone might avoid framing communication in a negative way. I'm pretty convinced I have a great relationship with dp lasting through thick and thin for a lot of years because she phrases things positively to me, rather than nagging and carping. It's a more effective way to communicate.

When people come to our house and spend time, the thing they comment on is that we talk to each other nicely here and treat each other well. We're not fakey. We actually all like each other a lot. We like spending time together and creating a beautiful life together.

We sometimes act in ways that don't meet our standards. The other day, dp and I had a loud snark in the driveway. It doesn't happen often and it was stupid.

The kids are less likely to screw up than we are. When they do there is a good reason and I do care.

The sing-songy voice: very common in Waldorf. They use it for particular reasons because they think children hear it better. To understand a little about it, read you are your child's first teacher.

It sounds like the original poster knows the reasons people might frame things positively and simply disagrees with them. Fine. Then just say that.

The title chould be changed to something like: I think no is great thing to tell children, then explain why. I think it would be wonderful for her to send a note to the parents of her daycare attendees explaining her discipline philosophy, including that she thinks no is great way to communicate with children's simple minds.

My kids thinking and feelings strike me as different from my own, but no less complex. I respect that other parents' experience of their own children might be different and they might choose to respond to the simplicity of their own children differently than I do the complexity of mine.

I seriously can't imagine criticisizing another mother for being too nice to her child at daycare dropoff. I can't imagine how it would be my business how she responds to her toddler hitting her. And I am not a behaviorist, so I don't think that responding with compassion to my toddler when I am leaving her for hours in someone else's care will "give them positive attention" and therefore increase the behavior. But as I said, my children are just more complex than that.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
My kids thinking and feelings strike me as different from my own, but no less complex. I respect that other parents' experience of their own children might be different and they might choose to respond to the simplicity of their own children differently than I do the complexity of mine.

ITA. I never think for a moment that my ds is simple-minded. I've learned tremendous amounts from him and am always amazed by how he perceives and interprets the world.

I also agree with your last point, chfriend, about the mom dropping the child off at daycare. I hadn't even really thought about that but that brings more complexity into the situation, for sure.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
Uhm, I'm familiar with those studies, as well as others which contradict it, I was a sociology major with an emphasis in childhood development........
Which is neither here nor there. I can disagree with it and I really wasn't looking to get into a pissing match nor was I looking to start whipping out falacious debate tactics.........I wasn't even looking to debate.
Sorry if I offended you. I think I'm right. I see it in practice every day. But if you disagree, that's ok.
I don't advocate using ONLY no, and I didn't say kids are dumb. I think their psychology is not as complex, that is all. I believe they catch on to human interaction and concepts. And my whole point was simply that I think many parents use the umbrella of GD to be over indulgent and it's not really helping these kids grasp those concepts of human interaction.

It sounds like no matter what kind of evidence anyone else presents for why they are doing something different from you, you are going to continue to insist that their methods are harmful and yours are right. (I guess that means you fit in well here!







)

It's a fallacious debate tactic to present a link to a published study? No, it's a fallacious debate tactic to present an argument from authority ("I was a sociology major with a concentration in child development") with only anecdotal evidence ("I see it in practice every day").

I am not just disagreeing with you to be contrary, I think you're wrong because you haven't presented me with any persuasive reasons to change my mind and because you have supported your main assertion ("I think many parents use the umbrella of GD to be over indulgent and it's not really helping these kids grasp those concepts of human interaction") with really easily punctured statements like "I think it's just a lot of applying really complicated ideas to really simple little brains."

I send my kid to daycare, and I'm pretty happy with the way they do discipline, in part because it _doesn't_ consist of saying "No Johnny!" I would be worried, if I saw the teachers resolving children's conflicts that way, because I would think that they weren't providing adequate verbal stimulation for my child when I left him there. Now, obviously, at your home daycare you are reading the children storybooks during the day, and providing lots of opportunities for pretend play and other interaction--discipline isn't the only opportunity for learning vocabulary. Still, if I knew that my daycare provider thought that little children's psychology was too simple for more complex interactions, I would really hesitate.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Sure. But, then it's not *GD* that's producing over indulgent kids--it's something else that people are calling GD. Which, frankly, kind of makes it neither here nor there in terms of what most people are practicing.

Okay, well fair enough. But then when these people call it GD, which I notice is a very frequently used label for passive ineffective parenting, then where does the seperation between this and 'real' GD begin and end? And, what a coinkidink that this type of parenting is so often called GD. Doesn't that denote that GD philosophy, if 'real' GD can be objectively defined, is contributing in some way to erring on the side of ineffectual?


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Okay, well fair enough. But then when these people call it GD, which I notice is a very frequently used label for passive ineffective parenting, then where does the seperation between this and 'real' GD begin and end? And, what a coinkidink that this type of parenting is so often called GD. _Doesn't that denote that GD philosophy, if 'real' GD can be objectively defined, is contributing in some way to erring on the side of ineffectual?_

No. No. Put that argument down now. No.

(This thread is really bringing out some of my most sarcastic tendencies.)

For two reasons

First, logically, because "gentle discipline" is an umbrella term for a variety of parenting strategies, as should be obvious from this forum. Some of them involve using other words than "no" and some don't.

Second, anecdotally, because my friend's mom used to hit her with her copy of Haim Ginott's book on how to parent without spanking back in the 1960s. Because my mom used to start out with Parent Effectiveness Training speak and then lose her temper and hit me, in the 1970s. I do not blame Haim Ginott, great advocate of gentle discipline because his book was used to smack a kid. I just don't think that the parenting philosophy is at fault for either abusive or spineless parenting.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Okay but if you are getting hit with a copy of a 'don't hit' book, there is no connection between the philosophy and you getting hit. The philosophy is not advocating hitting.

But, there are connections between what people call "GD" and ineffective parenting IMO. I see a lot of parent blame for children's bad behaviour, like this pressure that if the child does something wrong it's actually always your fault and you need to look for why. Seriously, I've been told that, and recently, on this forum. And this taboo on consequences, that non-consequences is somehow more 'evolved,' and that my child's trust will be broken and she will feel unloved if I give her (respectful, not overly harsh) consequences.

Pretty direct connection between these things and ineffective parenting IMO. I have seen these things directly applied to children in the name of GD in what becomes a pathetic, toothless attempt to halt absolutely out of bounds behaviour.


----------



## TinkerBelle (Jun 29, 2005)

I think that there is nothing with telling a child "no". I do not understand people who never, ever say that word, no matter what, but hey, to each their own. However, I also believe that "no" can be overused and lose it's effectiveness.

Moderation in everything, is my motto.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Sure. But, then it's not *GD* that's producing over indulgent kids--it's something else that people are calling GD. Which, frankly, kind of makes it neither here nor there in terms of what most people are practicing.









:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Okay, well fair enough. But then when these people call it GD, which I notice is a very frequently used label for passive ineffective parenting, then where does the seperation between this and 'real' GD begin and end? And, what a coinkidink that this type of parenting is so often called GD. Doesn't that denote that GD philosophy, if 'real' GD can be objectively defined, is contributing in some way to erring on the side of ineffectual?

Personally, I think there has to be the "D" in there, the teaching of what we want their eventual outcome to be, the enforcing of the limit that's been set, or else it's just "G"....wait, didn't someone else already say that? So I see your point about a parent being just "gentle" with their child without offering them any guidance as being a contribution from 'real' GD, since we all strive to be kind to our children. Gentle Discipline by its own name has discipline _in_ it - so if there is no guidance, no teaching of socially acceptable behaviors, no presentation of the affects their actions have on others - then it's really not discipline. And gentleness in and of itself, while pleasant, isn't _necessarily_ very helpful when trying to learn something.

I also think that society is so wrapped up in the "they need to be punished!" mindframe that when they see a parent who is just being gentle and nicey nice and not teaching their child anything, and a parent who IS teaching their child something but not punishing them (not "doing anything"), they both get lumped into the same category, whether or not the parent is claiming to use GD. IMHO, we need to get society over that hump that kids always need something punitive "done" to them when they mess up or -they're getting away with something/they'll be shocked once they're in the real world - in order to better understand what gentle discipline is really about. I was punished exactly once as a child/teen...and am about as law abiding and well adjusted as they come (if I do say so myself...







)

Setting and enforcing limits and boundaries around your child, yourself, around others, and around property DOES effectively teach your child, without piling anything on top of it to 'teach' your child a lesson, a vast majority of the time. The enforcing of the limit IS the lesson. Sometimes those boundaries include things that wind up as a consequence, sometimes they don't. It would seem it's the 'enforcing the limit' part that the milquetoast parents that I've seen just aren't 'getting' - the ones who do the singsongy voice asking sweetly 10 times for their kid to stop doing whatever without actually helping them stop, and/or find something better to do. Setting a limit, but not enforcing it, is not doing anyone any favors (and even on the one far end of "real" GD, consensually living parents have their own limits and boundaries they enforce).

I think those are a couple ways that GD gets a bad name.

JMHO. Take it or leave it!


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
The4OfUs I







you and agree with everything you said.

Likewise!!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
She can either figure it out herself, after perhaps a few failed ideas, or an adult can give her some ideas to give her a head start in succeeding.

It's almost like making it easier for them to comply. I'm all for making my life easier!









: I am ALL about easier right now.


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
It sounds like no matter what kind of evidence anyone else presents for why they are doing something different from you, you are going to continue to insist that their methods are harmful and yours are right. (I guess that means you fit in well here!







)
.

Yeah, this is the impression I get as well.

I think you're blaming GD, when what you actually mean is a failure to communicate effectively with one's child.

Let's take some examples. First, yours (slightly exaggerated). Suzie hits Judy and takes her truck. Judy cries. Suzie's mama swoops in and says, "Oh, Snuggly Snookums, did you hit Judy? You must be tired, my poor Snuggly Wuggly. Let's get ice cream." You say the parent isn't effectively communicating that hitting is wrong. I agree. The "discipline" in "gentle discipline" means guidance--in this case, the parent is not guiding her child.

Example 2. Suzie hits Judy. Suzie's mama says, "No!" in a firm voice. Suzie stops. Ten minutes later she hits again. Suzie's mama says, "No!" Suzie stops. Half an hour later she hits again. Suzie's mama continues to say "No!" and Suzie's behavior always stops temporarily, but then she returns to it. Suzie is frustrated and wants Judy's toys. She is mostly pre-verbal and doesn't know how to "ask nicely." Here, too, I would say that the parent is communicating ineffectively--Suzie needs further guidance and mama is only interested in stopping the behavior in the present, not getting to the root of it or preventing it in the future.

Example 3. This one, sadly, is true. There's a child we sometimes see at the park who is constantly aggressive with younger kids. He gave a girl a black eye one day. He pushed dd over once. If you tell his mother what happened, she walks over to her child, tells him he's misbehaved and then proceeds to smack him.







This puts the rest of us in an uncomfortable position--if we "tell" on the child, he gets hit. Again, this mother is communicating ineffectively. She is *telling* her child that hitting and pushing are bad, but she is demonstrating to him that bigger people work out their frustrations and disapproval of littler people by hitting them. The latter message is the one the child takes away.

It has nothing to do with GD or mainstream parenting or punitive discipline, IMO. It has everything to do with the fact that the parent seems not to understand that what they're doing isn't producing the results they want. You can scapegoat GD, but I think the problem exists all across the disciplinary spectrum.

You have heard from parents on this thread who say they do not generally use the word no, but still manage to effectively enforce boundaries. You have heard from parents who do use "no" sometimes, but find it much more effective when coupled with positive suggestions. People have also provided some "expert' opinions that confirms these experiences. And yet you seem to believe these experiences are invalid. Perhaps something else works better for *your* children, but do you really find it so hard to believe that parents can practice GD without "coddling" or failing to enforce boundaries?


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
I send my kid to daycare, and I'm pretty happy with the way they do discipline, in part because it _doesn't_ consist of saying "No Johnny!" I would be worried, if I saw the teachers resolving children's conflicts that way, because I would think that they weren't providing adequate verbal stimulation for my child when I left him there.

I agree. Further, if I saw the exchange that the OP described where she says her child's name after he does something wrong and the child starts to cry, it would give me great pause. YMMV.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
And this taboo on consequences, that non-consequences is somehow more 'evolved,' and that my child's trust will be broken and she will feel unloved if I give her (respectful, not overly harsh) consequences.

Right, and just as you know that "your" GD is not resulting in your child's trust being broken and feeling unloved, I guess other people know that "their" GD is not resulting in kids who are entitled, social misfits, who can't behave reasonably in public.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I have seen these things directly applied to children in the name of GD in what becomes a pathetic, toothless attempt to halt absolutely out of bounds behaviour.

Absolutely. I think we all have. I, personally, got really tired of going on outings with some other babywearing, bfing parents whose kids were running, screaming, and DESTROYING other people's property. Not only b/c I think it's total and complete b.s.--but also b/c I think it DOES reflect badly on AP and GD. But those moms still used plenty of time-outs and consequences and other "stricter" GD methods--so I dunno......I've seen plenty of parents out in public who act that way right up to the point where they smack the tar out of the kid. I don't think it's the fault of philosophy that they subscribe to. I think it's a million other things: lack of knowledge, primarily; laziness; different standards; life/health circumstances; and on and on.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
Personally, I think there has to be the "D" in there, the teaching of what we want their eventual outcome to be, the enforcing of the limit that's been set, or else it's just "G"....wait, didn't someone else already say that? So I see your point about a parent being just "gentle" with their child without offering them any guidance as being a contribution from 'real' GD, since we all strive to be kind to our children. Gentle Discipline by its own name has discipline _in_ it - so if there is no guidance, no teaching of socially acceptable behaviors, no presentation of the affects their actions have on others - then it's really not discipline. And gentleness in and of itself, while pleasant, isn't _necessarily_ very helpful when trying to learn something.

I also think that society is so wrapped up in the "they need to be punished!" mindframe that when they see a parent who is just being gentle and nicey nice and not teaching their child anything, and a parent who IS teaching their child something but not punishing them (not "doing anything"), they both get lumped into the same category, whether or not the parent is claiming to use GD. IMHO, we need to get society over that hump that kids always need something punitive "done" to them when they mess up or -they're getting away with something/they'll be shocked once they're in the real world - in order to better understand what gentle discipline is really about. I was punished exactly once as a child/teen...and am about as law abiding and well adjusted as they come (if I do say so myself...







)

Setting and enforcing limits and boundaries around your child, yourself, around others, and around property DOES effectively teach your child, without piling anything on top of it to 'teach' your child a lesson, a vast majority of the time. The enforcing of the limit IS the lesson. Sometimes those boundaries include things that wind up as a consequence, sometimes they don't. It would seem it's the 'enforcing the limit' part that the milquetoast parents that I've seen just aren't 'getting' - the ones who do the singsongy voice asking sweetly 10 times for their kid to stop doing whatever without actually helping them stop, and/or find something better to do. Setting a limit, but not enforcing it, is not doing anyone any favors (and even on the one far end of "real" GD, consensually living parents have their own limits and boundaries they enforce).

I think those are a couple ways that GD gets a bad name.

JMHO. Take it or leave it!

I'll take it!







I think this was spot on.

And, really, if people had seen me dealing with my oldest son when he was 2 or 3 and was hitting all the time, they might have thought that my gentle techniques of talking to him, showing him soft touch, encouraging him to check in with the kid was all very ineffective--b/c it didn't STOP him from hitting. Now, I did physically intervene and I followed him around like a hawk so I could prevent him from hurting another child, but that, too, was "ineffective." If people had seen the times where I lost my cool and yelled, "NO!!! STOP HITTING ME!!!!" they might have thought that was ineffective, too. Because it didn't stop him from hitting. And if they had seen the several occasions where I went bat-shit crazy and smacked him back, they probably would have thought that was ineffective, too. Because, again, it didn't stop him from hitting.

What did stop him eventually? When we stopped feeding him all manner of foods that he was allergic to. It was like someone flipped a switch.

Likewise, if a kid is in the middle of a divorce or a new baby has just entered the scene or whatever other stressors are happening.....*I* want to know that. I do care why the kid is hitting. Because, in my experience, you can attempt to modify the behavior all day long, but the underlying issue is not getting resolved. And even if that particular behavior stops, then something else is likely going to pop right up b/c that underlying issue is still there.

This quote from Peggy O'Mara in the GD forum guidelines has really been true in my experience:

Quote:

Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems.
And now my "hitter" is almost 6 and he doesn't hit any more, but he's got a toolbox FULL of gentle techniques he can use when he gets angry or wants something someone else has, or if he's mediating between other people who are in conflict. So, really, all that gentle talking and showing was effective in the long term b/c it gave him some life skills. The telling him, "NO!" was OK, but he pretty much already had that tool, you know?


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Okay, well fair enough. But then when these people call it GD, which I notice is a very frequently used label for passive ineffective parenting, then where does the seperation between this and 'real' GD begin and end? And, what a coinkidink that this type of parenting is so often called GD. Doesn't that denote that GD philosophy, if 'real' GD can be objectively defined, is contributing in some way to erring on the side of ineffectual?









:


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I have been doing my best to resist the urge to participate in this thread. This thread is a perfect example of why I try to avoid the GD forum. The original post feels like a thinly veiled way to say "I think everyone who does not do things my way is wrong wrong wrong". There is no true interest in finding out why people might avoid the word "no" as the title suggests.

FTR, I have seen all sorts of ineffective discipline under the name of GD and every other "discipline method" out there. Frankly, a lot of parents are doing the best they can. When witnessing something I might do differently, I seldom know the history behind the relationship. Who knows what brought the parent there? Perhaps the sing-song coddle method that is driving some people nuts is actually the most effective tool that particular parent has come across? Perhaps that family is healing from spanking or other abusive discipline methods? Perhaps their child is very sensitive or shy or whatever? Perhaps perhaps perhaps...... I see absolutely no point in bashing them or their methods unless we are dealing with true abuse that should be reported.

We do avoid using "no" as a end-all discipline method. I remember my mom rolling her eyes at me the first time we asked her to not bark it at our just exploring 6 month old. She is retired from a 40+ year stint as a pediatric nurse. That along with raising her two cherubs makes her think she is by far the most qualified child expert to ever hit the scene







She went on and on about "parents today and the word NO.....". Cracked me up. I pointed out to her that she did not raise us that way. Oh yeah. "Well, you two were exceptionally well behaved children......" Ha ha. Well, perhaps we were "well behaved" because things were calmly explained to us, our impulses were honored, and no one barked or slapped their way into shaping us. I do not remember either of my parents ever saying "no" and leaving it at that. This is not some new phenomenon.

As to "parent blaming"..... It seems the to that the OP is suggesting that any ill behavior of "other kids" must be purely because they are not used to being told "NO!" enough. Seems like parent blaming is being dished out all over the place, eh? Blame is a complicated concept. If a parent is using "discipline" that is ineffective, then whose fault is it? Complicated, eh? Over and over, there will be posters here that just want everyone to say it is the child's fault. These are the posters that will dismiss any sort of advice given with a "yeah, but.....". IME, using curt, non-explanatory messages, such as "no", to guide my child's behavior is ineffective and results in "bad behavior" Also, IME, ignoring root causes and influences also leads to "ineffective discipline". I am the adult and often have more control and experience to recognize issues and adjust the situation when possible. When I fail to do so, I do not "blame" myself but I sure take note to aid me in the same situation later. Some people might call that "blame", I call it "learning from past experiences". Either way, I would say the parent that chooses to not do that and go forward with whatever discipline method regardless of the outcome is creating their own misery. And then wants everyone to say it is their kid's fault. Hmmmmm. Then we could call this forum "let's bash our kid forum". Discipline is about guiding our children and so I define this forum as being a place to discuss *our* actions in the guidance journey.

If the OP and others on this thread that feel "NO" is the best discipline method are happy with it, great! I see no point in engaging many people in a dialog in the spirit of questioning "why" when there really is no desire to understand why. If you just want to bash people, be honest in the OP.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NYCVeg* 
Yeah, this is the impression I get as well.

You have heard from parents on this thread who say they do not generally use the word no, but still manage to effectively enforce boundaries. You have heard from parents who do use "no" sometimes, but find it much more effective when coupled with positive suggestions. People have also provided some "expert' opinions that confirms these experiences. And yet you seem to believe these experiences are invalid. Perhaps something else works better for *your* children, but do you really find it so hard to believe that parents can practice GD without "coddling" or failing to enforce boundaries?

No, not at all. I think what is honestly happening here is that a few people are getting bent out of shape and are starting to play the "Let's be as extreme as we can" internet communication game, insisting that somehow I'm some ignorant child abuser who screams "NO" at kids all the time. Your examples were extremes, and failed to show a middle ground, which there always is, and which I believe happens.

And I also think what is happening is that I am not, in fact, finding their experiences invalid, but there are a couple people who have valid points, or who are sharing good experiences, we just happen to disagree on the perspective. That doesn't mean I find them invalid, per say, it just means we see the situation from a different POV. For example, some of what Deva44mommy has said.........I've said that I think we're just talking about two sides of the same coin. I really find it hard to take seriously someone trying to attack my POV when they ignore very obvious statements I've made.

I "blame" GD because, honestly, I see it enforced. When I see parents being ineffective, I see their actions being affirmed by people who advocate GD methods. And, like the4oufus said, there has to be a "D" in "GD" right? I don't want to point fingers or make anyone feel badly, but I see it on this board a lot........a child will, for example, be violent to, say, a sibling or younger smaller kid, and I see a lot of people responding with things like "Well WHY did Suzy punch the crap out of Johnny" or "She must have been very frustrated, you need to acknowledge that!". It seems like it's NOT ok to ever advocate being firm or, again, for example, that violence isn't ok. (And, ITS JUST AN EXAMPLE and I'm really not interested in being persecuted for providing an example.)

I see a lot of parents in real life who say that they practice GD, heck I've even met parents who talk about Mothering recommending such and such book. Who knows......maybe there is a disconnect between what they read and what they practice? Maybe these authors are just ineffective authors? I don't know.

I don't agree with just screaming "NO" at a kid and thats all. But I also don't agree with being nicey nice to a kid when they misbehave, that's all. I don't agree with the FIRST option all the time being "Lets talk about our feelings why you punched Judy in the eye".

Anyways...........I feel like I'm saying what I've said before. Most of the people in this discussion have taken ALL the things that I've said and responded really nicely and given me a lot to think about and I appreciate it. However, because this in the internet, of course there are a few who are going to pick and chose what they want to hear from me and attack certain things and make disparaging comments, however subtle, on my character, just because we don't agree. And since I've said all I have to say, I'll probably bow out at this point. Again, I appreciate those who've really provided interesting points and things for me to think about. Overall, I feel a lot better that maybe just the parents I know IRL are just ineffective parents who don't understand GD I guess.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
s" If you just want to bash people, be honest in the OP.

Yeah, really.







:


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
Yeah, really.







:

Well, you asked a question "What's wrong with no?". Some people agreed that "no" has it's place. Some other people gave you their reasons for what they thought was "wrong" with "no". Then you have systematically dismissed each one and continued the original rant that the problem with GD today is that everyone is doing it "wrong" in your opinion. I just think that you would get more of what you wanted out of the thread if it was more like "I hate it went parents do not use the word "no", I think it is wrong, can everyone that agrees with me please post in this thread".

You are happy with the way you discipline, right? Great! I would guess that you have a lot of great advice for people that ask for it. Advice that might be different than what others do. But I just do not see the point in continually saying that you think other methods are wrong and ineffective when others have said they DO find other methods effective and right for them. I guess I am missing the point?

I personally really do not care what others call GD. Some people call themselves GD when I disagree that what they are doing is GD. Perhaps *I* think it is too harsh to be considered GD or too ineffective to be called "discipline" at all. But so what? How does this matter to my own discipline methods and relationship with my child? Perhaps it is because I do not ID myself as GD. I am not sure I have ever used the label in a conversation outside of this site. I do not find that it comes up in regular life outside of MDC. We just do what we do and I am sure someone on a message board somewhere is complaining about it


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
..... but I see it on this board a lot........a child will, for example, be violent to, say, a sibling or younger smaller kid, and I see a lot of people responding with things like "Well WHY did Suzy punch the crap out of Johnny" or "She must have been very frustrated, you need to acknowledge that!". It seems like it's NOT ok to ever advocate being firm or, again, for example, that violence isn't ok.

But one of the main premises of this forum (set out by the owner of this board and the editor of Mothering magazine) is that there is a "WHY" and that it is worth looking at.

I see people advocate being firm and telling kids that violence isn't OK all the time here.

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive (talking about the WHY and being firm). I see them both as GD and that some folks lean more to the WHY and some folks lean more to the firm. Lots of room for both!


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
We just do what we do and I am sure someone on a message board somewhere is complaining about it


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

I say no all the time. I have no patience for the extreme GD view. I don't spank my kids or shame them but I am not afraid to tell my kids no. I'm not going to walk on egg shells.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

The words "coddling", "walking on eggshells", and "protecting their fragile egos" is just as offensive to parents that choose words other than "no" as it is for the other side to call parents that do choose to use it "tyrannical", "mean", or "abusive".

Perhaps that is my big problem here.

Can we not discuss this without flinging names at each other?

And I keep my eggshells in the garbage. I do not walk on them. We try not to use punishment and we do avoid the word "no" (less and less now that dd is old enough to start figuring out alternatives on her own BTW) but that does not mean I am sitting here all afraid that I am going to say the wrong thing. Our interactions are very natural. I do not have a problem talking about how I feel in situations even if how I feel is not very pretty at the moment. I see that as an entirely different issue from "discipline". I suppose there are people that walk around in fear of saying the wrong thing to their kids, but that can happen no matter what side of the spectrum you lay on. No?


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
And I also think what is happening is that I am not, in fact, finding their experiences invalid, but there are a couple people who have valid points, or who are sharing good experiences, we just happen to disagree on the perspective. That doesn't mean I find them invalid, per say, it just means we see the situation from a different POV. For example, some of what Deva44mommy has said.........I've said that I think we're just talking about two sides of the same coin. I really find it hard to take seriously someone trying to attack my POV when they ignore very obvious statements I've made.

Wait, do you feel like I attacked your POV? Please let me know, because I didn't intend to. Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding. Or maybe you weren't referring to me in the last sentence?

(And while we're being open and honest, I'll say that I did find it a bit harsh when you said "I really hate that approach." I understood what you were referring to, and explained my use of that approach, and didn't get anything in response from you. Or if so, I missed it somehow.)

Quote:

I "blame" GD because, honestly, I see it enforced. When I see parents being ineffective, I see their actions being affirmed by people who advocate GD methods. And, like the4oufus said, there has to be a "D" in "GD" right? I don't want to point fingers or make anyone feel badly, but I see it on this board a lot........a child will, for example, be violent to, say, a sibling or younger smaller kid, and I see a lot of people responding with things like "Well WHY did Suzy punch the crap out of Johnny" or "She must have been very frustrated, you need to acknowledge that!". It seems like it's NOT ok to ever advocate being firm or, again, for example, that violence isn't ok. (And, ITS JUST AN EXAMPLE and I'm really not interested in being persecuted for providing an example.)
I think there's a huge gap between *knowing* what's effective discipline and *using* effective discipline. I generally know the best way to deal with a situation. But I have a hard time actually doing it. I used to end up yelling or shaming, instead of doing what I was quite sure would actually work.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
II see it on this board a lot........a child will, for example, be violent to, say, a sibling or younger smaller kid, and I see a lot of people responding with things like "Well WHY did Suzy punch the crap out of Johnny" or "She must have been very frustrated, you need to acknowledge that!". It seems like it's NOT ok to ever advocate being firm or, again, for example, that violence isn't ok. .


I can relate to where you are coming from, anothermama.....I have had some struggles recently with dd, and I had to get MUCH more firm to find peace in our home. And I had to use some methods that are not advocated by the likes of Alfie Kohn, for example. And now dd is much happier, so I am assuming that I did the right thing for her.

But, if you truly read a lot here, there are plenty of posters who advocate being firm, and setting firm limits. Look up my posts about dd, maybe, and you'll find them







. I got a lot of support when I thought GD had "failed" us, and the posters here helped me to understand that I can set firm limits and have consequences for over-the-top behavior and still be GD.

The middle ground is definitely here. I think that the extremes just stand out a bit more.....or maybe they are a bit more likely to post....or maybe (and I think this may be the case) their posts just get more attention (both good and bad).

I do think, however, that all of the GD philosophies presented here are incredibly valuable. Not every philosophy will work for each family, but hopefully every family can find a GD lifestyle that really works for them. And remember....when you see people "failing".....we are all learning. We are all doing the best we can. And we are all in different situations. Please don't assume that their child's behavior problems would disappear if only they did things your way.....because that is not nec true! Their way may or may not be working....but your way may or may not work, as well.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
I say no all the time. I have no patience for the extreme GD view. I don't spank my kids or shame them but I am not afraid to tell my kids no. I'm not going to walk on egg shells.

Perhaps this will help people who actually want to understand. I am not afraid. I am not afraid to use negative ways of interacting with my beloved family, I choose not to. I cherish them. They cherish me.

They are not violent. Sometimes my kids have hit me. It is not the same thing when a three year old hits as when an older person hits. It is not violence. It is a reflection of a problem I can help them solve. And they outgrew it as they developed more skills and outgrew early allergies.

I don't walk on eggshells. I do make sure they have plenty of opportunity for fresh air, fresh food, physical affection, engaging in a daily/weekly/yearly rhythm, talking and listening to me, interaction with other kind people who care deeply for them, non-scratchy clothes, protection from allergens and intrusive people, interesting interactions with people and things and learning opportunities that feed their interests.

I work and dp works. We do it without daycare because even though our early babysitting experiences were as good as they come, we found our children tended to thrive more with fewer transisitions.

I got wonderful advice from women who had mothered children to adulthood when I had dd1. The best advice was to imagine I had a brown paper bag with no's in it. I had no way of knowing how many no's I had. She said to make sure I didn't run out before they were in their teens.

So I've focused on saying yes. When they were toddlers and they hit, I dodged. When they asked for things that weren't safety issues, I tried to find a way to say yes.

Would they have been fine if I'd said they are testing their limits, they are looking for boundaries, they are violent and must know they their behavior is unacceptable? Yes, I'm sure they would. But *I* would have missed all these opportunities for fun and joy.

Taking the focus off changing their behavior, instead focusing on me, my relationship to them and the environment we live in has made our lives full of much more productive activity and joyful living than I imagined possible.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I think you can cherish someone and still tell them 'no.' In fact I think it is a very, very healthy and positive skill.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

I think you can too. I think it's also just as possible to do it another way, and for me and mine, much more filled with joy.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
I think you can too. I think it's also just as possible to do it another way, and for me and mine, much more filled with joy.

I don't think anyone here is advocating never doing anything but saying no. We all do 'other ways.' But boundaries are an okay thing to set with loved ones, and 'no' is an efficient and clear way of doing that. I find unwillingness to be direct to be a very frustrating trait, because you never really know where you stand with someone. I like straightforward, honest communication, and I also model that in my family. Nobody is all hurt and offended if someone says no to something. Unless that something is important to the other party and not really the first person's business, and then people can talk about that. But 'no' is not a dangerous or disrespectful, joy sucking word.


----------



## melissel (Jun 30, 2004)

chfriend, you're my idol.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *melissel* 
chfriend, you're my idol.

Mine too! I totally get what you're saying! And thank you for saying it so eloquently.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

thismama, I'm not saying the things you say I'm saying.

I am a very direct communicator. So are my kids. Striving to find a yes does not mean a lack of boundaries. We all know where we begin and end (okay the 3 year old is still working on that part, but she's getting it.).

I go to work everyday. We eat 3 meals, plus snacks. The house is usually messy but clean enough not to cause disease. (Although, we think we may have found a new system of working together on it to keep it less messy. Hurray!!) The kids learn a ton. I learn a ton.

Yes is not a sucky word either. And yeses create boundaries exactly the same way nos do.

This *is* okay with me communicates something in a way that invites connection while acknowledging our separateness. For me that is preferable to focusing on this is *not* okay with me in situations where I can help it.

I was blessed with sensitive, "spirited" and complex children. I'm grateful for it because it challenged my parenting assumptions. I have lightened up and learned to laugh and enjoy them.

I don't mean that to sound like you are less evolved. I am sure that you have found the ways to maximize peace, harmony and productivity in your home.

I strongly object to holding "nice" parents up as ineffective. Other posters have done a much better job of explaining why that is not okay.

I am a nice person. I am a kind person. I am strong and powerful. I am a competent person. My kids know all those things. I hope that my modeling those characteristics most of the time, they can find those characteristics in themselves as they grow.

(Actually my children believe I am the strongest person in the world beside Pippi Longstocking, which considering I am a turning 48 year old woman is beyond funny. Now when I was 19.....)


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
I am sure that you have found the ways to maximize peace, harmony and productivity in your home.

I think that this forum would be so much more peaceful and productive if we could all assume this about each other! I mean, afterall, how many people really give *this* much thought to parenting?

Quote:

I am a turning 48 year old woman
Last week, I noticed that another mama here (who shares many of your philosophies) is similarly aged. So now I am wondering if I will be able to make those philosphies work better in my next decade







.


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anothermama* 
Let me start by saying I don't agree with hitting or shaming. I don't agree with teaching a child with anger.

It seems like there is this whole movement in AP mom communities to not be negative AT ALL, and it seems to be to their detriment and the detriment of their child.

Example: I run a daycare and work with strictly toddlers. I have a family who was adamant about not using the world "No!". She really fell into this "positive discapline" thing to the extreme. Of course, she just had to come up with all sorts of "creative" ways to say "no"........"not for babies" "don't", etc etc. What's the point?

But the worst part is that she'd say these phrases in a kind, sweet, doting voice. Her daughter would hit her in the face violently and she'd sweetly say "Please don't hit mama!!!". What the heck is that teaching the kid? Oh yeah.......that you get positive attention when you hit!







:

It seems like the GD pendulum, if you will, has really swung to an almost dysfunctional extreme of being nice to your kids no matter what. What's wrong with saying "no"? What's wrong with setting boundries and limits? What's wrong with letting children know there are negative consequences to some things? I don't think that letting them know, say, hitting is a bad thing means you have to beat them. But firmly letting them now that it's not ok to hit friends just teaches them that...........if you hit friends, people will be unhappy with you! In real life, not everyone is always going to give you positive attention for everything you do.

I see a lot of posts here where parents ask for help with a big issue.........hitting, biting, other violent behavior.......and the first response is "well why are they doing it". I'm sorry, but I don't CARE WHY my 3 year old hit another kid, it's no ok. We'll talk about it and share our feelings AFTER he knows that it's not ok. It seems like it's just making excuses for bad behavior to say "Well, she hit because she was really tired". So you're teaching your kid that it's ok to be violent to others if you have a good excuse to do so?

I get a little worried at the AP label at times because it just seems so often lately it's associate with "those parents"..........those parents you see in the mall or the grocery store who have a child abusing the crud out of them and all the while the parent is gently cooing "Whats wrong bunny? Mommy doesn't like it when you hit me with that spatula!". YKWIM?

I guess what I want to know is..........why isn't it ok to say no? Why isn't it ok to teach children that they will evoke negative responses from people if they hurt them? I understand the concept of GD in terms of not wanting to abuse or harm a child. Does that mean it's not ok to allow a child to feel badly abut their actions?


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Care to expound on your applause Heavenly? There are 115 posts between the OP and your applause and I'm not sure what you are responding to.


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleaugustbaby* 
ITA. Little kids don't process that stuff well.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between:

"NO! Do not throw toys!"

and

"It's not nice to throw toys, even if you are really mad. Somebody can get hurt. Let's let Katie have a turn with the toy first, and when she is done, it can be your turn..." and so on.

But if you jump to that knee-jerk "No! Bad! Wrong!" reaction, there is a really good chance that you're going to end up with a really upset, ashamed little kid, and that will ruin your chances of having an actual productive conversation in the matter. Especially if you have a sensitive kid who interprets: "hitting is bad" = "you are bad" = "I don't like you!"

ETA: There is nothing wrong with saying no and setting boundaries, and I do believe that it is very important to set boundaries. I just think that you have to be very careful about how you do it.

I think the child is likely to tune out that long spiel about respect and what not. From the toddlers I've known (and raised) I've come to see that little ones are less likely to listen if you talk a lot. If my toddler slaps her sister I think she is more likely to listen to, "No! We do not hit!" than she is to listen to, "Now Eliana, that wasn't the best choice to make. It isn't nice to hit. Are you trying to say you're mad? Are you mad because you want your sister's toy? Maybe we should ask her if you can have a turn, etc. etc. etc." In the first example I think the child would hear No! Do not hit! and in the second example they would probably tune out sometime after you say their name.

Ah, what good timing. As I was writing this my 21 month old went over and yanked her 5 year old sister's hair. She has had a problem with that for awhile. What was my response? "Eliana, NO, do NOT pull Olivia's hair." I don't see anything wrong with that response at all.


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
Care to expound on your applause Heavenly? There are 115 posts between the OP and your applause and I'm not sure what you are responding to.

Most likely applauding the part I quoted, hmmm?


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 







ITA. I am totally with you on this issue (and apparently on a few others). And I am very AP, and I consider myself GD also (although I do say no and everything is not a consensus based decision). I am a loving, respectful parent, and I also do not coddle my child or walk on eggshells lest I destroy her fragile psyche.

If you wanna say no, dude! Say no. They will live on and they will also have far more important things to talk about in therapy than 'my mother said no instead of finding creative sing song alternatives whenever I screwed up.'

eta - I also wonder about the real lives of folks who can be so rude to other mamas on the subject of how important it is to be nice to children.









I agree with you completely.


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I also wonder about the real lives of folks who can be so rude to other mamas on the subject of how important it is to be nice to children.

IMO, the "GD" mamas on this thread have been nothing but respectful in the face of bashing, dismissal, and the implication that their children could not POSSIBLY be well-behaved because they try to be kind, respectful, and postivie.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
Most likely applauding the part I quoted, hmmm?

It appeared to me that you quoted the whole original post, which posed a question to people who avoid the word no. So I didn't understand what you were applauding. It appears by your response that you are simply trying to start a fight.

I have no interest in fighting, so I will leave you to your posting.


----------



## monkey's mom (Jul 25, 2003)

From the article "Yes Days" on Jan Hunt's Natural Child Project website:

Quote:

We find ourselves running into power struggles and negative interactions in order to get to the places we feel we should be. Professor Charles Smith of Kansas State University says, "Although saying 'no' tells children what not to do, only by being affirmative do we actually teach them the skills that will be important to them throughout their lives."

Quote:

Saying yes and affirming our children as human beings is a gift to everyone involved. So go ahead, say yes to your kids. As we learn to say yes to each other and to the ebb and flow of the world, yes days are in fact training for us to live yes lives. And perhaps our yes lives will inspire our children to create a yes world.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Thread closed for moderator review. I apologize for the inconvenience. Please PM a moderator if there are any questions, concerns or comments. Thanks


----------

