# TCS Discussion 2



## mamakarata (Nov 20, 2001)

I hope it is okay to start a new TCS thread by addressing TCS people. To try and post my question on the original TCS thread seemed a bit daunting as it is more of an argument about TCS, and I really just have a question for it in practice. Not to dispute it, but to gather information. I am posting this for APers as well on a seperate thread. Please let me know if this is not okay. Okay?

So my question might be silly, but I wondered how the TCS theory applied to infants, and if there are any specifics you have in reading their body language and/or cries? Aside from ignoring a babies cries, which would be awful, I wonder sometimes how it is for him if he fell asleep in my arms, and then woke up alone in his little sleeper, if that is in a way, coercement? (by TCS theory)

Of course I immediately retrieve him when I hear him waking, and it is only during the day because we sleep together at night. But the look on his face of "what the heck is going on?" I can't help but wonder if he feels afraid or betrayed somehow.

Believe it or not, I am not a new parent, because re-reading this makes me sound like an over paranoid new parent, but I am always curious about different theories and/or studies, and wonder if TCS has any on this young age.

TIA

MK


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

****So my question might be silly, but I wondered how the TCS theory applied to infants, and if there are any specifics you have in reading their body language and/or cries? Aside from ignoring a babies cries, which would be awful, I wonder sometimes how it is for him if he fell asleep in my arms, and then woke up alone in his little sleeper, if that is in a way, coercement? (by TCS theory)****

I think that we, as parents, are only able to respond to actual communication to figure out if an infant is in a coercive state. Crying, wimpering, frowning, etc., are all signs that seem to suggest a coercive state of mind.

***Of course I immediately retrieve him when I hear him waking, and it is only during the day because we sleep together at night. But the look on his face of "what the heck is going on?" I can't help but wonder if he feels afraid or betrayed somehow.***

I suspect that you would be able to tell. Just pay attention to his cues.

****Believe it or not, I am not a new parent, because re-reading this makes me sound like an over paranoid new parent, but I am always curious about different theories and/or studies, and wonder if TCS has any on this young age.****

There is a TCS list for babies and toddlers <[email protected]> which you--or anyone else--are welcome to join if you'd like more support for TCS-style parenting.

Hope this helps 

Netty


----------



## Iguanavere (Nov 26, 2001)

Baby falls asleep in mother's arms and mother puts baby to sleep in crib.

Baby wakes up and cries for mother.

Therefore, since baby has cried and communicated distress - mother has coerced baby?

Or perhaps, Mother has simply reenforced that when baby cries, mother responds. Maybe it isn't coersion. maybe it is simply responsive parenting.

So are you saying that it is bad to put your baby down, because it may cause coercion? How do you test this theory? by trying coercion (by doing the above scenario?)


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

Having closed "TCS Discussions - Post Here" due to length I've opened this thread to continue the topic in an organized manner. I'll soon be moving the TCS Discussions - Post Here (changing it to "TCS Discussions 1")thread to the GD archives so that it can be easily located rather than lost in the pages of GD.

~Cynthia


----------



## laelsweet (Dec 6, 2001)

for awhile, i was concerned about this too. during that time i put a mattress on the floor in the middle of the livingroom, and would put the babe down there to nap (it was also big enough to lay down myself and nurse). that way i could see if the baby got restless and was going to wake, and as this all seemed okay with the babe i didn't worry about it. i spent so much of the day carrying, as well as some naps, it seemed alright to me, and eventually it also seemed better to put the babe in bed in another room, within hearing.
i think if you keep paying close attention, as netty said, your baby will let you know. certainly, i learned when it was not okay to put the baby down because baby would wake up as soon as i did so! or other signals. i'm sure you'll know all kinds of things your baby will tell you about what s/he wants, without ever being able to explain how you know this, to anyone else!


----------



## mamakarata (Nov 20, 2001)

You're right Netty, since I am always looking out for any signs of distress, I can always respond. I guess my questions was more about him falling asleep in one situation and waking up in another.

As an adult, that could seem disorienting, unless I was in a moving vehicle, plane etc, I could expect to find myself somewhere else when I woke up. I suppose if baby and I were moving about when he fell asleep, something deep inside of him might understand that he would be moved elsewhere when he woke up, but no longer in my arms and/or sling?

I just wondered if that specifically was addressed in TCS theory since it is something they could likely have no control over- where they are. But if he wakes up crying, it could just as easily be hunger than feeling disoriented, so I would never really know if moving him put him in a state of coercement or not.

BTW, the link you posted seems to be an email address. Is that right? Do I need to email someone? Thanks so much for responding too.


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

The TCSBabiesToddlers List can be found by going to

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TCSBabiesToddlers>

Once there, you click on "join this group" (if you're already registered at yahoogroups). If you are not registered, simply click on "register" and follow the process.

I *hope* this works.

I'll try to respond to other messages today, but am pressed for time as the new term has begun (where did the holidays go?) and I have to spend *some* time on the career that earns some income ;-))

Netty


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

Both of my boys said that in their minds they would consider the tactic you suggested both trickery and coercion.
I disagree in Netty's scenario. There was no deceit in the example given, all parties had access to all information and were totally free to make their own choice. I read from Netty's scenario that the friend did forget that the cute cashier worked there, making that new information.

Quote:

When I asked why, the youngest said "Because you are not really interested in what I want.
This is not true in the example Netty gave. The person who wanted company at the store knew that the other *wanted* to possibly meet the cute cashier.

Quote:

You only said that in the hope that I would cooperate so that you could get what you want.
This we agree on, this is exactly what happened. She figured out a way to get what she wants (company at the store), and a way to get what the other wants (meet the cute cashier).

Pat


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

****In checking the last locked thread, there are some unresolved issues to me, raised by comments you have made.****

Okay.

****original quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You *chose* to make those vows. And you are *free* to leave your marriage at any time. And if you choose to leave, you can find plenty of support for doing so. This is not so for children. They have no choice in this respect. And they had no choice in being "entered into the social contract" either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My marriage is based on vows "Until death parts our ways". I knew this would be the case before I married my husband, and decided that I was not prepared to make those vows, unless I was prepared to honour them. In order to do that, there has to be the commitment at the start to a life-long relationship. ****

Okay. But you still made a conscious choice. My point is that you had a choice in the matter. And you *are* free (whether you act on that freedom or not) to leave that marriage and break those vows. And you were free not to make those vows in the first place. And if your husband began beating you, I doubt you would continue to honour those vows.

****Some people take those words lightly. I did not. And that steadfastness of vows has meant that there are no issues which go unresolved. Each and every one is worked through as they come up.****

Sounds great. I don't make vows to do that. I do that because I believe in autonomy-respecting relationships.

****Sometimes, some people who go into relationships knowing in the backs of their minds that if it doesn't work out, they can always opt out, fail in their relationships, precisely because the opt-out clause in the back of the mind can lead to that lack of commitment from the start, and also does not make them seriously consider and take time to find out if that person is really the right one. Obviously it doesn't happen to everyone. ****

Personally, I would never enter into a commitment which compromised my freedom and autonomy. That does not mean that I do not take my responsibilities seriously in any and all relationships I choose to enter into. It simply means that I only enter into relationships where my autonomy (and my partner's autonomy) will be respected.

****to me, no-one should go into marriage without the commitment to do their very best to make it work. For me, those vows are a living reminder that my marriage commitment is very very serious, and therefore requires serious work.****

I don't require such reminders or commitments. I act according to my responsibility and my love for those with whom I've chosen to have a relationship.

****I think maybe Cassidy sees it this way as well. For me, there is no option. I cannot walk away, therefore this marriage has to work. And does. ****

Okay. I personally wouldn't want to live that way, but I respect your choice to do so.

**** original quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could also find somewhere for the child to stay while you and the other children went.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, I would not put someone else out on the spur of the moment, just at the whim of my child.****

It may not be putting the person out at all. If so, you could look for other arrangements. It's just a *possible* solution.

****original quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or you could wait until the child *did* want to go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That might or might not happen. *****

Yes, of course. But, then again, it might.

****original quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or you could ask a friend to get them for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Why should my friend, who has her own life to live, drop what she is doing to do something to "please" me because my child had a preference not to go to the market?****

Because she's your friend? I have friends who would be willing to do this for me and I would certainly be willing to do this for a friend.

****After all, by the same token, what say my friend had just rung me and asked me to help her out, because her child didn't want to go to the market, and I couldn't because my child didn't want to either. "Oh sorry, I can't help you, because my child is also doing his own thing today.....****

My friend would accept that reason. And I would certainly understand if my friend said s/he couldn't go. But it wouldn't hurt to ask. But the friends I count on to help me don't require reasons to do so. They help because I asked and because they are able to help.

*****quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or you could go next door and ask the neighbour if you could borrow some milk, bread, & cereal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. Why should my neighbour have to provide what she already has , which I do not , but am perfectly able to get for myself at the market, but for a child's preference? *****

Because s/he's a helpful neighbour? Personally, I don't ask my neighbours for their reason if they if they pop over to ask for something. If I have it, I give it to them. My neighbours tend to do the same for me.

****quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or ask the neighbour if he is going to the market at all and, if so, could he pick these up for you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, why should I add to my neighbours work-load just because of my child's preference? ****

Ummm. Again, because the neighbour is willing to help you out and you don't want to coerce your unwilling child.

****BUT____If my child was sick, well, that might be different, and maybe she would accommodate that since it was IMPOSSIBLE for me to do it --- but on the whim of a child? - I don't think so.... ****

What you see as "the whim of a child," I see as a child's preference. I would do all I could to honour my child's preference if it were possible. Imagine how you would feel if you didn't want to do something but couldn't find a "good" reason (according to the person you were depending on)? How would you feel if that person forced you against your will? A "good" reason to you may be a very "poor" reason to me. That doesn't, however, give me the right to force you into acting in accordance with my reason, does it?

****quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if, in the morning, the child complained that there was no breakfast (though surely there would be *something* for them to eat, no?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most likely, but what say it was not what the child wanted to eat, and they were carrying on because what they wanted was on the list of what you needed to get?.......

That they prevented you getting, because they didn't want to go.****

I would tell them that and try to find a solution.

**** original quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, you could remind hir that you couldn't get to the market yesterday but that you could go later if she'd like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The child created this mess in the first place. Why should they not take the consequences of their decision? Why do other people have to go out of their way so that that child gets what they want? What will that teach the child about the real world? ****

How did the child *create the mess*? How is s/he responsible? Who is the adult in this situation?

****After all, if I, as an adult, asked a friend to do something for me because I couldn't be bothered, I know exactly what they would say. It would have to be a good reason. And not wanting to do it for myself, is not a good reason. Two broken legs, or another bout of Epstein Barr might be, though.****

Personally, I wouldn't call such a person a friend. My friends are willing to help me when they can without demanding my reasons. They trust that I wouldn't ask them unless I had to. And they respect that my reasons may differ from theirs. And they also know that I would not be the least bit upset with them if they couldn't help, nor would I ask them *why* they couldn't.

****This sort of option taking will not actually solve the problem. It will teach the child that "I will always get what I want, because others will wait on me hand and foot." ****

Not in my experience. The child may learn that problems can be solved without coercing others. The child may learn that hir needs and desires are just as important as everyone else's. The child may learn to value relationships which support and encourage personal autonomy.

****I would handle the situation quite differently. I would simply say to the child that if we don't go to the market, then this is what there is for breakfast tomorrow. If they are prepared to eat that, then we don't need to go. If they want X, then we do need to go. Then I would say - if we go, we need to go by such and such a time, because... and give the reasons. If you are prepared to come with me, let me know by X time. If not, we won't go, and that is what you get for breakfast. It is your choice. ****

If the child agreed with your reasoning and changed hir mind about going, then that approach seems just fine. But if the child still didn't want to go but didn't want "Y" for breakfast, then I would keep searching for a better solution. You see, JW, I am a *non-coercive parent*. I advocate *non-coercion.* You aren't and you don't. We differ in this respect.

****(But I will not involve other people, in order that a child gets their own way. They can have their own way, but they will accept the consequences)****

Again, we differ on our approach to problem-solving. Mine is to seek common preferences and yours seems to be a kind of "natural consequences" approach. Again, that is another way that TCS-style parenting differs from your style of parenting.

****Just say the child says we don't go. Fine.

But knowing my kids, I can guarantee that it would only happen once. Because they like what they like, and not what they don't. ****

Yes, that seems to be my experience with children, too. Where you and I differ, though, is that I strive to help my children get what they like and avoid what they don't like. I don't use what they don't like to get them to do something else that they don't like just so that they'll agree to do what *I* like.

****So just say the next morning the child starting complaining that the breakfast they wanted wasn't there, I would just wait, then I would remind them of the previous day's discussion and then say:

"So Carmel (for the sake of a name) why is there none of the breakfast you like.......?

You knew that if I didn't go, this is what would be on the table. So why are you complaining that there is none of your normal breakfast for you?

It was your choice not to go." ****

In other words, you would say "I told you so. Now suffer the consequences of your actions." I wouldn't do that. I would help my child solve hir present problem by seeking common preferences.

<snip rest of possible morning conversation where child either has to eat the breakfast in front of hir or go hungry>

****Scenes like this only ever occurred once in our house. Because they soon got the message, that if they decide that I can't go shopping, then they will have to eat what's there, not what they want. And if they don't like that, then they should rethink their entrenched theories, shouldn't they?****

Well, JW. Once again, we differ here. I wouldn't want my children to think that there is only one solution to a problem and that that solution must involve coercion. I want my children to learn how to be happy and how to solve problems without robbing others of their happiness. I think that the best way to help them do that is to provide them with as many opportunities to find common preferences as possible.

****Your last scenario. I got my kids to read your post to see how they would react. Here is the answer of the one who has a girl-friend:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's say that I wanted to go to the store but you wanted to stay home and read. And let's say that I really wanted you to come along. One way to convince you to come would be to find a good reason (by your lights) for *you* to go to the store. So, let's say I remembered that you had a crush on one of the cashiers there and so I reminded you that hir (I changed this to conform to your normal gender neutral stance, since I have boys) would be working at that time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mum, I know she works there now. If I had wanted to see her, I would already be there, so why are you weaselling with my head? You know that's manipulation, and I hate it."****

Well, then I would assume that you didn't want to go (though I would be a bit upset that you thought I was trying to "weasel with your head" since that was not my intention at all.) I might try to find some other reason. And if you insisted you didn't want to go and didn't want to hear any more reasons, I would stop bothering you and try to solve the problem on my own.

*****which negates the next bit of course.....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this information, you changed your mind and decided you *wanted* to come to the store with me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both of my boys said that in their minds they would consider the tactic you suggested both trickery and coercion. When I asked why, the youngest said "Because you are not really interested in what I want. You only said that in the hope that I would cooperate so that you could get what you want. That stinks." ****

Well, if you said this to me, I would apologize and explain that I didn't intend to coerce or trick you. I just wanted you to come to the store with me and I thought that you might *want* to come knowing that that cashier was there. I would then ask what you wanted and try to find a common preference.

****Those are the opinions of my 20 and 18 year old adult sons.

If adults feel this way, why would you want to use this tactic on a younger child? Isn't the whole point of TCS based on "if you wouldn't treat an adult this way, why would you treat a child this way?"****

Well, not really. Some adults treat other adults really horribly. And some adults are very suspicious of the motives of other adults. I think that such suspicions may result from being raised in a coercive family.

Netty


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

JW wrote:

****quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crying, wimpering, frowning, etc., are all signs that seem to suggest a coercive state of mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crying might suggest that a baby is hungry, or wants to be picked up. ****

Yes. Then I suggest one feeds hir or picks hir up.

****Whimpering might suggest that a baby is cold, or has uncomfortable nappies. ****

Yes. Check the nappy. Put on warmer clothes or a blanket or put baby is sling. Whatever makes the baby feel better.

F***rowning might suggest that the baby's position is such that the light falling on the baby's face is too strong. Or, in the case of my oldest "I don't like you playing the flute..." and if I didn't stop, would progress to crying.... ****

I play the flute too! (though I'm pretty bad, I admit, so I'm sure any baby would complain if I were playing ;-))...Again, do whatever you can to help baby feel better.

****None of these would indicate "coercion" to me. They do indicate a discomfort or need that may need to be resolved.****

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I didn't mean to imply that the baby was *being* coerced by the parent. I was simply saying that the baby may be in a *state of coercion* and in need of help to change hir state of mind.

Netty


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

I've cut and pasted your post that I think you referred to as lost in the previous long TCS thread.

Iguanavere wrote:

"I'm not sure if this was answered?
So if the family has planned an outing and child A decides on the day of the outing that they do not want to go, yet the entire family wants to go - discussions take place and still child A does not want to go - What would happen?

Certainly TCS would state that there is always a solution - but I would say that the solution is likely to be a compromise - not always a common preference. "

Right, imo. There is a difference between theory and application. People aren't always successful in finding the common preference, and sometimes events move fast. But having made the paradigm shift to non-coercion, the chances are infinitely greater that they will find a common preference. With practice and as trust grows amongst family members in the process, finding common preferences becomes more and more successful.

IME, with common preference finding, everyone's preferences can shift many times in the process, in the light of what they learn about other people's preferences. A parent might weigh thier preference for the activity against their preference to not coerce their child into doing what parent wants against the child's reasons. One of the parents might not be that keen on the outing, and be glad to stay home with child and get some other things done. The other kids might decide they don't want to go with the one that doesn't want to go, because experience tells them that it wouldn't be a pleasant experience. maybe they can come up with an activity that they all want to do, rather than the one that was planned.

I think a TCS family would acknowledge the failure, that they have not come up with a great solution. The parent might prefer to take the coercion upon their self- yes, self-sacrifice- rather than coerce a child. After all, the parent is responsible for the child being in the position in the first place.

"For example, let's say you are a single mother of 3 children. You work all week long and don't have much time with your kids. As a family you all plan a special trip to the zoo, bought special tickets for a special animal show. On that day, Child A decides that he doesn't want to go. Discussion takes place and no health problems are present, so child A simple doesn't want to go.

TCS - would advocate leaving the child at home with another care giver - that is assuming the mother can even afford a babysitter, since she just broke the bank buying the special zoo tickets. "

TCS theory advocates finding common preference, in the face of conflict. The particular solution that works for each family, each situation, can be vastly different.

That could be one solution. Many families do child care exchange, or barter services in other ways that don't involve money. Having a community of people around that are willing to help out when such occasions arise, if it fits with their day, is a possibility for some.

This parent might learn about spending lots of money on something that the whole family might not be interested in. The family might learn that it works better for them to make more last-minute, spontaneous plans. And that they would rather not spend their money on tickets that could not be refunded, in the future.

The person in the family who has decided that they didn't want to go on the outing, might well change their mind if they have the information that the money would be lost if they didn't go, if that is important to them. Or not. They might have some good ideas about how they would rather spend their limited resources.

These are all possibilities, plus many more... once the paradigm shift is made, imo. A person has to be open to the possibilities, and willing to change their preferences, and ready to look at ideas and solutions outside of the box.

"Mother is still going to be disappointed and ultimately this is a compromise, because Mother had planned for this to be a special event for the whole of their family. "

But if the whole family is not equally enthralled with the special event, it isn't going to be such a great experience, or a common preference, anyhow. Why would a family want to drag along an unwilling participant? IME, it casts a pall over the whole day. The unwilling participant isn't going to be happy, and is capable of making life as miserable for everyone else around, as s/he is hirself.

"In my opinon, Mother would be self-sacraficing her happiness for her sons, in an effort to not coerce her son. "

If a parent's happiness is all tied up in this one event, then there might be many changes that could be made to help hir life- and the other family members'- be happier. Why is this one event so important to this parent? If it is something that parent absolutely does not want to miss, then it seems to me that a parent would think of the possibility that one of their kids might not want to go when it came right down to the moment of going, and have an alternative plan for that child, so that parent would not miss what was important to hir.

"Or she could remind him of his committment to his family and advise him to get into the car. "

Who has made this commitment to the family for the child? The child or the parent? What does this commitment involve? Is it voluntarily entered into?

"Help me - am I missing something?

Also - as for self-sacrifice - it is easy if you are a middle-class, two-parent family of one child to spend a great deal of time and energy trying to find common preferences and working towards consent. "

Maybe, maybe not. It is impossible to tell what is or is not easy for another person or family. I expect we all carry plenty of baggage/entrenche theories that makes what is easy for one person, quite difficult for another. Assumptions and expectations are often wrong. Becoming aware of assumptions and expectations and examining the unrealistic and/or mistaken theories they can lead one to hold, maybe unconsciously, can be very enlightening.

"However, if you are a poverty-stricken, one parent family with 3 children all under the age of 4, including one special-needs child - some things go by the wayside."

We all have a framework of situation to work within. We might feel coerced by the situation/time/circumstances, and can take a good look at what exactly is causing the coercion we feel in our minds about it, and take steps to change that. I've heard it said- and I think it is true- that making one little change for the better can lead to another better solution, and so on.

"Certainly I would advocate that we should all strive to work cooperatively with our children, but in a family dynamic, in which there are many children or children with special needs, sometimes compromise is the best alternative we can offer. "

A family can find one common preference. That can lead to another. There might be lots of compromise in-between, but *if* there is interest in non-coercive relationships, they can find their way to more and more common preferences, and less and less compromise. I'm not saying it's easy, I don't think any sort of family dynamic is easy- there is constantly more to learn and adjust about close relationships.

"Tell me, does TCS have any recommendations about family size or child spacing?"

None officially, that I am aware of, but there are certainly implications. Since currently, most TCS families came upon TCS theory after they had already had one or more children- on up to large numbers, maybe 11 is the most I've heard of- people are finding that TCS has made a big positive difference in the way their families live together at home and out in the world, with all sorts of combinations of numbers and spacing and situations.
YMMV


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Netty,

I was going to amply respond to your reply and the example of the grocery store, but I think that JW said exactly what I would have said. If I stated that I wanted to stay home and read, I have made my decision very clear. To try to entice me to do what you want to do seems very selfish and coersive. Of course, I personally think that children raised in the TCS theory will grow up to be selfish and inconsiderate of others wants and needs, contrary to what TCS claims to be trying to accomplish. I think that you manipulate the word "coersion" to fit into whatever example you need to give, because to me, your response was manipulative and coersive. I told you what I wanted (to stay home and read) and you discounted it to get what you wanted (me to come along) by attempting to persuade me to see the cashier. If I chose to come it would more likely be to put an end to the discussion and aggravation, rather than because I "chose" or "wanted" to. It seems to me that your answer was simply coersion in TCS clothing.


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Hmmm. maybe that means that we are not so different after all.


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

I find the same thing, JW, except that we have all the electronic stuff available, too. There is sometimes the person who is involved in what they are doing and doesn't want to stop to run to the post office or whatever, but that is a different issue than a whole day planned trip.

I think life in a family where everyone scatters their different ways for the majority of the day must be different than life in a homeschooling family that spends much of their time together, eat together frequently and so on. Maybe there is just more pressure to schedule time to be together, I don't know.


----------



## Iguanavere (Nov 26, 2001)

Genevieve Says:

"Certainly TCS would state that there is always a solution - but I would say that the solution is likely to be a compromise - not always a common preference. "

larsy says:

Right, imo. There is a difference between theory and application. People aren't always successful in finding the common preference, and sometimes events move fast. But having made the paradigm shift to non-coercion, the chances are infinitely greater that they will find a common preference. With practice and as trust grows amongst family members in the process, finding common preferences becomes more and more successful. "

OK - this is what I was trying to understand. I think I read that TCS is a philosophy of (or acknowledges) fallibility - in that TCS parents acknowledge that they make mistakes. Clearly then, as you've illustrated above, TCS would acknowledge that there could be scenarios in which common preference cannot be achieved.

Having said that - I appreciate your comments regarding making a paradigm shift to non-coersion. That is, TCS families would work to the most positive outcome - common preference.

After participating in this discussion, what I have concluded is that TCS has a lot to offer families - in that the desire for common preferences is considerate of all members. I also imagine that if parents approach family life with the idea that they are there to help their child acheive their desires, then in general, family life will be smooth.

However, for me and my family, I will not use extrinsic motivation. I still feel that if I ask my son to please move out of the way of someone in the grocery store, I should not have to provide him with some external motiviation (I'll get you ice cream - or worse yet, do it or I'll wack you.) I've read the above posts responding to the issue of bribery and I simply disagree with the TCS advocates position.

Also, I do not agree with the TCS definition of coercion, so I cannot ever completly subscribe to this philosophy. I do not think it is coercion to grab my 18 month old son as he runs toward the street - whether a car is coming or not.

Well that's it.


----------



## laelmoresweet (Jan 8, 2002)

please excuse me for dropping in in the middle of this

i have been lurking on the side lines for sometime and reading over dp's shoulder - until we found that dp seemed to be reading more over my shoulder
- i am with laelsweet by the way
; )

we both find ourselves gravitating towards tcs and are very interested in thinking about ourselves (our behaviour and actions) in relation to the theory

although i was particularly interested to read the article posted by larsy yesterday (06/01/2002):

*** for your 'what if' question, maybe the article at http://www.tcs.ac/Articles/WhatIf.html might help? ***

(thanks larsy)

i have also been intrigued by the range of arguments presented and awed by the wealth of experience i have encountered

it is with this in mind that i have finally decided to put fingers to keyboard and post myself

the thing that stands out for me most in these discussions is how frequently common terms seem to have become a major sticking point

i think that i can see how for some, tcs appropriation of certain words might seem inappropriate and/or mis-judged
but i don't think that it is an uncommon or unacceptable practice for language to be used this way historically, socially or theoretically
at the moment tcs is raising a number of questions for me and i am pleased that dp and i have decided to explore the ways we relate
i would like to share some thoughts in the hope that they could become a constructive part of the discussion

a point from the "what if" article that made an impression on me
and helped shape my current appreciation of this discussion
the author explains that in attempting to come to terms with or to criticise tcs, the questions that are asked are the kind of "what if..." questions that have been such a prominent feature of this debate

without wanting to simplify the argument too much, i think that the author's point is that such questions can never be answered to the satisfaction of both parties because the form of the question is incompatible with a tcs answer

primarily the author believes that most questions that begin "what would *you* do if..?" would more be more accurately phrased as "what do you think i should do if..?"
which presents the answerer with a tremendous conundrum, because it is very difficult to appreciate all of the contributory factors
- i think that i see this in the most recent exchanges between netty and jw
i believe that jw's points are completely valid - there are things to consider that netty did not refer to, especially in relation to jw's geographical location
but i do not believe that netty is at fault for not being able to provide that level of intimate knowledge either

to that extent i do not think the argument will ever be settled - at least not whilst it is on those terms

it is my understanding from the "what if" article that the tcs position is that we should try to avoid relying on a given solutions
rather we should begin to think of each situation as specific and unique
and so rather than provide a list of possible or potential solutions tcs is more about encouraging a particular strategy for dealing with situations as they present themselves
i welcome a framework in which i might be able to integrate problem solving skills in a way that increases the collaboration and involvement of our family members

netty, larsy and icicle spider have all, i believe, conceded, at some point, that they are fallible and do on occasion - and despite their best efforts - find themselves acting in ways that are contradictory to the goal of leading their lives non-coercively

i really don't think that on that basis we can or should dismiss tcs out of hand or claim that it is invalidated

i also think that everybody has agreed that they would rather their children understood and valued the processes involved in finding common preferences and relating to others in that way
presented this way i think that tcs has a lot to offer

i don't believe that tcs is about raising selfish children (certainly tcs would not have a monopoly on that...) nor do i think that it is about lack of structure

as i try to embrace and come to terms with a different way of being in the world my thoughts are that i would very much like our child to grow to value hirself and our family life (again i do not think that tcs has a monopoly)

from my experience so far i think i can say i have found one of the hardest things is coming to terms with what a common preference actually is
how difficult it is to work towards finding a solution that is satisfying to all the parties involved rather fall into complacency and apathy

at the moment i feel inspired by some of the ideas within tcs and opportunities i envision for our family

what is it you say, jw?

a tome, i'm afraid

goodnight

j


----------



## Ms. Mom (Nov 18, 2001)

First I'd like to welcome you laelmoresweet! Glad to have you here at Mothering! Please hop over to the welcome board and introduct yourself - that way more of the community can get to know you and welcome you!

Again, many discussions are boardering on personal attacks.

There are some wonderfull ideas being exchanged here and many people really want to discuss and learn.

Again, I'd like to remind everyone...

*Tolerance - The capacity for respecting the opinions or practices of others.*

I would like to remind everyone that we need to be respectful of everyone on the Mothering boards. Gentle Discipline is a topic that evokes passion in most parents. We have strong ideas on how we want to raise our children. This is one of the beauties of these boards. We can exchange these ideas and gather new knowledge.

Everyone here has several options when they want to discuss something in deeper detail. You could use our PM system to discuss things privately. You could start a new thread to discuss something in further detail. Or you could selectively ignore things that don't sound or feel right to you.

Please be considerate when posting of all the members that are reading your post. Consider there feelings, just as you would want them to consider yours.

If anyone has a question or concern, feel free to PM or email me [email protected] any time. I do care, and would love to address your questions and concerns. As a volunteer, I certainly don't have all the answers, but I promise to do my best to find the answers or information you need.

Sorry to just cut and past the same thing over and over, but I do feel that is sums up what I want to say.


----------



## paula_bear (Nov 23, 2001)

Thanks, Ms. Mom, for the reminder.

I am enjoying this discussion, but I do find that I feel annoyed when I see it becoming adversarial. I too would like to see some of the past grievances put to the side, so that we can all learn something. Please, everyone, you can make your point known in a diplomatic way without insulting anyone. You can say, "I disagree with your views," without having to add, "And I think you are [*@#! - insert insult here]"

For those of us who would truly like to learn about TCS and how to apply it in our own families, this is very frustrating. I almost feel as if some are so anti-TCS that they want to "disprove" it so others will also leave the camp. I don't think this is right. Personally, I don't know if I can live up to all the tenants of TCS, but I certainly want to try to eliminate coercion from our family life. And I have found some very useful information through this discussion. But I shouldn't have to weed through personal attacks and extreme hypothetical situations that CANNOT be solved. I would rather hear about situations that CAN be solved, and the thinking process behind those solutions.

Thanks for listening,
Paula Bear


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Great post laelmoresweet, I agree with it all.

I also encourage you to investigate the TCS List itself and the various TCS related lists on Yahoo.

Pat


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

However, for me and my family, I will not use extrinsic motivation.
This got be thinking about extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation. I also agree about the use of extrinsic motivation, I will not use it. I want my child to have intrinsic motivation for what they do.

So what is "intrinsic motivation"?

It is doing something because you want to. It is doing or getting what you want because...well...that is what *you* *want*.

Quote:

I still feel that if I ask my son to please move out of the way of someone in the grocery store, I should not have to provide him with some external motiviation (I'll get you ice cream - or worse yet, do it or I'll wack you.)
I don't remember the exact post where ice cream was proposed, but I agree with this statement if it was offered as an extrinsic motivation (which "because I ask" also is). On the other hand, I see where such an offer could just as easily be merely a distraction to help everybody get what they want. The child could be young enough that they do not yet have the knowledge nor the experience to understand the implications of plopping down in the middle of the aisle. The ice cream got them to say, plop down somewhere else, where they were no longer in the way. It was not an extrinsic motivation that is trying to teach them that if they move out of the way, they get ice cream.

So what would be an intrinsic motivation in this case? Why would *anybody* *want* to move out of the way for an intrinsic motivation?

IMO, the reason is because one has gained the knowledge that the more you help other people get what they want, the more you get what you want.

So, in this example, one would move out of the way because you realize that you might very well want to get by someone else later. Or you just might need some other kind of help in getting what you want, and this very person might be the one to help you. Or maybe this very person helps somebody else, who then helps somebody else because they where helped, who eventually becomes the one who helps me, because they were helped.

In other words, there is nothing altruistic about moving out of the way of someone, it is part of getting what you want.

I do not expect a young child to yet have the knowledge to understand this. It takes having already experienced it to truly have the intrinsic motivation to want to move out of someone else's way. This is one of the main items I would like my children to understand on an a true, intrinsic level.

The more they help others get what they want, the better the chances are that they will in turn get what they want.

So I am "teaching" them this by doing it. I am always actively trying to help my child get whatever it is they want. (Which, btw, I am doing because I think it will eventually help me get more of what I want.)

So it has been my experience that a child that has learned this does not even think twice about getting out of the way.

Pat


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

I was thinking about the breakfast scenario, and the treatment of the child who did not want to go out to the store and the parent who could find no other solution.

As Taking Children Seriously also includes Taking One's Self Seriously, I mused on through this:

Suppose an adult is out of their favorite breakfast food, but simply does not want to venture out to the store as they are tired, it's cold and dark out, and they are happily engaged in interesting activity at home (or whatever).

Does this adult- let's call him Fred- try to coerce himself into going to the store, for the sake of having his favorite breafast food ready and waiting for him in the morning? I wonder what tone of voice Fred uses in his head when discussing this with himself. Might he be trying to persuade himself kindly, or guilting himself into going right now, or berating himself for not wanting to get off his lazy duff and take care of business? Does he feel compelled, against his will, to do this chore before he is 'allowed' to relax and enjoy his current activity? Is it a voice from the past, or is it a rational process of decision making?

Perhaps he weighs the pros and cons of stopping what he is doing and getting bundled up and going out and starting the vehicle or walking the distance to the store versus doing the same in the morning instead of tonight, versus eating the leftover pizza for breakfast instead of his favorite breakfast food, versus fasting until he gets to the store or maybe he wanted to start a fast anyhow, versus asking a friend for help, versus ordering the groceries on the internet and having them delivered. Maybe Fred is accustomed to taking a brisk walk in the morning, and having a destination like the store for a few items is just the ticket. Maybe he respects the fact that he just doesn't want to go now, and will decide in the morning what the best course of action is. If Fred can see that there are many options, some of which are better, by his lights, than forcing himself to go now whether he wants to or not, he can make a decision and feel comfortable with it, and get on with his enjoyable evening.

In the morning, does he get up and berate himself for not going to the store last night, so that the favored breakfast items could be available? Does he stand glumly at the refrigerator, feeling chastened because he doesn't really care for the selection of food that is available to him, but it's his own fault, and he's just going to have to live with it? And maybe next time he will remember this lesson and get on out there and get the breakfast food before he runs out.

Or does he find something in the cupboard that he likes and enjoys it, or goes off to the store happily to get his supplies?

If Fred takes himself- his preferences in the moment- seriously, he is able to make good decisions that support his desires and interests and obligations. He is confident that he is able to engage his creativity to find solutions as problems come up.

What does this have to do with the kid at the table faced with food s/he doesn't want and the burden of guilt- 'you were the one who refused to go to the market'- and the lack of help to get hir what s/he wants?

I think that a parent has to learn to take their own self seriously, in the process of learning to take children seriously- to respect their own autonomy and right to want what they want, and to get what they want in ways that everyone can win.

If a parent treats their own self with respect and helps their own self figure out ways to get what they want within the framework of consentual family relationships, they will also be willing to work out consentual solutions with their children. It is good for everyone. You can't expect a person to treat others better than they treat themselves, imo.

If the kid is experiencing psychological coercion (a la TCS definition) at the breakfast table (and the systematic coercion that is likely to be found in other parts of the parent-child relationship), which Fred is that kid likely to grow up to be like? The compelled and berated Fred, or the Fred finding good solutions?

Of course, the kid might be creative enough to avoid feeling coerced about the breakfast situation. A parent can never know in advance what situations will be percieved as coercive by the child. Solving problems by consent will avoid- as much as possible- anyone having to feel coerced.

[please assume that this is a hypothetical situation and not a comment upon anybody's particluar parenting methods. This is a TCS discussion, not an evaluation of any particular person's parenting.]


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

This thread is getting so lengthy, so quickly, it is hard to keep up









I apologize if I have missed a response to one of my posts. I am wading through all the new stuff in this thread and getting a bit lost. Just point me in the direction of a reply if I missed it.

I have been reading the posts regarding concerns over the adversarial quality to this forum. I have been thinking about this and would like to add my thoughts.

One problem I see is simply the expectations of each person participating here. I think that sometimes when a person posts a question about TCS theory, hoping to further debate or critique the issue, the person who responds was only looking to answer the question. When they find themselves being questioned/challenged, it isn't welcomed. On the flip side, their response, unintentionally, comes across as dismissive or elusive to the person trying to debate TCS theory.

I think we can better integrate this into a support/debate forum just by being clearer of our intentions when we post. I find TCS theory tremendously interesting, and would like to better understand what I feel is right about it, and challenge what I feel are it's weakness's. I have tried to be up front about this, but moving forward, I will make an effort to say in my posts whether I am just looking for an answer to a question I have, or am looking to debate an aspect of TCS theory.

Hope this helps improve everyone's satisfaction with this forum...

Heartmama


----------



## paula_bear (Nov 23, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by heartmama_
*I have been reading the posts regarding concerns over the adversarial quality to this forum. I have been thinking about this and would like to add my thoughts.

One problem I see is simply the expectations of each person participating here. I think that sometimes when a person posts a question about TCS theory, hoping to further debate or critique the issue, the person who responds was only looking to answer the question. When they find themselves being questioned/challenged, it isn't welcomed. On the flip side, their response, unintentionally, comes across as dismissive or elusive to the person trying to debate TCS theory.

I think we can better integrate this into a support/debate forum just by being clearer of our intentions when we post. I find TCS theory tremendously interesting, and would like to better understand what I feel is right about it, and challenge what I feel are it's weakness's. I have tried to be up front about this, but moving forward, I will make an effort to say in my posts whether I am just looking for an answer to a question I have, or am looking to debate an aspect of TCS theory.*
I agree with what you're saying Heartmama, but I also think there are those against TCS who are just trying to blow holes in the theory. They have no interest in debate - their minds are already made up and they want to show the rest of us (who are interested, as you mentioned) that TCS simply won't work. I also think that some of the hypothetical situations are extreme.

For example, if a family had planned an exciting vacation, with all members eagerly looking forward to it, I seriously doubt one would back out at the last minute "for no logical reason." Has this actually happened to anyone? I have never even had to cancel a casual outing because a common preference couldn't be found. (Even before I knew what a common preference was.) And I have a child who would much rather spend time with friends than family, but we can nearly always accomodate everyone.

It seems to me that people ask questions, not really caring to listen to the answers, but only to keep the debate going. I think this is a waste of everyone's time. Maybe we can start a different thread called "Debate TCS - Post Here," so that those of us looking for support can get it here...


----------



## laelsweet (Dec 6, 2001)

i understand that tcs is supportive of pretty much any media children might find interesting, tv, video/films, videogames, computers, the internet, books,
now certainly i've got a number of entrenchments around those first three which i am currently attempting to review! however where i am running into trouble is around c o n t e n t

i can see how one can talk with a person, say while watching a video or playing a computer game, or reading a book, about racist or sexist imagery or interactions, say, without necessarily to prevent a family from having those particular games or books or videos around, right? we don't have to censor what we look at, we just need to understand it, and in fact child may find that, like us, s/he often prefers to use materials which have not got sexist or racist content, when they can be found, they can sometimes be very exciting! especially when well made, and we wish there were more. i regularly watch tv shows which have sexist representations, for example, and while sometimes i get too mad about it, sometimes i can accept that i am reading through those texts (i am not simply absorbing sexism and embodying it unconscious, at this point, i hope. certainly dominant culture can be pretty, uh, dominant.) so we can help children to read texts in different ways, if they are interested.
where i come undone is content which is not so easy for *me* to detach myself from enough to analyze it a bit: the least bit of suspense or violence and i am a twitching, vibrating wreck of nerves, and i carry violent images for years and years, they affect me very deeply. this runs in my family. sensitive, you see. so how can i reconcile these things? how would tcs view content appropriateness? while i am examining my theories around the *bucket* theory of learning, i know that things i see and hear affect me profoundly, and i can understand them all i like, i still have seen violence (representations of) and feel hurt by it.

p.s. above, fascinating discussion of self-coercion, i was just thinking about how my theories about self-discipline have affected the decisions i've made and how i have lived, thinking about motivation through desire, and how much further i am propelled, and how much happier. i think being accomplishment-centered is a theory i need to look at.

thanks for letting me share my thoughts


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

JW wrote:
****My scenario was that the child the next morning knowing that is all there is, starts complaining. I.e. they have changed their minds as they sit down at the table. They have two options. Eat or go hungry. ****

I understand what you are saying, JW, but I think you are overlooking a very crucial point: The child certainly has more than two options, but the parent has chosen to narrow it down to two. And both of these "options" are not the child's true choice at all. The child--as we have already established--does not want to eat that particular breakfast and the child does not want to go hungry. So, for the child to "choose" one of those options is for the child to be in a state of coercion. S/he has not been "allowed" any other choice and the parent seems unwilling to help the child find a better solution. Why narrow choices when one can expand them?

****So you are saying that if the child still didn't *want* to go, dind't want what was in the house (you were the one, as I recall who said surely there is something else in the house - I agreed, and said "here it is, kids, but you cahnge it again.....)but still wanted to have those things on your list, you would then attempt to involve other people, even early in the morning say, in order that your child could by choice

a) stay at home and then the next morning change their minds and

b) still have what they want for breakfast? *****

If that were their choice, I would do what I could to help them solve the present problem without referring to the "mistake" they made solving (or actually not solving to their satisfaction) the previous problem. If we really think about it, we can see that the child didn't cause this present problem at all. And the "mistake" the child made the night before was not really a bad "choice" at all. The child was given narrow choices (either go to the store now or eat Y for breakfast), niether of which s/he preferred (hence, they were both bad choices). Having been given such narrow choices, the child chooses the least coercive which, at the time, is to not go to the store. I think it is unfair for the parent to coerce a child into making a choice and then blaming hir, later, for making it. And it is untrue to claim that the child really made that choice in the first place.

****In otherwords, you are teaching your children that they can do what they want, and have what they want, by "coercing" others to do what they should do THEMSELVES in the first place? ****

No. I don't see how anyone is coerced if we find/create a common preference (which is what I would strive to do). I am not "teaching" my child anything. I am solving a problem.

****I use the word "coercing" because to me, that is exactly what it is. It is coercing, and imposing on other people for frivolous reasons. You think otherwise. ****

Yes, I do. We may have different ideas of what it means to ask someone to do something. If I ask someone if s/he would be willing to do something for me, I trust that s/he will only agree to do it if s/he wants to. If s/he doesn't want to, I respect that choice and seek a different solution to my problem. By *asking* if s/he will do something, I am not imposing my will on my friend. You seem to be suggesting that it is okay to impose one's will on one's children but it is not okay to ask a friend to do something.

****Now, maybe your solution might be this. Child says "Well I want to go to the market now and get what I want for breakfast!" and Mommy says "Yes dear, the car is there, there is nothing stopping us now that you are ready and willing, we can do that....off we go..." Hmmmmm ****

That might be a solution if I wanted to go to the store and everyone was happy to do so. The solution would depend on the desires of everyone involved. I cannot tell you what my solution would be. To do so would be to suggest that I have pre-fabricated "solutions" to various problems which is not in keeping with TCS. The solution would depend on countless individual factors that I cannot possibly predetermine.

****What messages is that sending one's child?****

I wouldn't be doing this in order to "send a message" to my child. If I want to "send a message" to my child, I speak to hir directly. I don't really believe in covert messages or in "teaching a valuable lesson." I would be doing this in an effort to solve a problem to everyone's satisfaction. As for the "message," my child might realize that hir desires are just as important as mine or any other member of the family and that problems can be solved without resorting to coercion. But again, that wouldn't be my *reason* for seeking common preferences. My reason would be to help everyone get what they want.

Netty


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Paula Bear wrote:

Quote:

I agree with what you're saying Heartmama, but I also think there are those against TCS who are just trying to blow holes in the theory. They have no interest in debate - their minds are already made up and they want to show the rest of us (who are interested, as you mentioned) that TCS simply won't work.
This is a two way street. I could have written the same thing but replaced my method of parenting where TCS appears and the statement would have been just as accurate, in my humble opinion. Those of us who don't buy the whole TCS 'theory' practice it over and over everyday in our parenting, we just don't subscribe to the whole theory. I choose to leave my options open when it comes to parenting. TCSers seem to think that coersion is the evil of perenting and those of us that occasionally coerse our children are making big mistakes in our parenting. Not true, IMO. I'm not saying that you don't have a point in your above statement, I'm simply saying that you could apply that statement to both sides debating here and it would be just as true.

Of course, I think that my dh and I are parenting in the way that
is best for us and our family. Diving in head first and practicing the TCS theory in our household would be a disaster. I am just not comfortable with the extreme that it goes to to avoid coersion, which I personally think is just a fact of life. I am sure you think I am wrong in my thinking. The difference is that I can agree to disagree, but whenever that is mentioned it is rebuffed as a horrible option, as if there was one correct way to parent. I see nothing wrong with saying "hey, it's not my style, but if it works for you, great!"

Are you honestly going to tell me that the way I choose to parent my child is WRONG? It seems as if I have heard that over and over everytime a TCSer says that coersion is wrong. Do you (not personal to anyone) really feel that you have the right to judge my parenting style as wrong. If you are a perfect parent with who never makes any mistakes, then feel free. I don't think any of us fall into that catagory


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Just Wondering_
*But is it not a truism that many people can unknowlingly be coercive, and they don't even realise they are. They might not consider it coercive, or they may call it something else.*
JW, *THIS* is something I completely agree with you on.

Pat


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Just Wondering_
Dear Iciclespider.

You say you agree with the statement you highlighted.

Please could you clarify exactly what you mean, and in what context?

In general?
Yes, most definitely in general.

Quote:

Is this a generalised statement, with no unspoken message?
Yes, it is a generalized statement, but in addition there is an unspoken message.

Quote:

Or are you suggesting that I am a coercive parent and don't know it?
I don't know whether or not you are. What I do think is that some of your suggestions to problems here on this forum are coercive.

But what I am also suggesting is that *I* am sometimes a coercive parent and don't know it. I am always striving to learn what is considered coercion by another and consider if I also think so. It seems like the more I learn about what really is coercive to another individual, the more there is to know.

JW, I have carefully read your counter arguments and tried to very carefully consider if in fact I was missing something and so far I do not think that I have. I think both positions have been repeated more than once and at this point we just need to, for lack of a common preference, "agree to disagree".

Let's let the poor dead horse rest in peace...

Pat


----------



## Iguanavere (Nov 26, 2001)

"No problem can stand the assault of sustained thinking."

I thought you all would appreciate this...

I just read this in Barbara Coloroso's book, "Kids Are Worth It: Giving Your Child the Gift of Inner Discipline". In Coloroso's book she uses some criteria in judging whether a parent should intervene:

Is the problem life threatening, morally threatening and/or harmful.

This rings true for me - I want common preferences - but if the challenge is life threatening, morally threatening and/or harmful to my child or someone else - I draw a line.

Icicle Spider says:

" The child could be young enough that they do not yet have the knowledge nor the experience to understand the implications of plopping down in the middle of the aisle. The ice cream got them to say, plop down somewhere else, where they were no longer in the way. It was not an extrinsic motivation that is trying to teach them that if they move out of the way, they get ice cream."

A yes - they may not have the knowledge or the experience - but if, as all TCS'er's assume - that all children is rational at any age - then isn't it safe to say that they will rationalize that they can use this tactic to get whatever they want in the future? IMO, you are setting yourself up for power struggles if your use bribes. Even if, as you suggest, they are unaware that the ice cream helped you get them to plop elsewhere - they are still rationalizing that if Mom wants we to do something, I can use this kind of negotiation to get what I want.

Now, before you tell me that *that* is what you are trying to teach your children - that there is always room for negotiations - please allow me to illustrate why I think the above scenario is wrong:

Let's say I am parallel parked on a street with cars ahead and behind me. I am about to pull out into traffic, when a car pulls up and parks directly to my left (in the US, that is) completely blocking me from moving into traffic.

I calmly get out of the car and ask the driver if he could kindly move his car, as he is blocking me and I need to be on my way. The driver says, "What will you give me." "What do you mean?" I ask. "How about $50." says the driver.

Should I give in to this tyrant so that I can get on my way or should I call the police and have him forcebly removed?

I say the latter. And how does this relate? Well we have community rules that we all agree upon ( well, for the most part, especially if you are active in voting, etc..) I also think that we have a societal code of common decency, which we as parents are responsible for deseminating to our children. you know, we don't kill, harm, mame, impede, etc...

Since technically we are responsible (in criminal courts) for our children until they are of age (18 here in the US) if our child does not comply, we need to do what we must to get the child to comply.

So back to Scenario A, if my child was in someone's way and was refusing to move and was aware of our social code (or perhaps not aware, but simply feeling obstinate) I would *help* my child by kindly picking them up and moving them out of the way. I would not offer them an *incentive* as their incentive should be because it is the right thing to do. If they are not behaving right - then I will help them until they can do it on their own.

And latter when we were talking the situation through I would try to understand their position if it still was not clear to me, but I would not feel that I had coerced my child.

Also - in the scenario in JW's post earlier, in which the child decides not to go to the store and then does not have the breakfast that they want - isn't this really the childs problem to solve. Isn't this a natural consequence? If a common preference was acheived the night before, is it coercion to simply say to your child in the morning, "I am happy to help you find something that you will want to eat that we have in the house." And then work to a common preference in that situation. Or perhaps simply say to the child, "well we acheived a common preference last night. If there is a new problem, I am happy to help you with a new solution." And if the solution the child presents, is "LEt's go now" and that is not acceptable to the mother, then isn't this a situation of natural consequences? It is ok for the parent to have preferences, right? Or how else would the child learn to consider other people ever?


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:



_Another great post by Iguanavere_
"No problem can stand the assault of sustained thinking."

I thought you all would appreciate this...

I just read this in Barbara Coloroso's book, "Kids Are Worth It: Giving Your Child the Gift of Inner Discipline". In Coloroso's book she uses some criteria in judging whether a parent should intervene:

Is the problem life threatening, morally threatening and/or harmful.

This rings true for me - I want common preferences - but if the challenge is life threatening, morally threatening and/or harmful to my child or someone else - I draw a line.


Life threatening, in principle, I agree. Sometimes there is just not time to negotiate a common preference and the only way out is to coerce (as in the TCS definition of coerce, not Webster's definition, this is the TCS Discussion thread after all). This still doesn't make it right, IMO.

However, we still need to be very careful here about our own entrenched theories about what is *really* life threatening. A child standing near the edge of a huge drop off is probably just fine. A better way solution to such problems is to avoid them, of which there are many ways. And if you find yourself coercing (TCS coerce again), use that as a lesson to learn from. Maybe we should just not walk on this very busy street.

Morally threatening and/or harmful to my child or someone else. This is a much tougher one. We could go on and on here (in fact we already have!) about what all these terms really mean. Clearly we would harm someone else if they were going to harm us or our child. After that things start getting grayer and grayer for me.

Quote:



Icicle Spider says:

" The child could be young enough that they do not yet have the knowledge nor the experience to understand the implications of plopping down in the middle of the aisle. The ice cream got them to say, plop down somewhere else, where they were no longer in the way. It was not an extrinsic motivation that is trying to teach them that if they move out of the way, they get ice cream."

A yes - they may not have the knowledge or the experience - but if, as all TCSer's assume - that all children is rational at any age - then isn't it safe to say that they will rationalize that they can use this tactic to get whatever they want in the future? IMO, you are setting yourself up for power struggles if your use bribes. Even if, as you suggest, they are unaware that the ice cream helped you get them to plop elsewhere - they are still rationalizing that if Mom wants we to do something, I can use this kind of negotiation to get what I want.

Now, before you tell me that *that* is what you are trying to teach your children - that there is always room for negotiations - please allow me to illustrate why I think the above scenario is wrong:

Let's say I am parallel parked on a street with cars ahead and behind me. I am about to pull out into traffic, when a car pulls up and parks directly to my left (in the US, that is) completely blocking me from moving into traffic.

I calmly get out of the car and ask the driver if he could kindly move his car, as he is blocking me and I need to be on my way. The driver says, "What will you give me." "What do you mean?" I ask. "How about $50." says the driver.

Should I give in to this tyrant so that I can get on my way or should I call the police and have him forcibly removed?

I say the latter. And how does this relate? Well we have community rules that we all agree upon ( well, for the most part, especially if you are active in voting, etc..) I also think that we have a societal code of common decency, which we as parents are responsible for deseminating to our children. you know, we don't kill, harm, mame, impede, etc...

Since technically we are responsible (in criminal courts) for our children until they are of age (18 here in the US) if our child does not comply, we need to do what we must to get the child to comply.

So back to Scenario A, if my child was in someone's way and was refusing to move and was aware of our social code (or perhaps not aware, but simply feeling obstinate) I would *help* my child by kindly picking them up and moving them out of the way. I would not offer them an *incentive* as their incentive should be because it is the right thing to do. If they are not behaving right - then I will help them until they can do it on their own.

And latter when we were talking the situation through I would try to understand their position if it still was not clear to me, but I would not feel that I had coerced my child.


This is a good demonstration of the problem of these "What Ifs" and of the medium we are trying to communicate in. In the situation I described, I have been putting a very non-coercive spin on the situation beyond what was actually written, and it sounds like you put a very coercive spin on it. My spin on what it sounds like your spin is to me, is that the exchange between parent and child went something like this (this is partly tongue-in-cheek, btw):

Parent: "Johnny, somebody needs to get by, could you please move."
Johnny: "No."
Parent: "Please move, it is there isn't any room otherwise."
Johnny: "I really don't care."
Parent: "Listen Johnny, here's an ice cream bar if you move over."
Johnny: "Really? Okay, but how about two ice cream bars?"
Parent: "Sounds great! Another common preference, thank goodness I didn't have to coerce!"

Whereas the spin I was putting on it was:

Parent sees a person coming down the aisle and notices that their toddler is sitting right in the middle of the aisle. Not wanting to get into a possibly coercive situation with their toddler, the parent quickly grabs an ice cream bar from the shopping cart and offers it to the child in such a way that they had to get up and out of the way of the oncoming shopper. The child was never even aware of the possible conflict.

All of these scenarios can be spun to either succeed or fail I guarantee it, depending on the predetermined outcome you want. I strongly urge you to read the What If article locate at this link if you haven't already.

If you still want your "What If" addressed, please ask.

Quote:



Also - in the scenario in JW's post earlier, in which the child decides not to go to the store and then does not have the breakfast that they want - isn't this really the childs problem to solve. Isn't this a natural consequence?


What do you mean, that the parent would just refuse to help solve it?

Quote:



If a common preference was acheived the night before, is it coercion to simply say to your child in the morning, "I am happy to help you find something that you will want to eat that we have in the house." And then work to a common preference in that situation.


The problem with this is that you have arbitrarily eliminated possible solutions.

Quote:



Or perhaps simply say to the child, "well we acheived a common preference last night. If there is a new problem, I am happy to help you with a new solution."


This is better, you have not limited where the possible solution might be found, although it sounds a little too "I told you so" at the start.

Quote:



And if the solution the child presents, is "LEt's go now" and that is not acceptable to the mother, then isn't this a situation of natural consequences?


No, I would not call this a natural consequence, in that it is going to happen *no matter what*. This might or might not happen. What this is is the parent's *preference*.

Quote:



It is ok for the parent to have preferences, right? Or how else would the child learn to consider other people ever?


*YES!!! YES!!! and YES!!!*

Show me where a TCSer ever said that the parent *must* drive to the store in the morning. A counter argument might have spun it that way, but that is not what was said. It has been quite awhile, and this single thread format is hard to follow, but I recall (again with my spin) something along the lines of a *possible* solution *might* be to drive to the store in the morning. But that it would only be a true solution if that really was a true common preference of ALL parties.

Otherwise, the parent would be self-sacrificing and be in a state of coercion (TCS coercion), also called self-coercion. This is also a very big tenet of TCS, identifying when one is self-sacrificing and finding solutions to *this* problem.

Updated: There is a TCS article about self-sacrifice which is located at this link.

Now you can very well spin this further so that the child is more and more unreasonable, but this is just not what happens. Children and all people for that matter that have been helped in getting what they want, learn very quickly to help others get what they want. When their point of view has been taken seriously, they take other's points of view seriously. They know that Mom will try her *hardest* and has consistently gone the extra mile to help them get what they want, and that if Mom is now saying that driving to the store now is almost impossible, then it is time to consider other solutions.

TCS does not have any specific solutions to specific problems. TCS is providing a framework for finding solutions to any problem. It is to providing a way for individuals to fish for the solutions that work for that unique family, not providing the fish themselves.

Pat


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

I guanavere wrote:

"This rings true for me - I want common preferences - but if the challenge is life threatening, morally threatening and/or harmful to my child or someone else - I draw a line. "

If a situation is life threatening, a parent does what they can to save a life. First priority. Force ten emergency. People want to survive, including kids, so help them do so.

In a situation that is morally threatening (not sure exactly what that means)- Doesn't a parent do an ongoing sharing of their moral theories with their children? I think children want to do what is right. They might not know what that is, in any given situation, and act on their best theories at the time. A parent can help children improve their moral theories. And having children does much to help parents clarify and refine and improve their own moral theories, ime!

If harm is being inflicted, the first priority, again, is to protect those who are being harmed (unless they make it clear that they wish to deal with it on their own). I don't think that children want to be hurt or injured, any more than they want to die. They depend upon their parents and other trusted advisors to help them learn how to avoid being hurt. A parent has the privilege and responsibility to help children learn about what is right to do- which gives the parent the opportunity to examine their own theories about what is right and wrong in the particular circumstances, and how to communicate that to their child respectfully, listening to what the child thinks is true, and presenting what parent thinks is true, and together they just might create some new knowledge.

Iguanavere, again:

"A yes - they may not have the knowledge or the experience - but if, as all TCS'er's assume - that all children is rational at any age - then isn't it safe to say that they will rationalize that they can use this tactic to get whatever they want in the future?"

If a person is regularly helped to get what they want in life, they are not in need of a manipulative 'tactic' to get whatever they want in the future. They know how to get what they want by asking and creating common preferences, a process that respects each parties' needs.

Rationalize (to attribute one's actions to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives, or to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable- from my desk dictionary) is a different animal than rational (adjective form of reason- generally, processes that tend to create knowledge).

"IMO, you are setting yourself up for power struggles if your use bribes."

IMO, we are setting ourselves up for power struggles if we resort to coercion.

" Even if, as you suggest, they are unaware that the ice cream helped you get them to plop elsewhere - they are still rationalizing that if Mom wants we to do something, I can use this kind of negotiation to get what I want. "

That might be true for people who don't know how to get what they want in any other way than manipulating people.

If a kid can have ice cream whenever they want it, they are not likely to look for such a convoluted way to get it as manipulating mom into bribing hir with ice cream. In the aisle situation, offering an ice cream or anything else is an effort to help the child find something they might like to do *more* than whatever they are doing in the middle of the aisle. This is one way to find a solution that everyone is happy with, though it is not the only way.

IMO, if a kid is consistently not getting what they want in life, then they are sitting ducks for learning the manipulation game. If the only time they have enough power to be able to negotiate for what they want, is in the midst of crisis, it is quite rational to go for it, at that point. Kids are creative about finding ways to get what they want, be it by manipulation or sneaking or lying or whatever other strategies they need to learn. Much better, imo, to look for common preferences, right out in the open, with as much hlep as possible.


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

JW wrote:

****What I would like from you both is a clear explanation as to why you consider the ice-cream and check-out teller example are NOT coercion, and why you consider I am a coercive parent.****

I can try again to articulate my thoughts on the ice-cream example. In the original scenario, the child was too young to understand why s/he must move (s/he was a toddler) so I suggested that one possible solution is to offer the child a reason--by hir own lights--to move out of the way. The reason why offering ice-cream is *not* coercion or a bribe is that the offer would not be contingent upon the child moving. In other words, I would not say, "*If* you move out of the way, I'll get you some ice-cream." I would simply offer a trip to the ice-cream shop as something the child might like to do (and by choosing to do, would get out of the person's way). I agree that it would be bribery (and therefore coercion) if the child thought that s/he would not get ice cream *unless* s/he moved out of the way.

I don't know if you are a coercive parent, JW, I am simply responding to the comments and suggestions you offer concerning problem-solving. Some of those suggestions involve coercion. I am pointing out why I think the solution is coercive (and I am using the TCS definition of coercion when doing so).

****Netty, I also would like you to reconsider your statement that IYO, my children's suspicion about your scenario was as a result of living in a coercive family. And I guess in order to do that, you will have to explain in an understandable fashion, why I am a coercive parent. *****

Again, I don't know the reason for your children's responses, but I could not see any coercion or manipulation in the scenario I offered. I do believe that a coercive upbringing can result in a loss of trust between parent and child. The idea that offering an incentive to someone would be construed as coercion and manipulation suggests, to me, a lack of trust in people's motives. There is no question that my offer was made out of self-interest, but that does not necessarily imply coercion. Again, I think that we have all been raised to think that self-interent must imply a lack of interest in the needs of others. This need not be the case with common preferences.

****I consider that theoretically, the most conversant children with regard to what is coercion, are those children who not only understand exactly what it is, but how to see if before it happens, and who know how to counter it. I was surprised by your comments. Because I would have thought that TCS children would have picked up the manipulation/coerciveness of the check-out teller just as quickly as mine did. ****

But there is no manipulation or coercion in the scenario. The reminder of the cashier's presence was offered as information for the friend to consider when making hir choice. Yes, it is offered in the hopes that the friend will choose to go but there is no coercion involved. The friend's choices are not limited in any way by that suggestion.

****You said that to manipulate and coerce was not your intent in making the suggestion to your child..... But is it not a truism that many people can unknowlingly be coercive, and they don't even realise they are. They might not consider it coercive, or they may call it something else.****

Yes, indeed. And that is why I offered my response should my friend (or my child) contrue my suggestion as coercive. I would apologize immediately and assure hir that I did not intend to coerce and I would seek a better solution that we were both happy with. I think you are right when you say that someone could be in a state of coercion as a result of a suggestion such as I offered. But I think that that state of coercion would be self-induced because of past experience (where someone may have been made to feel guilty or selfish or uncaring for saying "no"). This is, for me, why I want my children to realize that they can say "no" to any suggestion I offer and I will continue searching for a common preference.

I hope this clarifes my earlier responses.

Netty


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Netty wrote:

Quote:

I can try again to articulate my thoughts on the ice-cream example. In the original scenario, the child was too young to understand why s/he must move (s/he was a toddler) so I suggested that one possible solution is to offer the child a reason--by hir own lights--to move out of the way.
Now wait a sec, here. Let me get this straight. Offering ice-cream as an enticement to move out of the aisle is not a bribe or coersion. Hmmm. There's that semantic thing again. You can wrap it up and dress it up and call it what you like, but a bribe by any other name is still a bribe/coersion. Perhaps the reason I am so confused is that I have been using the English language when I read these posts. Perhaps I need to take a class in "TCS As A Language" so I can understand how that is NOT coersion/bribery/manipulation.

Quote:

the child was too young to understand why s/he must move (s/he was a toddler)
Doesn't the TCS theory believe that even the youngest baby is rational. Has it not been stated many times that even infants are rational? Please don't say "no" because I too have been reading these threads. This is a totally different answer from the answers given in the same situation in the other thread. I tried to go back through the old thread to find the original discussion about the child sitting in the aisle, but who has that kind of time? What a mess! In the old thread the TCS stand was that it was coersion to make the child move at all. It was not the parents responsibility for the wants/needs/or happiness of anyone other than their child. Then why would you even bother to offer your child ice cream in an attempt to move the child if you owe the person waiting for you child to move nothing. I find this a little wishy washy. It seems like TCS goes back and forth to find an answer that suitably answers whatever question is posed, despite the fact that it may contradict an earlier statement. A child is either rational or not, old enough to know or too young.

You can't have it both ways.

Has it not been stated many times that even infants are rational? This is a totally different answer from the answers given in this same situation on the other thread


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
Now wait a sec, here. Let me get this straight. Offering ice-cream as an enticement to move out of the aisle is not a bribe or coersion. Hmmm. There's that semantic thing again. You can wrap it up and dress it up and call it what you like, but a bribe by any other name is still a bribe/coersion. Perhaps the reason I am so confused is that I have been using the English language when I read these posts. Perhaps I need to take a class in "TCS As A Language" so I can understand how that is NOT coersion/bribery/manipulation.
The child in this case can already have all the ice cream they want, whenever they want. The non-coercive parent would never deny a request for ice cream just because it is ice cream. The ice cream in this scenario is nothing more than a distraction. It could have just as easily been, hey Johnny, let's play patty-cake.

Quote:

Doesn't the TCS theory believe that even the youngest baby is rational. Has it not been stated many times that even infants are rational? Please don't say "no" because I too have been reading these threads. This is a totally different answer from the answers given in the same situation in the other thread. I tried to go back through the old thread to find the original discussion about the child sitting in the aisle, but who has that kind of time? What a mess! In the old thread the TCS stand was that it was coersion to make the child move at all. It was not the parents responsibility for the wants/needs/or happiness of anyone other than their child. Then why would you even bother to offer your child ice cream in an attempt to move the child if you owe the person waiting for you child to move nothing. I find this a little wishy washy. It seems like TCS goes back and forth to find an answer that suitably answers whatever question is posed, despite the fact that it may contradict an earlier statement. A child is either rational or not, old enough to know or too young.

You can't have it both ways.

Has it not been stated many times that even infants are rational? This is a totally different answer from the answers given in this same situation on the other thread
Yes, a child is *rational*, but that doesn't mean that they automatically *understand* everything. Your quote from Netty claiming the contradiction has the phrase *to young to understand* in it, it does not have the phrase *to young to be rational*.

The child is still "too young to *understand* why s/he must move (s/he was a toddler)", to requote Netty. The child is also too young to understand differential calculus, but that doesn't mean that they are not *rational*.

This link is where Netty has a post with a message titled *The Rational Infant*.

Pat


----------



## laelsweet (Dec 6, 2001)

hey! (waving arms) i asked you guys a question back there!
and laelmoresweet posted thoughts about why continuing to argue in this fashion will continue to be fruitless! no answer. should we go elsewhere? we were really hoping to stay here and talk about how to use tcs! please?


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Was this the question?

Quote:

_Originally posted by laelsweet_
*i understand that tcs is supportive of pretty much any media children might find interesting, tv, video/films, videogames, computers, the internet, books,
now certainly i've got a number of entrenchments around those first three which i am currently attempting to review! however where i am running into trouble is around c o n t e n t

i can see how one can talk with a person, say while watching a video or playing a computer game, or reading a book, about racist or sexist imagery or interactions, say, without necessarily to prevent a family from having those particular games or books or videos around, right? we don't have to censor what we look at, we just need to understand it, and in fact child may find that, like us, s/he often prefers to use materials which have not got sexist or racist content, when they can be found, they can sometimes be very exciting! especially when well made, and we wish there were more. i regularly watch tv shows which have sexist representations, for example, and while sometimes i get too mad about it, sometimes i can accept that i am reading through those texts (i am not simply absorbing sexism and embodying it unconscious, at this point, i hope. certainly dominant culture can be pretty, uh, dominant.) so we can help children to read texts in different ways, if they are interested.
where i come undone is content which is not so easy for *me* to detach myself from enough to analyze it a bit: the least bit of suspense or violence and i am a twitching, vibrating wreck of nerves, and i carry violent images for years and years, they affect me very deeply. this runs in my family. sensitive, you see. so how can i reconcile these things? how would tcs view content appropriateness? while i am examining my theories around the *bucket* theory of learning, i know that things i see and hear affect me profoundly, and i can understand them all i like, i still have seen violence (representations of) and feel hurt by it.*
I agree with you about not liking violent movies *myself*.

I remember a great TCS discussion on this a few years ago, and one suggestion that helped me was to examine and take apart the movie from a directors view point. Talk about and examine what are the techniques used in the film to create such a scary effect on us. How did they make all that blood look so real? What did they do to build the suspense? How does the music track effect our mood? Pick the movie apart to pieces to at least understand that the movie is not really *real*, it is just a movie.

I found this to be a real learning experience for myself. I actually started to understand exactly what it is in these movies that effect me so, rather than them just effecting me. And after this understanding, I am much better able to be *not* effected by them.

I still don't like them personally, though.

It is my experience that TCS children learn very quickly what they like and do not like. They will watch what they are comfortable with and not watch something they are not comfortable with. I see it as my job to provide them with the information they need to find the movies they like and to avoid the movies that they might not want to watch.

Pat


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

laelsweet wrote:

<snip pretty astute observations about using media>
"how would tcs view content appropriateness?"

My theory is that it is up to each individual to decide. People without much knowledge or experience would likely welcome help and information about content.

"while i am examining my theories around the *bucket* theory of learning, i know that things i see and hear affect me profoundly, and i can understand them all i like, i still have seen violence (representations of) and feel hurt by it. "

You are the best judge about what you should see and what to avoid.

I was suprised when I recently saw the 'Lord of the Rings' movie. I am not a big fan of violence (to put it mildly) and I didn't watch many parts of the movie. I didn't realize it would be so graphic. The same great computer special effects they can do to make things seem so real, really makes the grisly body parts and so on look real as they are flying off the various creatures.

But I liked the movie, otherwise, and wouldn't have wanted to miss it. Same with a movie like 'Braveheart'. I like the time period and place and all the bonny men in skirts- really like the movie, but I didn't watch some of the more grisly scenes.

I've known kids who would get up and leave the room or fast-forward videos through parts that are too scary- sometimes the too scary is a scene where someone is being set up to be embarrassed. We don't know in advance what parts of a program will be offensive to another adult or child. If a kid is really interested in seeing a particular program/movie/video game/computer game, we can help them do so. We can inform them of the story line and anything we think they might find objectionable - including sex, which at certain stages of dawning self-consciousness many kids don't want to encounter. We can offer to watch it first, so that we can then watch it with them and warn them before something would come that they don't want to see.

I've never seen the attraction in slap-stick comedy. People falling over things and smacking each other by mistake or on purpose- like the 3 Stooges or Laurel and Hardy. I wince and cringe when I see that stuff, though I can appreciate the timing and the comedy. Many people love that stuff. When I was a kid, we were forbidden to watch the 3 Stooges because we were attempting to duplicate some of their stunts, and hurting each other. We could have learned a lot if, instead of being forbidden to enjoy something that we were interested in, we were helped to learn how to stage the stunts in ways that we didn't hurt each other.

"p.s. above, fascinating discussion of self-coercion, i was just thinking about how my theories about self-discipline have affected the decisions i've made and how i have lived, thinking about motivation through desire, and how much further i am propelled, and how much happier. i think being accomplishment-centered is a theory i need to look at. "

Oh, yes! I agree. Thinking about this has opened huge vistas for me. Accomplishing things that are important to one's self, over accomplishments that are held up for examination and approval, the coercion involved in having to perform and be watched and be picked apart vs. being satisfied with what one has done even if they haven't won a prize for it, even if no one ever knows about it- that's autonomy. Beats the hell out of dependence (not to be confused with inter-dependence, which we all are)


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

IS wrote:

Quote:

The child in this case can already have all the ice cream they want, whenever they want. The non-coercive parent would never deny a request for ice cream just because it is ice cream. The ice cream in this scenario is nothing more than a distraction. It could have just as easily been, hey Johnny, let's play patty-cake.
So my taking my child's hand and asking them to please move out of the way is coersion, but distracting the child with ice cream is not? You have got to be kidding, right? You are still using your power and ability to get them to do what you want them to do, thus violating what TCS stands for. My kids can have all the cereal bars (not ice cream) they want and they love them, but if I use it as a distraction to get them to do something that I want them to do it is just another form of manipulation. You can dress it up and justify it by saying that it isn't a treat, that they can have it any time they want, but you are still asserting your power and will over your child. If you can't see this I don't know what to say. I'm not saying that it is not a good solution, just that there is coersion/manipulation involved. Perhaps by your (not personal) definition of TCS I have been a follower for years, because much of what is suggested I do, but I don't see it all as free of coersion. I think this is where we differ.

Would you seriously let your child eat ice cream for bkfast, lunch and dinner and everything in between if that was what they wanted? Uugh!

What would you do in this situation that occurred in my home tonight? My ds2 was playing with three dixie cups -- the last three we had in the house. Ds1, of course, wanted them as soon as he saw his brother with them and tried to grab them away. I tried to get them to share the cups -- both screamed and wanted none of that. I got out three small, red, disposable, plastic cups and tried to extole the wonderful virtues of the new cups to ds1 -- he didn't want anything to do with them. I tried to get ds2 to see how wonderful they were and trade, but to no avail. No one was willing to compromise. Now what?

In the above scenario I tried to convince both son's that the red cups were an attractive choice in order to come to a solution. If one of them had decided to take the red cups instead would I have not coersed him? In my opinion, YES. He would have taken the other cups only because I manipulated his opinion/decision of which cups he wanted. Even if he decided whole heartedly upon seeing the cups that they were wonderful, I still manipulated/coersed to get one of them to give up the struggle for the original cups and end the battle. Perhaps my definition/opinion of what constitutes coersion/manipulation is much broader than yours and that is why I have a problem with the TCS theory. Of course that is only part of it because we have rules in our house which we expect them to follow, we don't allow my children to eat all the junk food they want, and we expect them to respect us simply because we are their parents. I miss the days when children addressed adults as Mr. and Mrs. rather than by first names, when children were taught to respect adults -- not to always question them. Does this make me old fashioned? Maybe, but it is certainly a different world today, and not all of the changes are good ones.

Anyway, now I am just rambling (tired).


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

This may just be one of those "agree to disagree" aspects of debating TCS theory that is so common here, but anyway, if anyone would like to discuss/debate this here is my post:

My example (I know, like we need another one floating around). I have tried to pick one from real life, as TCS parents have complained that the examples are too extreme:

If ds refuses to go to the doctor and I choose to take him kicking and screaming, that is one example of coercion.

Say instead you tell the child ONLY the facts, and they choose to go to the doctor. This strikes me as truly Non Coercive. By that I mean, you might say "Johnny, today you have a doctor appointment. This is because of symptoms xyz, which normally do not get better without the care of a doctor. The treatment for your condition involves xyz. The doctor is an expert in treating this, and expects the visit to last about 30 minutes".

Now, if the child, being rational and having been given all the info, says "okay let's go". I would agree there was no coercion here. In fact, even if the child did cry and say "The doctor will hurt me", and the parent says "Yes, this might hurt, that is common with this treatment". That is not a coercive answer either.

However, if the child begins to cry and say they will not go for reasons xyz, then IMO anything you say at this point to allay the concerns, and make the doctor visit seem more attractive, and elicite a willingness to go...that is just coercion, IMO, and nothing more.

One reason is because I think it is unrealistic to confuse a willingness to go with an absence of reluctance. The child may very well still harbor some of their original fears, but be willing to go because of the common preference they found with the promises and reassurrances of the parent. IMO, this will still leave the child in the state of coping with "opposing" viewpoints as TCS defines coercion.

Another reason I feel this is coercion is because of the use of force involved from the parent as they "find a common preference" with the child. From the moment you go beyond just providing facts for the child, and accepting any resistance without question, IMO you are simply using emotional/psychological/spiritual force to persuade the child. This is certain to introduce opposing feelings in the child, classic TCS coercion.

Do TCS parents see "finding common preferences" in this way as coercion? If so, what would be an example of a way you would handle such resistance from a child without coercion? If you don't think this is coercion, why not?

Heartmama


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
So my taking my child's hand and asking them to please move out of the way is coersion, but distracting the child with ice cream is not? You have got to be kidding, right?
I just did an search over both the TCS Discussion threads and could not find any example scenarios using the case of "taking my child's hand", so I am not sure how you concluded that TCS claims this is out right coercive. This could easily be a non-coercive solution that works in some situations.

Quote:

You are still using your power and ability to get them to do what you want them to do, thus violating what TCS stands for. My kids can have all the cereal bars (not ice cream) they want and they love them, but if I use it as a distraction to get them to do something that I want them to do it is just another form of manipulation. You can dress it up and justify it by saying that it isn't a treat, that they can have it any time they want, but you are still asserting your power and will over your child. If you can't see this I don't know what to say. I'm not saying that it is not a good solution, just that there is coersion/manipulation involved. Perhaps by your (not personal) definition of TCS I have been a follower for years, because much of what is suggested I do, but I don't see it all as free of coersion. I think this is where we differ.
Fair enough, I admit that determining what is coercive and what is not can be subtle. And remember, we are talking TCS coercive here, which is precisely define as:

"The psychological state of enacting one idea or impulse while a conflicting impulse is still active in one's mind."

If the child still wants to be in the middle of the aisle, then it is coercive. If the child does not want to be in the middle of the aisle, then it is not coercive.

You can only "bribe" a child with something that you would only give them if it was contingent on some condition. It is hard to bribe anyone with something they have full access to regardless. So I do not see how you can call it a bribe or even a treat.

Sure I am using my knowledge to try to get what I want, but I am trying my best to make sure that the solution is a win-win for everyone, and I am always receptive to changing what my preference is.

And I disagree with your statement that if you offered a child a cereal bar that it is pure and simple manipulation. Let's say you are at the park and have a picnic basket full of goodies, including lots of cereal bars for in between snacks that any child can come up and take whenever they get hungry. A couple of kids get into a disagreement over some playground equipment. So you go over and ask them if either would like a cereal bar, hoping to distract at least one into wanting something else. There are no strings attached by the offer, they could take it or leave it.

Is this manipulative in your opinion?

Quote:

Would you seriously let your child eat ice cream for bkfast, lunch and dinner and everything in between if that was what they wanted? Uugh!
Certainly, and I have, but it did not last for more than one meal though before they wanted something else.

Do you seriously think that a child would only want ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner if they had complete freedom to choose among all foods? Uugh! I can assure you from direct experience that they do not.

Quote:

What would you do in this situation that occurred in my home tonight?
I gather you did not read the What If article located at this link?

Quote:

My ds2 was playing with three dixie cups -- the last three we had in the house. Ds1, of course, wanted them as soon as he saw his brother with them and tried to grab them away. I tried to get them to share the cups -- both screamed and wanted none of that. I got out three small, red, disposable, plastic cups and tried to extole the wonderful virtues of the new cups to ds1 -- he didn't want anything to do with them. I tried to get ds2 to see how wonderful they were and trade, but to no avail. No one was willing to compromise. Now what?
How about ice cream? I bet that would have solved it!

Okay a cereal bar then? Maybe...but it doesn't seem to have quite the same effect.

Quote:

In the above scenario I tried to convince both son's that the red cups were an attractive choice in order to come to a solution. If one of them had decided to take the red cups instead would I have not coersed him? In my opinion, YES.
NO, not necessarily, not if for some reason they really, REALLY do now *want* the red cups, *by their own lights*.

Quote:

He would have taken the other cups only because I manipulated his opinion/decision of which cups he wanted. Even if he decided whole heartedly upon seeing the cups that they were wonderful, I still manipulated/coersed to get one of them to give up the struggle for the original cups and end the battle. Perhaps my definition/opinion of what constitutes coersion/manipulation is much broader than yours and that is why I have a problem with the TCS theory.
It is coercion/manipulation if you have pre-determined what *you* think *must* be the final outcome and make sure that no one else really has any choice in the matter. But there is nothing wrong for you to have an initial preference to the out come and to successfully convince everybody else that that is also a great solution, *as long as they all have complete free will to decide*.

Quote:

Of course that is only part of it because we have rules in our house which we expect them to follow, we don't allow my children to eat all the junk food they want, and we expect them to respect us simply because we are their parents. I miss the days when children addressed adults as Mr. and Mrs. rather than by first names, when children were taught to respect adults -- not to always question them. Does this make me old fashioned? Maybe, but it is certainly a different world today, and not all of the changes are good ones.
This is clearly very, very much the opposite of TCS.

I know that for me, I just ignore any theory that is totally counter to my philosophy and there is clearly no coming to terms. I would just be disruptive in any attempt to have a discussion with a view point so counter to my own.

Pat


----------



## Iguanavere (Nov 26, 2001)

i am interested to know why any TCS advocates are interested in the Mothering Magazine. I ask only because of an ealier post, on a previous thread, in which the term "Gentle Discipline" was debated as a coercive statement.


----------



## laelsweet (Dec 6, 2001)

(sheepish grin) thanks for your answers i.s. + l


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been a Mothering magazine subscriber since 1989. I've found lots of good information there, though I find much more that I disagree with as I learn more about non-coercive parenting and education. Still, I support alternative (from mainstream) sources of information. I figure that people who are already questioning mainstream party line might be more open to the alternative ot TCS theory, especially people who are questioning parenting and education issues- and I find that, like mainstreamers and alternative thinkers in other areas, some are and some arent'. I appreciate having another place to discuss TCS, here at mothering.com- I learn from any discussion of TCS, anywhere.


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

****Offering ice-cream as an enticement to move out of the aisle is not a bribe or coersion. Hmmm. There's that semantic thing again. You can wrap it up and dress it up and call it what you like, but a bribe by any other name is still a bribe/coersion.****

I agree that a bribe by any other name is still a bribe. But perhaps we disagree with the *definition* of bribe, so we should begin there. The way that I understand, and am using, this word is an act of offering something to someone else *on the condition* that one gets something in return and in order to get someone to do something against hir will *that s/he does not want to do.* Suggesting to a child that s/he go get some ice-cream is not a bribe. If it were, then it would be a bribe to suggest anything to anyone if one had any self-interest in their agreement. It seems that people here think that any suggestion is a bribe if one's reasoning is not fully revealed or if both parties do not share the same reason for wanting the offered distraction/inducement. The child wants to go to the ice-cream shop because s/he wants ice-cream. The parent wants to go to the ice-cream shop so that the child will make way for the person wanting to go down the aisle (and maybe she'd like some ice-cream too ;-)). The child is not going to the ice-cream shop simply to please the parent or because s/he is being coerced or manipulated. S/he is simply agreeing to a suggestion because s/he *wants* to do it. She *wants* ice-cream. S/he is free to say "no" to the suggestion if s/he doesn't want ice-cream or doesn't want ice-cream right now. If s/he *prefers* to stay in the aisle looking at the object, then obviously the suggestion is not a common preference. If s/he *prefers* to get ice-cream, then it *is* a common preference. There is no manipulation of a *person* here and no one is in a state of coercion.

Compare the above non-coercive solution with the following coercive solution offered in a previous post:

**** Child wants to eat a whole box of cookies, which Parent knows will throw child into a diabetic shock. Parent explains to child the complex theories about how a pancreas doesn't produce insulin, etc... child has no idea what the hell parent is talking about - parent, says that the cookes will make child sick, child maintains that child wants the whole box of cookies. Parents says no, child can have some sugar-free dessert. Child is sad, but takes the sugar-free dessert.

TCS would say this is coersion. I call it common sense. This was a compromise for the child and in the child's best interest.****

This is coercion. Why? Because the child *does not want* the sugar-free dessert. If s/he *preferred* the sugar-free dessert, s/he would not be sad when s/he takes it. The child is in a coercive state, which is "the psychological state of enacting one theory (eating the sugar-free dessert) while a conflicting theory(eating the box of cookies) is still active in hir mind." Of course, the parent is acting, quite rightly, on the theory that the child does not want to go into a diabetic shock. The child may not understand what that is or what causes it, but there is little doubt that s/he would not choose it if s/he *did* understand. Similarly, there is little doubt that the toddler would choose to move out of the person's way if s/he understood *that* situation as well. But, in both cases, *the child does not understand the parent's reasoning*. Is the best solution, then, to coerce the child into doing what the parent wants according to the parent's reasoning? I think not. The child learns nothing (since we have already established that s/he cannot understand) and is put in a state of coercion. I think that the best solution is to find something that the child wants according to the child's reasoning (a reasoning which may be limited not by a lack of rationality but by a lack of knowledge and experience) which *also* solves the larger problem which the child does not understand. What this solution is depends entirely on the very specific child's very specific preferences. In the store scenario, the parent thought that the child might *prefer* to go to the ice-cream shop over looking at the toy. Since the child agreed, it is fair to assume that the parent was correct and succeded in finding a common preference. In the diabetes scenario, the parent might seek something that the child *prefers* to the box of sugary cookies. To do so is not to trick or manipulate or coerce the child. It is to ensure that the child is not in a state of coercion (either by eating a dessert s/he doesn't like or by going into a sugar-induced diabetic shock). It is a way of helping the child see that if s/he cannot have what s/he originally wants, s/he can have something *even better*. Why would anyone be in a state of coercion by getting *something better* than hir original choice?

Please note that I agree that if the parent is unable to find something that the child *prefers* to the box of cookies, s/he is right to insist on the compromise. But the compromise is simply the lesser of two evils. It is not the best solution and it is not a common preference. A TCS parent would apologize for not being able to offer a better solution and would try to ensure that the same problem didn't come up again (for example, s/he would continue to look for foods that the child really loves but which do not have the potential to cause diabetic shock or s/he would continue to find a way of helping the child understand hir disease [or both]).

Does this make sense?

Netty


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

****i am interested to know why any TCS advocates are interested in the Mothering Magazine.****

I love Mothering Magazine and have been reading it since before I had children. Mothering Magazine helped me tremendously in looking beyond conventions of parenting. The wonderful articles and Peggy's editorials challenged my entrenched theories about so many things: breastfeeding, co-sleeping, responding to baby's cries, vaccinations, and on and on and on...I love the photography. I love all the media suggestions (books, videos, music) for children and parents. I care about the environment and so I find many of the articles about cloth-diapering and other "green solutions" to be tremendously helpful. I also *love* the poetry that Mothering publishes (which is always non-sentimental and truly moving). Of course there are articles in Mothering that I do not agree with. But that doesn't mean that I don't learn from them.

****I ask only because of an ealier post, on a previous thread, in which the term "Gentle Discipline" was debated as a coercive statement.****

Yes. I don't believe in any kind of "discipline" because I don't believe in the idea of "teaching" children anything. I am a facilitator of my children's learning. To assume that I *know* what my children should or should not learn is, I think, extremely arrogant. I certainly make suggestions and offer things that I think my child might like, but I take my child's cue in these matters. I base my shared theories on my experience and knowledge in the world, but I also accept that my theories are fallible and should be open to criticism (from any source, and that includes children).

Netty


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

Heartmama wrote:

"If ds refuses to go to the doctor and I choose to take him kicking and screaming, that is one example of coercion. "

Agreed.

"Say instead you tell the child ONLY the facts, and they choose to go to the doctor. This strikes me as truly Non Coercive. By that I mean, you might say "Johnny, today you have a doctor appointment. This is because of symptoms xyz, which normally do not get better without the care of a doctor. The treatment for your condition involves xyz. The doctor is an expert in treating this, and expects the visit to last about 30 minutes". "

What the parent sees as 'fact' is actually hir theory about what needs to happen- what is going on with child, ways to deal with it, what the options are.

"Now, if the child, being rational and having been given all the info, says "okay let's go". I would agree there was no coercion here."

I would expect more questions and answers, looking at alternatives, maybe researching and getting more information, over a period of time. But, it could be that simple.

"In fact, even if the child did cry and say "The doctor will hurt me", and the parent says "Yes, this might hurt, that is common with this treatment". That is not a coercive answer either. "

But it would not be help for that problem. If the child is afraid of being hurt, a parent can talk to the doctor and other sources and find out what the options are for pain relief.

"However, if the child begins to cry and say they will not go for reasons xyz, then IMO anything you say at this point to allay the concerns, and make the doctor visit seem more attractive, and elicite a willingness to go...that is just coercion, IMO, and nothing more."

Find solutions to the problem xyz.

"One reason is because I think it is unrealistic to confuse a willingness to go with an absence of reluctance. "

That would be a faulty theory.

"The child may very well still harbor some of their original fears, but be willing to go because of the common preference they found with the promises and reassurrances of the parent."

If it is truly a common preference, the child prefers going and solving the problem, than not doing so. Child might still be scared, but determined to confront the fear and do what child feels must be done to help with hir problem. A parent can support their child in this.

" IMO, this will still leave the child in the state of coping with "opposing" viewpoints as TCS defines coercion. "

If the child is having a problem that is bothering hir, and the parent and child have entered into a process of finding solutions for that problem, they might have consulted more than one doctor and done research on the problem and talked to many other people with that problem and discovered lots of good information that can help them figure out if, indeed, the problem must have intrusive and painful treatment to be solved, or if there are alternatives, or if the treatment can wait for awhile until the child comes to terms with it, what measures can be taken to control pain, can child listen to music on headphones to help distract hirself, or the child might decide s/he would rather live with the problem than the solution.

If the child gives any indication that s/he is still in a state of coercion over the doctor visit, and wishes to put it off, barring a life-threatening situation, I would back off and continue to help child to find solutions that we are both happy with. I would let the child know the consequences of cancelling a doctor's appt- if we had to pay for it anyhow, we might not be able to get another for a long time- in a non-accusatory way. I would let hir know my feelings about the matter, whatever they are, but I would also acknowledge that it is hir body and it is hir decision as to who touches it and what is done to it.

"Another reason I feel this is coercion is because of the use of force involved from the parent as they "find a common preference" with the child."

A use of force would not be compatible with finding a common preference.

" From the moment you go beyond just providing facts for the child, and accepting any resistance without question, IMO you are simply using emotional/psychological/spiritual force to persuade the child. This is certain to introduce opposing feelings in the child, classic TCS coercion."

This doesn't sound like finding common preferences. Neither person has all the facts- that is assumed in falliblism.
A parent shares hir theories about the situation, and the child shares hir theories about the situation. If they disagree about some point, they can find out more information to help them get closer to the truth of the matter. Neither would a TCS parent just accept any resistance without question. There is a great deal of questioning going on in finding common preferences- questioning of one's theories- which is what you are terming 'resistance' which is simply the child acting on their best theories, just as the parent is doing. They need to question and discuss and find out more information and get more input and create new knowledge for their selves.

Common preferences isn't just about persuading the other to come to your preference. It's about finding preferences that both like better than their original preference.

"Do TCS parents see "finding common preferences" in this way as coercion? If so, what would be an example of a way you would handle such resistance from a child without coercion? If you don't think this is coercion, why not?"

If these questions have not been answered above, let's discuss more.


----------



## k'smami (Nov 20, 2001)

because I like much of what it has to say about Natural Family Living. What made me decide to subscribe was their article on Circumcision.


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

I was going to respond, but it seems pointless.

Thanks JW and others for validating my opinions.

BTW, Netty. I used to teach preschool and there was a child who lived on cookies and ice-cream for over a week. By the end they had to finally say 'enough is enough' (which they should have done sooner, IMO) and take him to the pediatrician because he had screwed up his system so much that he was having trouble with his BMs and was in pain by that point.


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

****BTW, Netty. I used to teach preschool and there was a child who lived on cookies and ice-cream for over a week. By the end they had to finally say 'enough is enough' (which they should have done sooner, IMO) and take him to the pediatrician because he had screwed up his system so much that he was having trouble with his BMs and was in pain by that point.****

That sounds horrible. I don't quite understand the relevance of this example, however. Are you suggesting that a child who is not forced to eat "healthy" foods will choose to live on cookies and ice-cream even to the detriment of their health and well-being? Do you not think that there may have been "healthier" alternatives that this child's parent's may have offered. I think that what you are describing above is an example of neglect and irreponsible parenting. It has nothing in common with TCS-style parenting.


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Sorry, Netty. It shouldn't have been you I was referring to. I was actually replying to IS. These were the quotes. Again, my apologies.

My quote

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you seriously let your child eat ice cream for bkfast, lunch and dinner and everything in between if that was what they wanted? Uugh!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Icicle Spider replied:

Quote:

Certainly, and I have, but it did not last for more than one meal though before they wanted something else.

Do you seriously think that a child would only want ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner if they had complete freedom to choose among all foods? Uugh! I can assure you from direct experience that they do not.
I was just stating that in MY direct experience, sometimes they do.


----------



## grisletine (Nov 20, 2001)

am i the only one who thought that the article on non combative communication {in the new issue} was pretty much just another name for tcs?
i personally dont think the name taking children seriously is helping anything. i mean, if you really want other people to take their children "seriously" you shouldnt start off by {trying to } piss them off.. kwim?
i agree with the ideas but prefer to call it consentual parenting.


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

**** I got out three small, red, disposable, plastic cups and tried to extole the wonderful virtues of the new cups to ds1 -- he didn't want anything to do with them. I tried to get ds2 to see how wonderful they were and trade, but to no avail. No one was willing to compromise. Now what?****

Look for something else that one or both children would *prefer* to play with. Offer to play an entirely different game with one or both of them which they would prefer. Suggest a way that they might both play with the dixie cups in a way that satisfies both of them....etc.

****In the above scenario I tried to convince both son's that the red cups were an attractive choice in order to come to a solution. If one of them had decided to take the red cups instead would I have not coersed him? In my opinion, YES. He would have taken the other cups only because I manipulated his opinion/decision of which cups he wanted. *****

In what way did you manipulate his opinion/decision concerning which cups he wanted? By suggesting that he might prefer the red cups??? Please explain to me how this is manipulative.

****Even if he decided whole heartedly upon seeing the cups that they were wonderful, I still manipulated/coersed to get one of them to give up the struggle for the original cups and end the battle.*****

So if he actually *preferred* the red cups over the dixie cups, you would maintain that you had coerced him into preferring them? So, if my child were eating some carrots and I offered hir some cake, would I be *manipulating* hir into taking it if s/he chose it over the carrots??

****Perhaps my definition/opinion of what constitutes coersion/manipulation is much broader than yours and that is why I have a problem with the TCS theory. ****

Perhaps. But if we were to parent *non-coercively* by your conception of coercion, we would think it coercion to offer our children anything we think they might like. My parenting philosophy is *about* finding preferences rather than resorting to coercion. If I define a *preference* as "coercive" then I'm really at a loss for helping my child solve problems.

****Of course that is only part of it because we have rules in our house which we expect them to follow, we don't allow my children to eat all the junk food they want, and we expect them to respect us simply because we are their parents.****

And all of the above are coercive. A TCS family does not have rules because they seek common preferences whenever there are conflicts. TCS families do not restrict one another's diets. A variety of foods are availabe at all times and any member of the family can eat what they want, when they want. Members of a TCS family do not demand respect simply because they are older, or stronger, or in a position of power. They strive to treat one another according to the idea that each member of the family is a human being and, therefore, worthy of equal respect.

****I miss the days when children addressed adults as Mr. and Mrs. rather than by first names,****

as a way of reminding children that they are less important and lower on the social ladder than adults?

****when children were taught to respect adults -- not to always question them. ****

so that they will be unable to think for themselves as they get older and will, therefore, slavishly follow conventions rather than challenging them and living an authentic life?

****Does this make me old fashioned? Maybe, but it is certainly a different world today, and not all of the changes are good ones. ****

I think that the changes you have mentioned are all good ones. I would call them progressive changes. I'll give you an example of how "hierarchical coercion" influences people. I am a university professor. My students are all adults (ranging from the age of 20 -58) and are, no doubt, my equals. I always tell my students to call me by my first name. Interestingly, the majority of students still continue to call me "Dr." or "Professor" rather than using my first name. Even when I remind them to use my first name, they quickly fall back into the more hierarchical forms of address. Those students who refer to me by my first name are usually the most confident, intelligent, and inquisitive students in the class. They are not afraid of challenging my ideas and, therefore, learning more in class. They are not afraid of asking me to justify my assertions when they do not make sense to them. They do not merely accept what I tell them because I am the professor and therefore must be right. And I learn more from those students than from any of the more "respectful" and deferential ones. I think that demanding respect is often a way of refusing to deserve it. And it undermines ideas of equality and human autonomy.

Netty


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

jbcjmom wrote:

"So my taking my child's hand and asking them to please move out of the way is coersion,"

This is not necessarily so. It's what happens next that might lead to coercion.

"but distracting the child with ice cream is not?"

Not necessarily so. It could or could not. It depends upon the situation, the people involved, and their theories, I expect.

" You have got to be kidding, right?"

No, really!









"You are still using your power and ability to get them to do what you want them to do, thus violating what TCS stands for. "

Each person in the situation is using whatever power and ability they have available to them.

Using it to get what each person wants. The shopper wants to get by with their cart. The parent would like to assist the shopper in getting by, and assist hir child in becoming aware of the fact that the shopper wants to get by. The child wants to look at the toy, and is sitting in the way of the cart- not because child wants to be an impediment to shoppers, or to yank hir parent's chain, but because s/he is looking at a toy and that happens to be where s/he stopped to look at it.

The shopper could run into the kid with the cart. That would be morally wrong. The shopper could address the child "excuse me". If the child looked up from hir absorbing play activity and saw a cart bearing down on hir, with a stranger looking down at her and saying 'excuse me', would this child know what to do?
If not, hir parent is there to assist hir.

If the child has been dealt with disrespectfully in the past- had toys taken out of hir hands against hir will, by parent, and been picked up and bodily moved in the past by hir parent, without child's consent, child might rightly be concerned that any or all of this will happen again right now, and hunker down into hir first preference of sitting where s/he is, playing with that toy, and proceed to 'pitch a fit'. Seems like a rational response to me, in the circumstances. Child is rightly angry about the way s/he is treated.

So, yes, I can see where a person who holds theories that it is justified to use physical force to move a person and/or to take things away from them without their consent might also consider offering the child something that they might prefer to what they are doing at that moment (that is causing an impediment to another person) as a bribe or manipulation. I think this is a 'point of view' issue.

What are the deeper issues here? Perhaps the parent has a theory that children have to learn to give up something they want (playing with toy in aisle) for what someone else wants (to pass with shopping cart), and this is an opportunity to teach the child this valuable lesson. Parent is caught in the middle, as the party responsible for the child. Parent probably feels strong pressure to conform to societal mores, and the conventional expectation is to simply move the child. What are the moral implications? Does a person have the right to their autonomy (self-determination)?

Certainly, denying the child's autonomy and whisking hir out of the way is one of many incidents in a typical child's life that shows them graphically that they are less important than the adult with the shopping cart, and must give way. Why is the child less important? Simply because s/he has less knowledge and experience in the world than the adults around hir? The adults wish to help the child learn about the world, and this can be done coercively or non-coercively.

A parent and the person with the shopping cart can communicate to the child about their preferences, child can communicate about hir preference. This doesn't have to be a confrontational situation, and they can all get what they want without disregarding any one's autonomy. If that solution includes ice cream for everyone, is that a problem?

Many adults who learned this lesson well, that their preference is less important than other people's preference, would take their shopping cart and go back around the other way, in such a situation. Many adults who learned this lesson as a child, are now, as an adult, darn well going to force those children out of their because it is their turn to get the preferenctial treatment now, as an adult. They earned it, didn't they, by doing their stint as the child who didn't get their way. Either win or lose, right? And now it's their turn to win, by golly.

"Perhaps by your (not personal) definition of TCS I have been a follower for years, because much of what is suggested I do, but I don't see it all as free of coersion. I think this is where we differ. "

I think many people find a lot of what they already do articulated in TCS theory. And, even though the philosophy can strike a chord when a person first comes on it, as the learn more about it they are likely to find many areas of disagreement as well. IME, it takes a long time to work through the areas of disagreement, and new ones come to light when old ones are worked through.

"Would you seriously let your child eat ice cream for bkfast, lunch and dinner and everything in between if that was what they wanted? Uugh! "

Kids who have access to all foods can find out what they like and don't like, what makes them feel good and what doesn't. They should be able to eat what they want, when they are hungry, to learn what is best for their self, their appetite and their body. To interfere with this process of discovery is to risk faulty food theories, imo.

This doesn't happen in the absence of nurtitional theories or the example of what the other people around them are eating. Kids can benefit from hearing their parents' best theories about food, along with other theories- there's lots of them, about food, and I don't think anyone has come up with one that is absolutely true for everyone everywhere every time. Each person has to figure out what combination of foods is optimal for their own self. What is right for the parent's body isn't necessarily going to be the best for the child's body.

"What would you do in this situation that occurred in my home tonight? <snip red cup story>No one was willing to compromise. Now what? "

Compromise is usually a lose-lose scenario. Everyone loses something that they wanted. Why be willing to compromise, if you know you are going to lose something? Why be willing to compromise, if there is a better solution?

I wonder what would have happened if the parent in the red cup scenario would have take a Pokemon toy and hidden it under two of the red cups, and switched the three around, talking like a carny vendor about 'step right up, find the Pokemon toy and take it home with you!' kind of patter. If a parent comes into the situation and makes one little change, say, playing with another toy hirself, or bringing along a bucket of cornstarch and water and playing with it hirself, if that isn't enough to change the focus enough to render the original preference moot. It doesnt' have to be ice cream. It can be mudpies in the back yard or bubbles in the bathtub. I doubt that the children enjoy fighting and not getting what they want, and parent is not enjoying the altercation. Changing the dynamic is not bribery or manipulation or coercion. It is good, not harmful.

"In the above scenario I tried to convince both son's that the red cups were an attractive choice in order to come to a solution."

They weren't convinced. Fine, it was a good try, and it didn't help anyone's preference to change. Does that mean that the preference can't be changed? People change their preferences all the time. Helping them become aware of other possibilities is not manipulative or coercive, imo. That is what parents do for children all the time, help them become aware of and explore things that they didn't know were available or that they existed, before parent drew their attention to it.

' If one of them had decided to take the red cups instead would I have not coersed him?'

Not if the child took them out of hir own personal interest.

" In my opinion, YES. He would have taken the other cups only because I manipulated his opinion/decision of which cups he wanted."

You did not get into hir head and flip the switches that led to the decision to take the course of action s/he decided upon. You offered something to play with. The decision to take it or not was up to the child (autonomy, remember?). You don't know if it was the color, or the size of the cup, or a memory of something the child saw done with some cups like these, or some other reason that motivated the child to want to play with them. If the kid was happy to take it, no coercion apparent. Not that the preference couldn't change again in a minute.

"Even if he decided whole heartedly upon seeing the cups that they were wonderful, I still manipulated/coersed to get one of them to give up the struggle for the original cups and end the battle."

You can certainly look at it that way. I see a problem to be solved, unless the kids are enjoying their battle and want the parent to butt out. If they are not happy with the situation, and would like help in finding solutions, then a parent offering other ideas of how to solve their problem is a good thing.

" Perhaps my definition/opinion of what constitutes coersion/manipulation is much broader than yours and that is why I have a problem with the TCS theory."

Well, different, certainly.

" Of course that is only part of it because we have rules in our house which we expect them to follow, we don't allow my children to eat all the junk food they want, and we expect them to respect us simply because we are their parents. I miss the days when children addressed adults as Mr. and Mrs. rather than by first names, when children were taught to respect adults -- not to always question them. Does this make me old fashioned? Maybe, but it is certainly a different world today, and not all of the changes are good ones."

And it will continue to be a different world. Change is all around us, it is a characteristic of this universe, as near as I can tell.

The paradigm that includes TCS theories might not be one that interests many, and I don't want to force it upon anyone. When non-coercive and autonomous learning and parenting makes sense to a person, that is what they do. If it doesn't make sense, then they won't.

jbjcmom, if we on the TCS thread can help you make sense of something, please continue to ask. If not, I wish you well on your journey, with kindest regards


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

I wrote


> ****I miss the days when children addressed adults as Mr. and Mrs. rather than by first names,****[/qoute]
> 
> Netty replied
> 
> ...


----------



## Ms. Mom (Nov 18, 2001)

Beth,

Your a lovely parent. From you past posts it sounds like you love your child and your always questioning and looking for the best answers. In my book - that's a good parent! I think the discussions get very intense over hear and sometimes things can be heard or writen in ways that can mean more than one thing - I think that's where the problums arise. So I'll say something direct to you - Your a *GREAT* mom!

I don't usually jump in here, but I'm really curious on this one.

I've always empowered my children with the word 'no'. If they don't want to kiss Aunt Ida, so be it. I've let them know that their body is personal and private. They get to decide what happens with it - they may say - or scream NO at anyone who doesn't respect that. We try to let them know that adults aren't big scary people who know everything.

However, I do think that children need to know certain adults are available for their experience. Just as they call us mom, dad, aunt, grandma. We like using Ms. and Mr. with a first name. I don't think my kids feel cohersed into calling them that and they actually like having a formal name on some adults.

I didn't always feel this way. I used to thing children should call people by their names. This theory evolved after having children and personal observations.

Ok _(ducking my head)_ what do you think!


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

Beth, we all do coercive things in our parenting. For TCS folk, it is often out of ignorance- coercion that we haven't recognized yet. It's like the layers of an onion- a person realizes some coercion they hadn't previously seen, and figures out how not coerce around that issue. Then, another layer becomes obvious, and the learning goes on. I don't know that I"ll ever get to the end of learning about this. I don't expect to.

We could all take refuge in the 'I'm a horrible coercive parent, so why bother trying to change' mode. I'll bet every one of us feels that way, at times. I know I do. Parenting brings a new path for all of us. TCS parenting is an unblazed trail, to figure out ways to help children grow up without being coerced about life. It is a new path for me to figure out how to deal with myself, without involving coercion. It is a marvelous and moral way of doing things, which I find very freeing and empowering. YMMV

Just as children learn and grow by increments, from knowing nothing about living in the this world to becoming independent moral agents, so do those of us who are interested, learn and grow around how to live in non-coercive relationships. TCS is about the parent-child relationship, but it has vast implications about our relationships with our significant others and our extended families and our friends and co-workers and strangers in the shops with shopping carts







.

IME, TCS theory raises red flags of disagreement for people. Examining the disagreement can bring a person to a better understanding of their motivations in life, whether they end up agreeing with TCS or not. Becoming more conscious of one's motivating forces, convinced of the rightness of what they are doing, is a good thing, isn't it? More power to ya.


----------



## larsy (Nov 28, 2001)

Ah, dear Ms. Mom, our ever-present and ever-patient moderator.









"I've always empowered my children with the word 'no'. If they don't want to kiss Aunt Ida, so be it. I've let them know that their body is personal and private. They get to decide what happens with it - they may say - or scream NO at anyone who doesn't respect that. "

Yeah, 'no' is a useful word, handy when letting others know about one's personal boundaries.

"We try to let them know that adults aren't big scary people who know everything. "

Hmmm, though, try to convince some of those 'scary' adults that!

"However, I do think that children need to know certain adults are available for their experience."

By this, do you mean, available to share their knowledge and experience with the kids?

" Just as they call us mom, dad, aunt, grandma. We like using Ms. and Mr. with a first name. I don't think my kids feel cohersed into calling them that and they actually like having a formal name on some adults. "

I think- and this is my personal opinion, I don't know that TCS has an official 'stand' on this issue- that it is up to each person to establish what they want to be called by any other given person.

The title puts distance between people. In some situations, that might be appropriate. People I wish to distance from me, can call me Ms. (but since I have a hard-to-pronounce last name, most people go right to calling me by my first name, anyhow!). But, say, my children's friends are welcome to call me by my first name. I prefer to have a relationship with a health caregiver with whom I am on a first name basis, since we have an ongoing working relationship. But a specialist I consult once a year or every few years and who wants to stick with the formal protocal, I'll call Dr., no problem.

As we go through our days, we give our children explanations about why people call others by this or that title and what that signifiies, in our society. We personally live an informal life outside of most societal institutions, so we don't use much in the way of titles unless we are specifically asked to. The kids learn about it as they encounter it.

If kids are in school, they learn about the way society and the school and teachers expect kids to address the adults who work there. Same at churches and clubs and lessons and at the bank where there is a nameplate identifying the person working at the window or desk.

"I didn't always feel this way. I used to thing children should call people by their names. This theory evolved after having children and personal observations."

Using titles does seem to uphold an authority meme, which imo deserves to be examined. I'm not convinced that people deserve the respect and authority of a title automatically, by virtue of an age or job description. Purely imo, each human being deserves a modicum of respect simply by virtue of being a human being. From there, the respect a person is due depends upon how they conduct their self in life.

I am willing to give every person the benefit of the doubt, and offer respect out of good will. If using a title is part of that, fine by me. If a person insists on using a title, it gives me information about what they think is important in life and how we might disagree about that. In some people, I know to be wary from the start.

All these things and more are good things for children to learn about, over time and at their interest. IMO.


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

Beth,

I apologize for the tone of my last post to you. I realize now that it sounded accusatory, which was not my intention. My questions were meant to be provocative, but not *that* provocative









I think that everything we expect of children communicates an idea about their place in society and within a family. Because I am an advocate of children's rights, I try to get adults to consider their reasons for expecting certain things from children, which they would not expect from someone they considered their equal. To ask anyone to address us as Mr. Ms. Mrs. Dr. etc. is to highlight a difference in stature and social role. I can't think of any other reason for requesting this of anyone. If someone whom I considered my equal asked me to call them Mr., I know that I would feel offended by that request.

Speaking from my own experience, I was told to always address adults as Mr. and Mrs. as a child. To me, adults were part of an entirely different world than the one I lived in. To be honest, I was always a little frightened of adults. Perhaps that's just my own experience, but I can't help but think that being told to address adults as Mr. and Mrs. contributed to my sense of alienation and subordination.

As another example, my husband once told me a story about a time when he went out with a girl whose parents were rather intimidating. He was in his early twenties at the time. They didn't think my husband was good enough for this girl, and they did all they could to convey that to him. One time they were all driving somewhere in a car and chatting about this and that. At one point, my husband said to this girl's mother (and this is after they had been seeing each other for two years!), "Do you prefer I call you Mrs. [blank] or may I call you 'Emily'"? and the mother said, "Mrs. [blank] will do." Well. I'd say that was her attempt at "putting him in his place." And my husband was, quite understandably, humiliated and mortified (as was his girlfriend who became very angry at her mother for that!).

I'm not saying that you would be asking your children to address adults that way *in order to* put them in their place. I'm quite sure that isn't your intention at all! I was trying to point out that a request such as that conveys an attitude which you may not even be aware of, but which may nonetheless affect your children's sense of self and position.

Again, I apologize. I hope you will continue to join in this discussion. I have found your posts thought-provoking and respectfully critical and I would hate to think that my post has come across as simply provoking and critical (sans the thought and respect).

Netty

P.S. BTW, "authentic" is an existential term which refers to a fully conscious life, which one recognizes as being self-created every moment by every individual self. An "authentic" life is one which is true to both self and other at every moment of existence. There is a very good book entitled *Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-motivation* (by Edward Deci) which discusses this term in a very TCS-ish fashion. I *highly* recommend this book as a good introduction to a TCS way of thinking.


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Quote:

I'm not going to respond to any of the other questions asked because I feel it is pointless. I have learned my lesson -- I am, after all, a terrible, coersive parent. I didn't realize that I was parenting wrong all this time.
Larsy, Ms Mom, and Netty,

Thank you all for your wonderful posts, but now it is my turn to apologize. Evidentally my sarcasm didn't come across in the post. You all replied with the utmost caring and concern. I know that I am a good mom to my children, and the crazy thing is that if you knew me, you would too. Although, I question the whole idea of TCS as a parenting theory you would find that my dh and I practice a lot of it's priciples everyday. The main problem that I have is the way TCS comes off to those who don't live the theory. It is very much an impression that we are right and if you do not practice our theory then you are wrong. If I were beating, sexually abusing, verbally abusing or phsychologically abusing my children I would be parenting in a way that nearly anyone would say was wrong, but the occasional dose of manipulation on my part does not make me a bad parent. But at times it feels that way when I read the TCS thread. I wish that TCS would acknowledge that TCS doesn't necessarily make a parent a good paarent, nor does it make a person a bad parent if they don't subscribe to the TCS theory.

As I said in my thank you thread, these discussions have really helped in getting myself back on track (especially after our stressful holidays) with my boys by reminding me what parenting young children is all about. I just get tired, at times, when the arguements turn solely to semantic issues that will never be 'solved' so to speak. TCS uses a language all of it's own -- not a flaw, just an observation. At times it makes some of us seem like we live to coerse our children, while when we read your examples, they often seem coersive to us. Maybe I just need to back down and not let the sematics bother me so much, but it gets wearing when I feel like the TCSers think me a bad parent when I know that my solutions to problems are often so similar to that of the TCSers that I could post on either side of the issue. I also have a tendency to play devil's advocate when I feel that I am not being heard. I am not anti-TCS. I just don't feel that practicing the theory to a "T" in our home would work, although I do appreciate what it strives for and I use it several times an hour.

Again, I apologize if I was misunderstood. I will try to be more patient and open minded to your views, and a little less of a zealot, if you can give me the same in return.

Truce???

Thanks again for your concern for my feelings. It was nice to know you cared.


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Just an observation about names. Yes, certainly insisting that children (or others) use a title could be done in a way to 'put someone in their place'. But equally, it can simply be a cultural and social norm. In Britain it is common for children to address their parents' friends as Auntie X or Uncle Y. That is how we refer to our friends here in the US, although of course we asked them first if that felt comfortable to them.

Some of our friends here in the US have children who call me and my husband Mr and Mrs Y. That's fine by me. In no way is it meant as a status thing, it is simply cultural and it is what they do in their family. Just as Grandad is Grandad in the UK, but Grandpa here. If my children decide to drop the Auntie or Uncle, or to take up using Mr and Mrs when they are older, that's fine too. As long as it is agreed between the two parties, what is the issue?

It seems to me that you can jump to conclusions that anyone -particularly anyone who questions TCS theory - who follows social norms is therefore treating their child as a subordinate. 'Auntie X' could be seen in two lights - as an attempt to belittle the child, or as a term of endearment that stresses the special relationship (and trust) between the two parties. I would suggest that the truth lies in the relationship between the child and parent, and either 'Mrs Jones', 'Auntie Chris', or 'Chris.'

Edited to add: I have worked in schools where children address staff by first names and in schools where they use formal Mrs or Mr X. My relationships with children were no different. It is purely window dressing. I imagine makes some people feel that they are more approachable to the students if they are on first name terms. Relationships are built on much more than names, although I do think it is important that teachers use children's names whenever they address them. Interestingly, some of my students would switch between one form of address and another depending on the social situation when they spoke to me. I was comfortable with this. Just as I speak to dh differently when I'm with the in-laws!!


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

My children nor do any of the children I know address adults that they know well as Mr. or Mrs. We have a couple of "aunts" as you say, but I find that people are uncomfortable being addressed with Mr. or Mrs. anymore. I think it makes them feel old.







My friends kids address me as "Beth" and that is fine with me. We are close enough that they see me as a member of their extended family. It is equally alright with me that my children address them by their first names for the same reason, but it still sounds odd to me at times. I still address my high school friends parents as Mr. and Mrs. when I see them. In all actuality, I don't think I even know most of their first names. I don't think that they are any "better" than me, or that we are on different levels, so to speak even though I still address them in that manner.

I think part of my problem with this stems from the way I see our two neighbor boys (6 and 8) behaving. They are positively rude to not only the children, but the adults in the neighborhood. They feel that everyone is around to serve them. If the ball they are playing with goes into the street (we live at the top of a very steep hill) they will rudely yell at any adult (BETH, GET THAT) despite what the adult is doing. I personally think it is rude for anyone to talk to another person in the manner that they do, or act like they do. They have absolutely no respect for anyone, let alone adults. I'm not saying that they should have more respect for me as an adult, than they should for my sons, but they should have respect in general.

For example, one of their favorite activities at their house is to kick balls onto their roof so they roll back down and they can try to catch them. If their parents allow that at their house -- fine, more power to them. However, on several occasions this past summer they would come to our house while we were all outside playing and begin attempting to kick balls on the roof of our house. Big difference here is that we have a two story, they have a ranch. Thus the balls are hitting the front of our house and our windows. The balls are not always real soft either. I asked them several times to stop. I explained that we don't allow it and that it is disrespectful to our property. Keep in mind that the parents are not around. They will stop for about two minutes and then start again. I can only tell them so often before I tell them that they have to leave if they continue. They were sent home on several occasions.

Another example. We have the only basketball hoop in the neighborhood. They love to use it and came over one day to shoot. My dh had left the lawn mower under the basket and I was sitting in a chair nursing, so I was in no position to move it. They proceeded to shoot and hit the mower. I asked them to stop until I could move it. "THEN MOVE THE DANG MOWER!!!" was the older one's response. The younger one quickly echoed his statement. I said I would do no such thing until they could ask me in a nice way. I received several more rude demands like that so I finally sent them packing and told them that they couldn't us our hoop that night.

These kids are rude, beligerant(sp?) and obnoxious. Perhaps, if as young children they had been taught to respect EVERYONE, not just adults, they would be well liked (they are not well liked at school, and are made fun of often) and could better deal with social situations. They are no fun to play with because they have no concept of teamwork, thus when we get a neighborhood game of soccer, they ruin it for everyone because they are demanding that everyone, including the adults, do what they say. Not much of a fun game.

The parents are trying to get control of the situation now, but to no avail. I can't help but think that if they had been taught at an early age to respect adults, since that was who they interacted with most, that it would have carried over to an overall respect others, and others wants, needs, feelings, and rights.

It is because of these two kids that I think that the Mr. Mrs. thing wouldn't be such a bad idea. Isn't it a shame that a couple bad apples can spoil the whole cart?

Just a little backround into my Mr. and Mrs. thing.


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Beth, I agree about how a few bad experiences can colour your feelings about social customs - those boys sound like they have little respect for others, of any age...

I found the Mr and Mrs thing odd when I first came to the US, but I accept it is a different cultural outlook and is the way that some families interact with friends. I find that the relationship with the children is what counts, not what they call me. I've had children call me Mrs X, but they are not respectful either to me or to their siblings, or to other children. So the name then makes no difference. Other children call me by my first name and our relationship is mutually respectful. The name can give an aura of respect, but that's all.

I think that respect is learned through example and through the whole remit of emotional development. To respect others you first need to respect yourself. An adult can 'demand' respect, but what they get may just be lip service! The only true way to gain respect is to earn it, through your relationship and dealings with others, no matter what the age. I suppose I separate out the name issue as being a cultural thing and not a lot more.

As an aside, I find the phrase 'what-ev-errrrr' really disturbing when I hear it used by some people. The word is quite innocent, but the connotation speaks volumes! I know parents who would flip at their child swearing at them, yet allow them to say 'what-ev-errrrrr' to others twenty times a day without flinching. It amazes me.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Hi Larsy, thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions.

My thoughts:

Larsy writes:"What the parent sees as 'fact' is actually hir theory about what needs to happen- what is going on with child, ways to deal with it, what the options are. "

I fail to see the significance of this point? TCS is a theory. A theory is simply an unproven idea. But, the better the facts it is based on, the better the theory. Symptoms are facts, a diagnosis is a theory until tests confirm it. However, the better you (or a doctor) are at understanding the facts of your sick child's condition, the better your theory will be, and in turn, the diagnosis can be made faster and the treatment started sooner, all because of a sound theory.

Larsy wrote: "But it would not be help for that problem. If the child is afraid of being hurt, a parent can talk to the doctor and other sources and find out what the options are for pain relief. "

For practical purposes, I had hoped we would not overly dissect the clinical aspect of the family in this example. But, to clarify, I maintain that asking about pain relief etc. is little more than gathering info to better inform the child. It does not reflect interference on behalf of the parents preference in the situation. Expressions of personal preferences or feelings about the situation are more than just fact gathering IMO.

"However, if the child begins to cry and say they will not go for reasons xyz, then IMO anything you say at this point to allay the concerns, and make the doctor visit seem more attractive, and elicite a willingness to go...that is just coercion, IMO, and nothing more."

Larsy responds:
"Find solutions to the problem xyz."

If that is possible, I certainly would. But if the fear is "This will hurt" that might be unavoidable (even with the latest skin numbing cream, shots still hurt, unfortunately). The solution may be a compromise, and it is perfectly understandable that a child may be unwilling to make a compromise that involves pain.

"One reason is because I think it is unrealistic to confuse a willingness to go with an absence of reluctance. "

Larsy responds: That would be a faulty theory.

Why is that a faulty theory? Have you never experiences the feeling of being willing to do something you still harbored doubts about?? I have heard many people describe such feelings, so I felt this was a possible condition the child may experience. Why do you disagree?

larsy writes "If it is truly a common preference, the child prefers going and solving the problem, than not doing so. Child might still be scared, but determined to confront the fear and do what child feels must be done to help with hir problem. A parent can support their child in this. "

Hmmm. I realize you will not agree, but you are essentially describing the state I feel TCS defines as coercion, which involves the feeling of coping with two opposing forces etc. I realize you feel it is not coercion for a parent to share a personal preference to the child about the situation they are in. I often feel TCS ignores the fact that such statements are more than just objective observations when they happen in real life. It would be mighty hard for a sick 4 year old to not feel quite a lot of pressure from mommy worriedly noticing his symptoms and suggesting he go to the doctor.

larsy writes:"If the child is having a problem that is bothering hir, and the parent and child have entered into a process of finding solutions for that problem, they might have consulted more than one doctor and done research on the problem and talked to many other people with that problem and discovered lots of good information that can help them figure out if, indeed, the problem must have intrusive and painful treatment to be solved, or if there are alternatives, or if the treatment can wait for awhile until the child comes to terms with it, what measures can be taken to control pain, can child listen to music on headphones to help distract hirself, or the child might decide s/he would rather live with the problem than the solution. "

I feel this is all good advice and would hope the parent would follow it. Unless the condition poses a health risk, I agree the child could just live with it. However, especially with a young child, I hope you are not saying to simply let a child die from untreated diabetes because it occasionally takes coercion from the parent to take the daily shots?

TCS parents here have made it pretty clear they agree to save their child from death even when it involves coercion. I assume this extends to getting treatment for a critically ill child, regardless of whether the child agrees. Does it?

"If the child gives any indication that s/he is still in a state of coercion over the doctor visit, and wishes to put it off, barring a life-threatening situation, I would back off and continue to help child to find solutions that we are both happy with. I would let the child know the consequences of cancelling a doctor's appt- if we had to pay for it anyhow, we might not be able to get another for a long time- in a non-accusatory way. I would let hir know my feelings about the matter, whatever they are, but I would also acknowledge that it is hir body and it is hir decision as to who touches it and what is done to it."

I agree that it is always better for the child to consent. However, I disagree that without consent treatment is automatically wrong. I believe it is psychologically unrealistic to expect a child to always "consent" to something they know will really hurt. With a baby, I think it is unrealistic to expect them not to cry in protest if they experience pain. IMO it can help the child to be told "If we don't do this, you are probably going to die, and I can't let that happen to you". This can be a relief for a child, who may not fully understand death, or illness, and can only relate to the pain part of the treatment. Once a child knows a thing must be done, whether or not they like it, it can actually lessen their resistance to what is being done, which in turn makes it less traumatic. I realize this flies in the face of TCS theory, however, in my experience it can work this way so long as the parent is honest and loving and ever present in helping the child cope.

*sighing* Larsy I think we have wandered far from what I was asking









With all of this, what I do not understand, is how TCS distinguishes the influence of "sharing preferences" from coercion. I feel that the qualities that define coercion according to TCS shift every time I try to hold them to a real life example. If a child doesn't want to do something, and we keep addressing their fears, creating incentives, sharing our desire that they choose to do it, and they come around to saying "okay I will do it"...especially when the resist was out of fear, it is just *SO* unlikely, in real life, that a real child would have 100% set aside fear and become totally excited about doing the feared thing.

To me, this child was coerced, the parental effort to change their mind was coercion, and I am hearing nothing that proves it isn't. Someone said in another post, something to the effect of "The fact that non tcs parents feel that this process is coercive indicates non trusting relations in the family...". I am just looking at TCS definitions and noticing that they define things as coercive, yet TCS parents say they don't, and I'm racking my brain trying to get an illustration as to why one thing isn't coercive and one thing is etc.

Heartmama


----------



## Netty (Dec 16, 2001)

***I am just looking at TCS definitions and noticing that they define things as coercive, yet TCS parents say they don't, and I'm racking my brain trying to get an illustration as to why one thing isn't coercive and one thing is etc. ****

The TCS definition of coercion is "to enact one theory or impulse while a conflicting theory or impulse is still active in one's mind."

Hence, if someone *changes hir preference* s/he no longer has a conflicting theory which is *active* in hir mind. That theory has been *replaced* with the new theory upon which s/he has chosen to act. This does not mean, of course, that people don't act on theories with trepidation or anxiety. But if they are acting on the new theory against their will and because of *external pressure* (rather than honest information), then they are in a state of coercion. In other words, the child does not want to go to the doctor and is going *unwillinging*because of external pressure rather than internal motivation. In order to create a common preference, the parent would need to find a reason--by the child's lights--to go to the doctor for the treatment. Hence, the child would have to be convinced that s/he *wants* to go rather than not go.

If I go to the doctor ("acting on one theory") when I really don't want to ("conflicting theory still active"), I am in a state of coercion. If I don't go to the doctor ("acting on one theory") when I really want to ("conflicting theory still active"), I am in a state of coercion. If I cannot decide whether or not to go to the doctor, I have a conflict (two theories active but neither being acted upon) which needs to be resolved. The parent's responsibility is to help the child resolve this conflict *non-coercively*.

Does this help? or have I only muddied the waters a little more?









Netty


----------



## laelsweet (Dec 6, 2001)

what if a young child sleeps in unpredictable patterns. for example, up at 7, nap at 10-11:30, sleep at 19:45, up at midnight-2, sleeps til 10:30, awake til 16:45. naps are a possiblity even after 21:00! if parent attempts to follow suit, s/he ends up exhausted, awake at weird hours, etc. parent really hopes to have late evenings free to pursue interests and rest. parent is beginning to get anxious (and coercive) that child will not go to sleep at times when parent wants hir to, and this is very problematic to both people. when child wakes to nurse, parent experiences anxiety that child will get up, and becomes increasingly angry if other family members make noise. parent wants to let child sleep when hir wants to, and be free of anxiety around sleep, but is self-sacrificing. what are some things to do? (other parent needs to sleep to prepare for work, also, child is too young to be unsupervised)


----------



## Jish (Dec 12, 2001)

Netty wrote:

Quote:

Hence, the child would have to be convinced that s/he *wants* to go rather than not go.
I don't want to start an arguement here, but I would like you to look at that statement from a non TCS point of view and see if you can understand how some people can see that as a manipulation/coersion -- ie: the phrase "would HAVE TO be convinced" especially. Can you kind of see where the semantic issue can get sort of fuzzy? BTW, I'm not trying to arguementative, and I think that trying to convince a child to want to go is a good thing. With my son we have tried to make it a fun morning by going to Mc Donalds afterwards, or telling him that we will be able to play with the barn that is in Dr. S's office. He is much better about going to the doctor now, but he much prefers it if the appointment is for his brother.

I'm curious here, for future reference, what do you do if everything goes well until the doctor actually begins to do the exam. What next? When we were in once for Jonah, I wanted Dr. S to look at Christian's bottom to see if he had a fissure or a rash around his anus. I had told him that I wanted her to do this and the doctor agreed. Of course, when the time came he didn't want her to look. I went ahead and told him that it was no big deal and we finally got it done, but I don't remember what I said to get him to do it, or if I coersed him to get him to let her look.

This is the kinder, gentler, less confrontational me. How am I doing so far?


----------



## Icicle Spider (Dec 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jbcjmom_
*Netty wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence, the child would have to be convinced that s/he *wants* to go rather than not go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't want to start an arguement here, but I would like you to look at that statement from a non TCS point of view and see if you can understand how some people can see that as a manipulation/coersion -- ie: the phrase "would HAVE TO be convinced" especially. Can you kind of see where the semantic issue can get sort of fuzzy?*
I'll try, but if I just make a bigger mess, please feel free to ignore.

I read Netty's sentence above as describing what conditions are required *if* the child ends up going rather than not going and did not read into her statement any requirement that the child *must* be convinced. She was just stating that *if* the child does end up going, it was because they were somehow "convinced" that it is what they want to do. I think maybe the word "convinced" was taken as "manipulated".

Netty was describing what process would take place if the end result was that the child did go to the doctor after not wanting to. She was not describing what a parent *must* do.

I think the non-TCS point of view concluded this as a coercive action, because they assumed it is somthing that *must* be done. We must go to the doctor, so how do I "convince" little Johnny to go. I agree that this would be coercive.

Quote:

*BTW, I'm not trying to argumentative, and I think that trying to convince a child to want to go is a good thing.*
Your not at all argumentative and I think this sentence does sum up the opposing view points. I would not assume that convincing the child is automatically a good thing. But then I am thinking about all possible doctor appointments, and I think you are probably thinking about a more specific scenario. My guess is Netty was also thinking more generically than you.

Remember that TCS'ers generally do not try to solve *specific* problems in discussions like this, but instead strive to think in more general terms. That way we are better prepared for whatever situation we find *ourselves* in.

Quote:

*With my son we have tried to make it a fun morning by going to Mc Donalds afterwards, or telling him that we will be able to play with the barn that is in Dr. S's office. He is much better about going to the doctor now, but he much prefers it if the appointment is for his brother.*
This could easily be a true common preference with no Coercion (that's with a capital C to indicate TCS coercion) in this child's mind.

However, since this is in the TCS Discussion thread, I would be very concerned that there is actually Coercion going on. It sounds like he doesn't really want to go. I would try to understand his concerns and fears and *try* to figure out a way to address them.

Standing on soap box and addressing the generic "you", not any specific "you".

This is why I like the term "Taking Children Seriously". It means that you take the preference of the child just as seriously as the preference of an adult. You do not *ever* call the preference of a child a "whim" or irrational.

The other key point for me in understanding TCS is that the violation of one's autonomy, being forced to do something against you will, AKA Coercion, is felt just as strongly by everyone of us. *Everyone* feels distress from being coerced. The day old newborn, the centenarian, I do, and you do.

Think how *you* would feel if you were made to go to the doctor when you did not want to. And I do not mean if you were a child, I mean right now, as an adult. Really, how would it feel to you? I know how I would feel and I know that a child feels *exactly* the same way.

We are all *born* fully developed in terms of personal autonomy.

Quote:

*I'm curious here, for future reference, what do you do if everything goes well until the doctor actually begins to do the exam. What next? When we were in once for Jonah, I wanted Dr. S to look at Christian's bottom to see if he had a fissure or a rash around his anus. I had told him that I wanted her to do this and the doctor agreed. Of course, when the time came he didn't want her to look. I went ahead and told him that it was no big deal and we finally got it done, but I don't remember what I said to get him to do it, or if I coersed him to get him to let her look.*
There are many possible common preferences here. It is entirely possible that you in fact found a true common preference that time. Other possibilities are see if you can have another 15 minutes in private, reschedule the appointment (don't jump on this, this *is* a *possibility*), etc. And before this ever happens, I would (hopefully) have already made sure that the doctor I am using would be supportive of whatever my decision is (actually, my child's decision).

Quote:

*This is the kinder, gentler, less confrontational me.*
I actually like the confrontation and the points you have made are very relevant.

Quote:

*How am I doing so far?*
Since you asked







, I highly recommend making things less personal by not talking about your prior actions and family. It appears to me that things became truly "confrontational" when the examples being debated were personal stories and any criticism where taken as personal attacks.

This is what I don't like, is when things are taken personally, when it really was just an attempt to critically examine a proposed scenario. It really is tough to brain-storm what possible Coercion (that's a capital C!) might be present when we are talking about real people and incidents.

Also, if you haven't, could you please read the What If article (located here). It is an explanation about why the discussion of these scenarios is usually counter-productive.

How am *I* doing?

Pat


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

Hi everyone!

I'm going to close this thread now since it's getting close to a 4th page. I'll be placing it in the archives and opening TCS Discussions 3. Thanks to everyone for their ongoing participation and cooperation with this And do feel free to continue the discussions.

~Cynthia


----------

