# Alfie Kohn/Anthony Wolf Comparison



## crb (Aug 22, 2005)

Well, I got a lot out of the Playful Parenting/ Continuum Concept comparison so thought I would see what people had to say about this one . . .

Anthony Wolf's The Secret of Parenting (subtitle: How to be in Charge of Today's Kids without threats or punishments) was recommended by someone on MDC in a thread somewhere, maybe even the GD forum. He is definitely more into behavior disciplining than Kohn and here is his basic idea:

Wolf says that every person has a "baby self" that doesn't want to have demands or limits put on them, want 100% attention from parents, and just wants pleasure. At home we mostly get the baby self and it is the job of parents to accept the baby self, but to "grow" the mature self by stretching the child to take responsibility for things. The basic "tool" is parental disapproval or guilt: the child does something wrong, you just say "that was wrong" and let child process their feelings about that. So your child refuses to pick up toys, you say "I expect you to pick up your toys now". The child complains about this and says "I'm too tired". You respond "It is time to pick up your toys" and then you stop engaging the "baby self" in the attention seeking behavior until the toys are picked up. No arguing or debating or negotiating. If child refuses to help in a time crunch, you say "I am going to start cleaning up and I expect you to help" and if they don't, discuss it later, saying something like "We had to clean up the house for Grandma. I asked you to help, but you didn't, I had to do your job."

So this isn't really punishment in the traditional sense, but this idea of withdrawing attention/affection stuck out to me. In some ways, it is what happens naturally when a child doesn't cooperate - you disapprove - but instead of taking that as your problem (which I see as part of Kohn's message), Wolf seems to be using guilt, I think he calls it "attention withdrawal" as a tool.

I know Wolf is not as common as Kohn, but thought some people might have some insight/comment. Feel free to clarify Wolf's position or Kohn's - I didn't write more about Kohn since he is so popular on this site .


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I read Wolfe's older book, something like 'Jeremy's parents let him stay up all night!".

I think Wolfe is worth reading, especially for those people who are:

1) New to GD
2) Believe "might makes right" when it comes to parenting
3) Believe children don't care what parents think
4) Have a problem with yelling or punishing when they feel threatened
5) Are turned off by new-agey type parenting authors

Wolfe's strong unique points were his ability to explain:

1)That frustrating behaviors are not motivated by a desire to overpower parents~just the opposite
2) That children do care very much what parents think, and that most parents fail to understand how to engage their child's natural motivation to have approval
3) That control does not depend on agreement and immediate cooperation. This is important because many parents really, really get caught up in the desire to "demand" their child agree the parent is right~which causes really dangerous power struggles.

I personally found Wolfe to be WAAAY too dogmatic. He seems infatuated with his invention of the "Baby/Adult self" concept, and he carries it to extremes. He uses it as THE template for interaction, rather than as one tool to be used selectively and with care. I think it would rapidly become exasperating to a child to live with an adult who used Wolfe's dialogue of non-engagement as often as Wolfe seems to suggest it.

I do think non-engagement is a great tool to have in your toolbox~sooner or later parents will find themselves in a vulnerable moment with a child who is pushing their buttons and immediate resolution remains elusive. If you don't know how to disentangle yourself, the risk of exploding, either with words, emotions, or punishments is very real. So, to that degree, I fully agree that Wolfe's non-engagement approach should be understood, if for no other reason as a "back up system" in case your usual methods of resolution fail.

Honestly, I found it very useful in relating to other ADULTS as well. I give Wolfe credit for articulating a way of interacting that truly eliminates the possibility of being manipulated or of losing control.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Is it Wolfe or Wolf?


----------



## crb (Aug 22, 2005)

It is Wolf - no e

Wow - thanks so much for your points - this really helps me clarify what is useful in Wolf (and what to pass on to dh!). But you're right it takes a lot of tools. I agree about his overexcitement in the "baby self". A turn-off for me was the negative description of the baby as "piggy" and other similar things.

I read UP as my main Kohn text, but I must say I left it torn - I do agree w/the idea of treating kids as people and not manipulating - but it seems really difficult to parent totally w/o wielding power (even indirectly, as Wolf seems to recommend) in some form or another - be it over scheduling or food choices or something. Kohn does say that some things just must be done, but I wonder what are those "non-negotiables" for him.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Well I am a big believer in Wolf. But his methods are completely natural to me.

For us, his methods of disengagment, simply work. Things are not a battle. I don't need to use his methods much anymore because my kids know that when I tell them to clean up, I am not going, at that moment to engage in a discussion of "it's not fair" or "It's too hard"

Now one thing that I think is very important to Wolf's methods is the "Discuss it later method"

An example. You tell your dc that it is their turn to pick up the crayons that they have been using because baby cousin is coming over. You get a "It's not fair. Jenny was using the crayons, not me" [Jenny is no longer at home and btw picked up a crayon for one moment and then put it back in the box]'

Right then, I am simply not going to get into it. I'd follow the scenario in the OP.

Later we would talk about it. "Did you really think it was unfair when I asked you to pick up the crayons". And you know, when at that moment the child is in a decent mood and no demands are currently being placed upon her, its shocking how often the child will say "No, I guess not" {usually with a sigh].

Sometimes they will explain why they think so, and solutions for the future can be discussed. But I have found that Wolf is soooo right that if you try to get into it at the orginal time, you simply end up with unnecessary battles.


----------



## pranamama (Nov 6, 2002)

the go back later works pretty well for teenagers. I've gotten good results with a pleasant, almost bland, next time you fix food on the counter please remember to wipe the crumbs into the garbage when delivered the following day.


----------



## warriorprincess (Nov 19, 2001)

I like Wolf's methods. I found the concept of not engaging to be indespensible with my 9 yo ( not to mention my DH!)


----------



## crb (Aug 22, 2005)

Yes, the follow-up seems key - and it is the hardest for me. It is hard to remember the next day, or when all is well, to bring up that past issue. For now I am focusing on the "not making it a battle" -which does seem useful in our talk-talk-talk house.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Hmmm...I've never read Wolf. I have to say that from what I've read of him, I thought I wouldn't like him a lot. But I have a ton of respect for Maya's advice, so he has to have at least *some* great ideas.








I am sure there a way more negotiable things in my house than Wolf may advocate (not sure where he stands on that, that's just from reading on here).
One thing I really do agree with, that I have found incredibly helpful in my house recently is similar to what the OP says. When something is really not negotiable, to not even offer it up as though there were a choice at all. Just "this is the way it is" and "I'll be waiting for you to come get your teeth brushed when you are ready." With some sort of "I expect you will" thrown in there.
But that really fits in with the ideas that I already had that children don't WANT parents to look to them for guidance.

Maybe one thing I'm a little confused on is the term "disengagement." My first feeling is that it means attention withdrawal. But on reading closer, it doesn't seem like that. It kinda seems like it means to "ignore" the arguments ("it's too hard" "It's not my job") but not to ignore or isolate the child from your presence. Is that right?


----------



## Sylith (Apr 15, 2002)

I guess I see Kohn as more "ideal" but it is not an ideal to which I feel capable of aspiring.

My own parents were Dobson style spankers & shamers. Currently I find "disengaging" to be very helpful to me, in controlling my own behavior. It helps me not to escalate to hitting or yelling or nasty sarcasm...

I agree that withdrawal of approval is kind of a punishment, but quite frankly this is the gentlest parenting I can realistically achieve.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Maybe one thing I'm a little confused on is the term "disengagement." My first feeling is that it means attention withdrawal. But on reading closer, it doesn't seem like that. It kinda seems like it means to "ignore" the arguments ("it's too hard" "It's not my job") but not to ignore or isolate the child from your presence. Is that right?
Both. I remember Wolf recommending a child having to stay in their room/being sent to their room as a final consequence. On the other hand he did have idea's about including kids while ignoring them, but these did not feel intuitively right to me (see end of my post).

I guess my problem with "ignoring" as a way of "dealing" with unwanted arguments is that it doesn't validate the benefits of being able to talk *with* your child, and how this evolves over time into a wonderful set of skills too. Wolf gives a lot of attention to the benefits of ignoring disagreement so that your child gives up and goes along with you in order to have some interaction, but I don't remember him putting this in any context. Logically, the more you ignore disagreement, the lower your threshold and coping skills towards disagreement. It would be very easy to slide into a pretty manipulative dynamic with your child. You can overpower someone without lifting a finger, kwim? Ignoring everything you consider unwanted from a person is also a reflection of your own inflexibility and insecurity. I felt that Wolf was eliminating the possibility of a parent being vulnerable to their child's communication, in order to eliminate the possibility of parents losing control in a way that would be harmful. I guess I'd like to see more balance there, adding coping skills for unplanned dialog, negotiation, and listening, so that a parent knew how to control their emotions and accept what their child is thinking and feeling.

Some of his examples felt icky. I could not (beyond the rare bad day) go through an entire meal with my kid ignoring the fact that they were really upset, by pretending to treat them as though they were fine. Wolf seemed to say that you make up for what you ignore whenever possible by continuing to speak to your child as though things were okay~his thinking was that the child gets the message "Even when I'm acting like the baby self, I am still included in the family".

It doesn't feel right to regularly put a person in a position to lose interest in their own thoughts and feelings by withholding interaction until they "get past it". That says more to me about the adults discomfort with negative emotions.

**Disclaimer** I am looking at philosophical potentials here, of taking Wolf literally. It is not possible for me to remain 100% open to ds all day every day, and there is no way I would expect another parent to do that. I agree there are benefits to Wolf, so please take my post as it's intended~the OP asked for a discussion of the philosophical differences. I love digging into a philosophy~so please don't take anything here personally~it is not intended for any specific person


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

*


heartmama said:



Some of his examples felt icky. I could not (beyond the rare bad day) go through an entire meal with my kid ignoring the fact that they were really upset, by pretending to treat them as though they were fine. Wolf seemed to say that you make up for what you ignore whenever possible by continuing to speak to your child as though things were okay~his thinking was that the child gets the message "Even when I'm acting like the baby self, I am still included in the family".

It doesn't feel right to regularly put a person in a position to lose interest in their own thoughts and feelings by withholding interaction until they "get past it". That says more to me about the adults discomfort with negative emotions.
/QUOTE]

Click to expand...

*


heartmama said:


> Now see for me the restaurant example feels totally and perfectly "right." I don't see any good reason for the other 4 people in our family to spend a meal out focusing on the fact that one person is unhappy that, under well established family rules, it's not her turn to pick the place we go.
> 
> Picking the meal you feel that they would love best, instead of spending lots and lots of time, trying to get them out of their sulk and talking is IMHO much better for the whole family. The alternative trying to coax the sulker out of the bad mood or even to discuss the fact that the child is unhappy, makes no sense to me. Sure we could all sit around and focus on this, or we could all move on and have a good time. This defintiely seems more 'fair' to me to the other two children who are happy and in good moods and looking for a fun family time.
> 
> IRL, when this has happened, I always brought it up later and almost always got an acknowledgement that the child knew that her feelings were not rational, that she was happy ennough with the "pick a place rules" and had no desire to change them in the future.


----------



## Mona (May 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crb* 
The basic "tool" is parental disapproval or guilt: the child does something wrong, you just say "that was wrong" and let child process their feelings about that. So your child refuses to pick up toys, you say "I expect you to pick up your toys now". The child complains about this and says "I'm too tired". You respond "It is time to pick up your toys" and then you stop engaging the "baby self" in the attention seeking behavior until the toys are picked up. No arguing or debating or negotiating. If child refuses to help in a time crunch, you say "I am going to start cleaning up and I expect you to help" and if they don't, discuss it later, saying something like "We had to clean up the house for Grandma. I asked you to help, but you didn't, I had to do your job."

So this isn't really punishment in the traditional sense, but this idea of withdrawing attention/affection stuck out to me. In some ways, it is what happens naturally when a child doesn't cooperate - you disapprove - but instead of taking that as your problem (which I see as part of Kohn's message), Wolf seems to be using guilt, I think he calls it "attention withdrawal" as a tool.


TBH , IMO, i think Kohn would faint to be in the same sentence as Wolf if you are doing a similiarty contrast. Kohn is NOT into using emotional manipulation to discipline our kids. Unconditional basically defies that approach. I am of the opinion, along w/ most truely GD writers, that withdrawing affection (ie, love, as perceived by kids) is not gentle, nor is it helpful in building our relationship of trust with our kids. The guy who wrote Hold onto Our Kids was great in talking about this.
anyway, this is kind of a drive by posting, and i don't have time to write more or edit.







lisa


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

The alternative trying to coax the sulker out of the bad mood or even to discuss the fact that the child is unhappy, makes no sense to me. Sure we could all sit around and focus on this, or we could all move on and have a good time. This defintiely seems more 'fair' to me to the other two children who are happy and in good moods and looking for a fun family time.

IRL, when this has happened, I always brought it up later and almost always got an acknowledgement that the child knew that her feelings were not rational, that she was happy ennough with the "pick a place rules" and had no desire to change them in the future.
I have the sulker tempermant lurking inside me too







: . I definitely "get" the behavior,and the unproductive selfish misery behind it.

I know there are times when it's not realistic to stop everything and go along with a sulker. I get that, definitely!

Just as true~my experience isn't going to be a fully happy moment if a member of my family is upset to the point of feeling unable to interact with everyone. If it were possible to help them, that would be much better for everyone.

As a child I never got any help with sulking behavior. I think my parents believed by ignoring sulking completely, never feeding it, the behavior would disappear. In reality, that just made me a better, chronic sulker.

Not until adulthood did friends or partners reach out and offer help in those sulking moments. I never thought I had it in me to climb out of that miserable feeling of my own accord. Now, I have skills to implement in the moment that have been invaluable. I can see *now* that sulking is a very complex response to a situation~it is emotions in conflict with expectations.

When I read Wolf I thought "This is a good emergency approach. It avoids punishing or exploding at the child". I also see the need to work through the behavior. From a parenting point of view, deciding to ignore all sulking is like deciding to ignore all grief, or anger. Do these emotions go away because they are ignored? "Sulking" is kind of an ugly word. In my experience a sulker is *struggling*. They are overwhelmed by their own emotions. It's not fun. If you grow up in the habit of feeling overwhelmed by your emotions, you may not magically outgrow that. There is a real need to consciously practice coping skills. I think sulkers in general are intuitive, sensitive, detail oriented people. Those are good things. There are absolutely ways to channel the emotions in a positive way.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama* 
Just as true~my experience isn't going to be a fully happy moment if a member of my family is upset to the point of feeling unable to interact with everyone. If it were possible to help them, that would be much better for everyone.


Maybe the parents is not. But as I said this is also about TWO other children, who don't deserve to be held hostage to the sulker's feelings.

With multiple children, I think Wolf's is hands down the best approach.

The parent can practice "working through the behavior" when other children are not going to be involved.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mona* 
TBH , IMO, i think Kohn would faint to be in the same sentence as Wolf if you are doing a similiarty contrast. Kohn is NOT into using emotional manipulation to discipline our kids. Unconditional basically defies that approach. I am of the opinion, along w/ most truely GD writers, that withdrawing affection (ie, love, as perceived by kids) is not gentle, nor is it helpful in building our relationship of trust with our kids. The guy who wrote Hold onto Our Kids was great in talking about this.
anyway, this is kind of a drive by posting, and i don't have time to write more or edit.







lisa


Affection is NOT withdrawn.

Here are Wolf's plans for responses to a temper tantrum

1. Acknolwedge feelings and explain. "I know you are disapointed. You really wanted X, but it is not possible because of _______. You can have it as soon as _______.

2. Offer hugs and affection

3. If those are rejected, disengage while still offering the above: "IF you need me or want a hug, I'll be in my room hunting for change".

This may not be your style of GD, but for me, for my family I have found it to be an excellent one!


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44* 
Maybe the parents is not. But as I said this is also about TWO other children, who don't deserve to be held hostage to the sulker's feelings.

I think there's a middle ground. No need to hold anyone hostage to the sulker's feelings, but I wouldn't ignore his/her feelings either.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
I guess my problem with "ignoring" as a way of "dealing" with unwanted arguments is that it doesn't validate the benefits of being able to talk *with* your child, and how this evolves over time into a wonderful set of skills too.

I agree.

Ignoring unwanted behavior is just a passive-aggressive way of controlling a person.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
I think there's a middle ground. No need to hold anyone hostage to the sulker's feelings, but I wouldn't ignore his/her feelings either. I agree.

Ignoring unwanted behavior is just a passive-aggressive way of controlling a person.

Just wondering what you think this middle ground would be. You have already, under Wolf's plan acknowledged the feelings and explained but the sulking continues. So now what? 4 other people ordering their lunch. And a sulker refusing to speak. Two other children happy and eager to discuss their day. So now what?

Here the scenario and Wolf's plan as it has on (rare thankfully) occassion played out in our home. _[This is taken almost verbatim from the Wolf scenario with a few changes for my family choices_

Me: So Maya, your turn to choose. Where are we going for dinner tonight.

Maya: Ooodles of Noodles and Salads too.

Ellie: Yea! I love Oodles of Noodles

Skyar: EWWWWWWW. I HATE that place. (actually she has always liked it well ennough in the past, but she's in a bad mood today)

Me: Yeah, well Sky you get to choose the next time.

Skyar: It's not fair.

Me: Time to go everyone. ...all in car. DH not getting a word edgewise as per usual in this women heavy family (







)

At the Restaurant: Sky has not really been talking at all. But the others have been chatty, so its not really obvious yet

Waitress: okay what can i get you

Ellie: The Ooodles Special

Maya: Me too the ooodles special

Skylar: [nothing, she is in full sulk]

Me: Sky honey what do you want

Sky: [Silence}

Waitress: Should I come back

Ellie and Maya together: No! we have to get out of here or we'll miss the movie

ME: Sky?

Sky: [Sulk]

Me: Hmm, well you always love the Chicken with brocolii and pasta. Is that okay, if not, let us know.

Sky: Silence

Me: She'll have the Chicken with brocolli and pasta. And, oh Sky I know you always ask for the Kiddie Cocktail. So let's get one of those too.

Maya and Ellie: Can I have one too

Me: Sure, why not...its junk food night i guess.

Me: Sky honey last chance to chage. ...Nope okay I'll have the Chicken with Mushrooms

Dh: Oh and I'll have the fish

Waitress: Oh I almost didn't see you (







)

Me: Sky honey I know you didn't want to come and that your'e mad. It's your turn next time to choose the place. Where do you think you'll choose. [_Wolf recomends this type of reasoing and acknowledgement, but warns parents that they can't expect this to end the sulk_

Sky: Sulk

Me: So who thinks the movie will be scary.

Moving on and no longer focuisng on the sulking) Occassional questions are bantered Sky's way but we are moving on and haivng a nice family time.

So your "middle ground" woudl go how?


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I might just be nitpicking, but it seems (in Maya44's examples anyways) that it's not as much about ignoring unwanted behavior, but maybe more about ignoring unhappy feelings (after initially responding with empathy, etc) about something that can't/won't change.

One thing that I've noticed, at least in my application of (trying to be) CL, is that there are times when it comes down to me trying to *make* ds choose
"x." (This would be for things like toothbrushing, or even going out where it really wouldn't be agreeable for me to leave, etc.).
So it seems like saying something like "I know you don't like it. This is the way it is going to be, though." is actually more respectful of feelings than trying to make the feelings change, or make ds choose a different action.
lol Does that make any sense? But I guess one thing that is different for me is that there wouldn't be many non-negotiable situations.


----------



## pranamama (Nov 6, 2002)

I think this is very interesting. Even as an adult, I've found it much better to stay quiet and unobtrusive when I'm in a foul mood. Putting every complaint "out there" at the time is not necessarily expedient or wise.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I wondered about these two books too. I really like Wolf. He doesn't really get into questioning some of the things we expect from our kids (that I recall) but I think that's a good thing to read from a gd perspective that yes, you can say No and set limits and do so without controlling and punishment. Kohn makes me kind of 'afraid' to every say No for fear that I am saying so unnecessarily. I think for beginning GD'ers he makes it very clear that you can't/don't need to/shouldn't try to control your kids behavior or force them to do anything. He really states that we underestimate how much our approval disapproval means to them, and how it really is ultimately more effective a tool for encouraging desirable and considerate behavior than punishment. I don't think he gets as into what's wrong with punishment as Kohn, but if I recall he does go on a little about how we want our kids to want to do the right thing for the sake of it, not to avoid punishment.

Sometimes I fear that I'm expressing too much disapproval when I do this, but really, he's not about withdrawing attention. He's pointing out that it's normal for kids to revert to the very needy "baby self" behavior at home (or in your most comfortable environment) and that it's fine, but you won't get anywhere engaging in it with them. He's only talking about withdrawal in these instances. You make a statement, you stick to it, and you comfort them if needed and make it clear that you are there for them, but do not engage in a back and forth with the "baby self." I know from experience that explaining 100 times why he can't have a second gummy vitamin is not any more effective with repeitition. I say it once and explain nicely and disengage, not from him but from the argument.

One big difference I think, is that while Wolf says it's perfectly okay to be inconsistent (by mainstream standards) and change your mind on something, it is imperative to do so _before_ a tantrum starts. I have to say I agree with this based on my experience, though I know many people here don't.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

So it seems like saying something like "I know you don't like it. This is the way it is going to be, though." is actually more respectful of feelings than trying to make the feelings change, or make ds choose a different action.
lol Does that make any sense? But I guess one thing that is different for me is that there wouldn't be many non-negotiable situations.
Such a good point.

In terms of "sulking" the situation would affect my flexibility in offering help. If I have to get through rush hour traffic, and ds is sulking, the most I might be able to say, as you put it "I know you don't like this. Unfortunately, this is what I have to do right now".

Quote:

So Maya, your turn to choose. Where are we going for dinner tonight.
There were three kids in my family growing up. This approach often failed exactly as you described. If it's working for a family, that's fine. If it's resulting in one member feeling so upset they cannot even eat, I would find another strategy for family night.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama* 
Such a good point.

In terms of "sulking" the situation would affect my flexibility in offering help. If I have to get through rush hour traffic, and ds is sulking, the most I might be able to say, as you put it "I know you don't like this. Unfortunately, this is what I have to do right now".

There were three kids in my family growing up. This approach often failed exactly as you described. If it's working for a family, that's fine. If it's resulting in one member feeling so upset they cannot even eat, I would find another strategy for family night.


No one here has ever missed a meal. And yes, picking for the most part works for our family. Most of the time (let's say 85-90 precent) all ealsiy go along. Somtimes one person might be rather unhappy with the choice and might act as described, but when they are in a more rational state, they all agree that this is what they want.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44* 
Me: So Maya, your turn to choose. Where are we going for dinner tonight.

Maya: Ooodles of Noodles and Salads too.

Ellie: Yea! I love Oodles of Noodles

Skyar: EWWWWWWW. I HATE that place. (actually she has always liked it well ennough in the past, but she's in a bad mood today)

Me: Yeah, well Sky you get to choose the next time.

Skyar: It's not fair.

Me: Time to go everyone. ...all in car. DH not getting a word edgewise as per usual in this women heavy family (







)

At the Restaurant: Sky has not really been talking at all. But the others have been chatty, so its not really obvious yet

Waitress: okay what can i get you

Ellie: The Ooodles Special

Maya: Me too the ooodles special

Skylar: [nothing, she is in full sulk]

Me: Sky honey what do you want

Sky: [Silence}

Waitress: Should I come back

Ellie and Maya together: No! we have to get out of here or we'll miss the movie

ME: Sky?

Sky: [Sulk]

Me: Hmm, well you always love the Chicken with brocolii and pasta. Is that okay, if not, let us know.

Sky: Silence

Me: She'll have the Chicken with brocolli and pasta. And, oh Sky I know you always ask for the Kiddie Cocktail. So let's get one of those too.

Maya and Ellie: Can I have one too

Me: Sure, why not...its junk food night i guess.

Me: Sky honey last chance to chage. ...Nope okay I'll have the Chicken with Mushrooms

Dh: Oh and I'll have the fish

Waitress: Oh I almost didn't see you (







)

Me: Sky honey I know you didn't want to come and that your'e mad. It's your turn next time to choose the place. Where do you think you'll choose. [_Wolf recomends this type of reasoing and acknowledgement, but warns parents that they can't expect this to end the sulk_

Sky: Sulk

Me: So who thinks the movie will be scary.

Moving on and no longer focuisng on the sulking) Occassional questions are bantered Sky's way but we are moving on and haivng a nice family time.

So your "middle ground" woudl go how?

I would ackowledge her feelings in the beginning, when she first expresses her opinion about the restaurant. I have found that dismissive responses like "yeah, well..." tend to make a sulk last _longer_. Often, acknowledging feelings leads to a short conversation about _why_ he/she feels that way, and everything can be quickly resolved.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

No one here has ever missed a meal. And yes, picking for the most part works for our family. Most of the time (let's say 85-90 precent) all ealsiy go along. Somtimes one person might be rather unhappy with the choice and might act as described, but when they are in a more rational state, they all agree that this is what they want.










That's great!

Quote:

Even as an adult, I've found it much better to stay quiet and unobtrusive when I'm in a foul mood. Putting every complaint "out there" at the time is not necessarily expedient or wise.
I'm sorry, I may not have explained myself clearly.

If you consider a tantrum the experience of overwhelming emotions, I think full blown sulking is like a self conscious version of a tantrum. The person is feeling just as overwhelmed, without the screaming and flailing







My approach with ds and sulking is similar to ds and tantrums. I would like to see him learn ways of managing strong emotions without needing those extremes~like tantrums or sulking. I don't think that means teaching him to complain~I want him to identify what he is feeling, so that he can internalize some problem solving skills. Yes, that means talking to me about what he's feeling~in my experience the foul mood is drastically shortened if we can talk with each other instead of fuming in silence or throwing a fit.


----------



## warriorprincess (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 

Maybe one thing I'm a little confused on is the term "disengagement." My first feeling is that it means attention withdrawal. But on reading closer, it doesn't seem like that. It kinda seems like it means to "ignore" the arguments ("it's too hard" "It's not my job") but not to ignore or isolate the child from your presence. Is that right?


Yes. If DC is complaining about dishes or math ( both non negotiables for us) I don't walk away or send them to their room. I busy myself right there in the room, but I don't listen to "I haaate dishes" (yeah well, so do I) "Why do I have to learn math?" (explained ad nauseum already) or "It's not faaaair' ( never gets a response). When DC is ready to ask for help politely, or just converse about anything out, I'm right there.


----------



## warriorprincess (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sylith* 
I guess I see Kohn as more "ideal" but it is not an ideal to which I feel capable of aspiring.

I agree that withdrawal of approval is kind of a punishment, but quite frankly this is the gentlest parenting I can realistically achieve.


I completely agree with this, expecially when you throw in maya's observation about multiple kids. Two of my kids should not end up "punished" by a third's behaviour, and I do have one who WILL do this on purpose ( and admits it).


----------



## pranamama (Nov 6, 2002)

I have the same issues with my 3 children. Especially when the other children are repetitively "punished"

I also think that in some cases of the squeaky wheel gets the grease the situation can become extremely unfair to the other children. I have a teen and a preschooler and there is a wide range of interests, temperaments and behaviors.


----------



## katallen (Jan 4, 2005)

This method doesn't seem like building guilt but rather getting your feelings out there and your expectations out there instead of letting them brew until you burst. I don't think a child is going to wither away or be damaged emotionally if you tell them you are not happy that they didn't help and you expect them to do thier share. I can see how that could be abused by some people, but I think you can take any method to far including Kohn's method.

I have not read the Wolf book but my approach is mostly like this and it helps a lot to air it and point out the effect because my dd does care about how I feel and it has also given her a model for telling me how she feels about things and we are often able to negotiate because we both tell each other how we are feeling. I have also noticed that when I just try to keep something in when I am not happy about her choices to not help out or do something I ask her to do I wind up being angry and withdrawing my attention from her without meaning to and it takes a lot of self talk to put the attention back on her without snapping at her and hurting her feelings. I think this approach sounds nice if you temper it with realistic expectations of what your child can do based on their age and (a young child may need help cleaning up but still should be doing some whereas an older child would need a prompt but should be able to clean up a mess they made).


----------



## crb (Aug 22, 2005)

Wow - miss a day . . . Some great insights and ideas - I'll try to get some time later today to really read and get into the discussion. I don't think Kohn and Wolf are similar (someone said something like Kohn would hate to be mentioned in connection w/Wolf)- but I wondered if they could "live together" in gd-world. Is Wolf's plan manipulative or just allowing feelings to not overtake family life? Is Kohn realistic in daily application?
Very interesting ideas . . .


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

I'm another one who likes Wolf, for the point brought up by Deva33mommy. I have SUCH a huge tendency to try and talk my children out of being upset. My mom did this, too, and it was very frustrating. She just couldn't let it go, and I do the same thing occasionally. This is really more about MY feelings than my child, and I'll do it about things that are non-negotiable.

For example, the other day I had to drop off my kids at the babysitter and go to work. My dd wanted to take her blankie, but after we had looked all over the house for ten minutes, we had to go. She was VERY upset, and I felt very guilty anyway about taking them to the sitter, so I spent the whole car ride trying to make her feel better about it.

It would have been much more respectful of me to have disengaged, to have empathized, and moved on. It would have helped her move on as well. Instead, we were having a power struggle over her feelings. I didn't want her to feel sad, because it was making me feel guilty, so I tried to talk her out of it. Not really much better than punishing someone for a tantrum, IMO.

Anyway, that's why I feel like Wolf works for me. And, heartmama, I don't think he advocates treating a sulk any differently than a tantrum. I think his theory is that there's only so much you can do. I don't see it as disengaging from the child or ignoring the emotion, but rather reacting empathetically and compassionately, but on your own emotional level, if you know what I mean. I think that getting too upset when your child is upset is an unhealthy model, and creates difficulty for them. My mother was always too sympathetic, and it made me feel somehow beholden to her, like I had to keep wallowing in the emotion because she was too, even when I was ready to move on. I don't know if that makes any sense. I'm too tired!


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I do sometimes struggle with the wolf method though- I feel like I'm being cold if I disengage from a round and round argument. But I wonder if it's more that I'm just not comfortable with him being upset?


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

:


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah* 
My mother was always too sympathetic, and it made me feel somehow beholden to her, like I had to keep wallowing in the emotion because she was too, even when I was ready to move on. I don't know if that makes any sense. I'm too tired!

It does make sense to me. I remember feeling something along those lines.
I also felt, if someone seemed like they *felt* the way I felt (you know, being sad with me, etc) that they were taking it away from me. It wasn't MY feeling anymore. If I was upset, I wanted to be the ONLY one that was upset. lol.


----------



## happeeevraftr (Mar 27, 2005)

I have read some books by both of these authors and I often find myself torn between which methods to use. I think when I'm feeling less patient, I'm more likely to employ Wolf's "I'm really sorry, but that's how it has to be" approach and then try to change the subject, remain upbeat, and move on. If it's not that big of a deal, usually that's enough to get my daughter out of the mood and she'll move on with me. When it's not, I do find myself listening to my "inner kohn" voice and try to address her feelings, understand her problem better, show more sympathy, and try to find solutions.

A recent example:
We were having soup for dinner and I mentioned we should have toast with it. She said she didn't want hers toasted, she just wanted plain bread. Fine, of course; done, and forgotten about.

So the three of us are eating and Matt and I are dipping our toast into the soup and eating bites of the bread with soup on it. Sariah is trying to do the same but she starts getting upset about her bread, that it's not "staying straight." By this point, I've forgotten all about the fact that hers isn't toasted, and I'm not really cluing into what's going on. To me, it just seems like another one of her outbursts (she's been having a LOT lately, over the tiniest things. I'm chalking it up to the age. And trying to be sympathetic.)

So we try for a minute to help her, try to straighten it better, hold it out for her while she takes a bite, asking if she'd like to break it up in pieces and put it in her soup and just eat it with a spoon.

None of these ideas are satisfactory and each brings more sobs, and they are totally real tears and I can see that she's very upset over this, but I can't think of anything else to do, so I say, "I'm sorry honey, but I don't know what else to do. You don't have to eat the bread; you can just eat your soup. Or you can eat it the way it is."

And I go on to eating my soup.

But the tears flow, and finally it dawns on me and I say, "Oh, yours isn't staying stiff like mine and dad's, is it? That's the problem?"

She sobs, "Yeeeeeahhh"

I say sympathetically, "Oh, honey, do you know why?"

(Tears still streaming, but brightening up a bit as she bites her lip) "No"

"It's because ours are toasted! Yours isn't toasted so it just gets soggy and bends over when it gets wet. Would you like to toast yours?"

And she does, and she's happy and it's all over.

The point of all that is, if I had just stuck with Wolf's methods of ignoring what I first considered to be a tantrum about something so insignificant, and there was nothing to be done about it anyway, I would have completely missed the way to help. And I guess I should have picked up on it sooner--I really just wasn't paying attention to the fact that hers wasn't toasted, and I didn't realize that she was looking at ours and wondering why hers wasn't doing what ours was.

But I think many, if not ALL of our children's little upsets are like this. Even when they seem so silly to us, or like there's really nothing we can do about it anyway, it IS a big deal to them, and often there really is something we can do about it, if nothing else than really prove to them with our explanations and sympathy that we care and are sorry things didn't go the way they wanted them to.

When I stop seeing my daughter as trying to manipulate me, or "just get her way," or annoy me, it is much easier for me to do what Kohn suggests, because I'm not worried that by addressing and validating her feelings, she's going to take that as license to keep "acting that way." Because really, it's not an act--they're expressing their real emotions--just in ways that seem totally exaggerated to us, because they haven't been conditioned yet to suppress them (like most of us adults have!) And I don't want to condition her to suppress them (which is what I think can be the effect of Wolf's methods),I want her to teach her appropriate and effective ways of expressing them.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Hhmm, I didn't really take from Wolf that one could not do what you did to get to the bottom of what's bothering her. True, I'm sometimes less patient to find out and distinguish between a random tantrum and something specific that is really bothering him. I'm often shocked to find out that no really, he really just wanted that sock on still and then it's all better (or whatever). But sometimes there really IS no solution and I think Wolf is the way to go.

Maybe that's the problem with Secret of Parenting, that he doesn't get into what to expect from a kid and it's not necessarily taking into account much younger kids who might just tantrum b/c they can't express a legitimate upset? But I don't think he's really about constantly stating something and moving on. I think he's more about the method once you _are_ at a dead end- you can't make them stop whining, or make them pick up their clothes, and it wouldn't be right to try via punishment or coercion or physical force.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

I've really enjoyed reading this thread....I find that I really like Wolf and his explanations about motivations and disengagin in power struggles, but that I am modifying his approach a bit because it sometimes seems a little dismissive and harsh, especially on younger children (my oldest isn't quite 3 yet)...however, I do like the spirit of his book and the idea of not giving too much power to overwhelming feelings regarding daily disappointments by drawing them out and trying to "fix" everything all the time. I think perspective, getting over small disappointments and moving on are very important skills to have, and ones that have served me really well in my life; I am a very content person and can roll with the punches pretty easily, and I think that is in part due to the fact that I was empathized with, but not too much, and not to the point where everything was made better or accommodated for me. Sometimes, I just had to deal, and that's OK. Clearly this has to be mediated with a lot of love, discussion, etc. though, and telling a kid to just "suck it up" all the time is not going to help them, either.

I feel like both Kohn and Wolf are a bit overzealous in their approaches, but hey, that's how they sell books now, isn't it?







. I haven't yet found a "one size fits all" kid, so I'm sure not using any "one size fits all" parenting, KWIM? I do tend more towards the Wolf side though, but modify it with some Kohn-esque ideas, if that makes any sense at all.









Good thread.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

I haven't read the book, but it sounds like this "baby self" and "mature self" stuff is just Wolf's restatement of traditional Freudian conceptions of how the human personality has an id, ego and superego. (Where ego and superego are the same as "mature self.")


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happeeevraftr* 
The point of all that is, if I had just stuck with Wolf's methods of ignoring what I first considered to be a tantrum about something so insignificant, and there was nothing to be done about it anyway, I would have completely missed the way to help. And I guess I should have picked up on it sooner--I really just wasn't paying attention to the fact that hers wasn't toasted, and I didn't realize that she was looking at ours and wondering why hers wasn't doing what ours was.

But I think many, if not ALL of our children's little upsets are like this. Even when they seem so silly to us, or like there's really nothing we can do about it anyway, it IS a big deal to them, and often there really is something we can do about it, if nothing else than really prove to them with our explanations and sympathy that we care and are sorry things didn't go the way they wanted them to.

When I stop seeing my daughter as trying to manipulate me, or "just get her way," or annoy me, it is much easier for me to do what Kohn suggests, because I'm not worried that by addressing and validating her feelings, she's going to take that as license to keep "acting that way." Because really, it's not an act--they're expressing their real emotions--just in ways that seem totally exaggerated to us, because they haven't been conditioned yet to suppress them (like most of us adults have!) And I don't want to condition her to suppress them (which is what I think can be the effect of Wolf's methods),I want her to teach her appropriate and effective ways of expressing them.

I think the thing with Wolf is not that he thinks you shouldn't express sympathy (he strongly does) but that when the disapointment is truly, in the scheme of things minor, there is value in a child gaining the knowledge that they can get over the disapointment without having it resolved.

Now Wolf would have no problem with it coming to you that she wanted the bread toasted, and assuming it was not a big deal, in doing so.

He is NOT in favor of letting them learn their lesson just to "teach her a lesson"

But he does not think a parent needs to worry about working soooo hard to try to figure out the source of and fix a minor disapointment, and "bread that is too soggy" does qualify as such.

Yes, it FEELS major to her, but what Wolf emphasizes is that, when the problem is really minor, what a child learns from a parent not frantically trying to "fix" the problem is that being allowed to be disapointed AND THEN GET OVER IT, is that "HEY I CAN FEEL BAD and then WITHOUT ANYTHING happening to "fix" the problem, I WILL feel better again."

There are a lot of adults who don't have this concept down and they are a miserable bunch.

The fact that the disapointment felt "major" to a child but they still could move on then can give them the confidence that they will be able to get over disapointments all on their own. That they have the POWER in their own bodies to do so.

In other words, Wolf is not one that sees the value as a child learning they "can't act that way" or that they shouldn't express their emotions. Rather he sees not feeling the need to kill youself to fix a minor disapointment as valuable because it teaches a child that YOU believe that he can survive it and come out happy at the end.

As a pp said:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
I do like the spirit of his book and the idea of not giving too much power to overwhelming feelings regarding daily disappointments by drawing them out and trying to "fix" everything all the time. I think perspective, getting over small disappointments and moving on are very important skills to have, and ones that have served me really well in my life; I am a very content person and can roll with the punches pretty easily, and I think that is in part due to the fact that I was empathized with, but not too much, and not to the point where everything was made better or accommodated for me. Sometimes, I just had to deal, and that's OK. Clearly this has to be mediated with a lot of love, discussion, etc. though, and telling a kid to just "suck it up" all the time is not going to help them, either.

And don't forget Wolf does say "For major disapointments, children need as much of our help as they can get"


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I have no idea if it is comparable to Freud's id/ego stuff, maybe. But it struck me as very common sense. It's very tiring sometimes, being out in the world (or preschool) and behaving well and being socially reponsible and considerate and what not. Sometimes when you get home you need to let your guard down a little (he explains it a lot better







). I think pointing this out is good, b/c it is like a lot of the advice I read here and elsewhere, about how we have to be careful about expecting kids to behave perfectly all the time or we punish them. Even adults don't do this. Why expect it of kids, and at home in their safe environment where they feel comfortable letting it all go?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

And, heartmama, I don't think he advocates treating a sulk any differently than a tantrum. I think his theory is that there's only so much you can do. I don't see it as disengaging from the child or ignoring the emotion, but rather reacting empathetically and compassionately, but on your own emotional level, if you know what I mean. I think that getting too upset when your child is upset is an unhealthy model, and creates difficulty for them. My mother was always too sympathetic, and it made me feel somehow beholden to her, like I had to keep wallowing in the emotion because she was too, even when I was ready to move on. I don't know if that makes any sense. I'm too tired!
I must have miscommunicating something. I don't think getting upset with your child is the answer. I don't think a codependent emotional response is appropriate either. My ideal is to remain open and capable of offering meaningful help to my child~without needing either disengagement or anger. Like I said, that's my ideal, not always reality.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Does anyone see a similarity between Wolf's disengaging, and Kohn's advice to "stop responding" to repetitive requests when the answer will STILL be no?

Granted, its a tiny part of Kohn's book (one paragraph, page 151). But I was actually surprised when I read it, kinda. It's about a child asking repeatedly for a brownie, and that after giving reasons (why she can't have a brownie right before dinner) and emphathizing ("it's hard to resist something so yummy"), and after so many requests it is fine to just comepletely stop responding to the requests. NOT the child, obviously. The reason Kohn gives is that you've stopped answering because there is nothing more you can say about it.

I was a bit surprised when I read it, because I would have guessed Kohn would have suggested to reconsider giving the brownie.


----------



## PancakeGoddess (Oct 8, 2004)

They do sound similar to me, deva. The spirit is the same, I think: don't withhold love or compassion, but don't jump into the swirl of their immaturity either.

I've been lurking on this very interesting thread. I really like many aspects of both authors' methods, although I agree that wolf is a little too infatuated with his baby self concept (who said that? you hit the nail on the head) and it's annoying, but the ideas are accurate.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Personally I think people hear "disengage" when SOP is discussed and recoil, but I don't think Wolf is about disengaging from your child at all, just from some going-nowhere arguments.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama* 
I must have miscommunicating something. I don't think getting upset with your child is the answer. I don't think a codependent emotional response is appropriate either. My ideal is to remain open and capable of offering meaningful help to my child~without needing either disengagement or anger. Like I said, that's my ideal, not always reality.

Oh, no, I don't think you miscommunicated at all! It was me. I was trying to explain that I frequently have a "codependent emotional response" (which is the perfect way to say it), and so it is therefore more helpful to me to remember that I CAN disengage, and that not only does my child have the power within her own little body to deal with disappointment, I, too, can live with the knowledge that life isn't always going to be perfect for my child. Probably still not making any sense.

I think the reason it works for me is because, honestly, I rarely can remain open and capable of offering meaningful help after a certain point. I wish I could, and I'm getting better at it with practice and introspection. But it is hard, hard, hard. So Wolf has given me a kind of bridge to calmness, a middle ground between losing my temper and belaboring the point to death, if you know what I mean.


----------



## pranamama (Nov 6, 2002)

someone please tell me what SOP means


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pranamama* 
someone please tell me what SOP means

It took me like three times reading this thread to figure out that it means Secret of Parenting- the book by Wolf. lol


----------



## pranamama (Nov 6, 2002)

thanks! I had some fun trying to figure it out but I was way off







thought it may mean how other parents are parenting


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I just like to be cryptic.


----------



## pranamama (Nov 6, 2002)

its good for the mind, kind of like a crossword puzzle


----------



## katallen (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
Does anyone see a similarity between Wolf's disengaging, and Kohn's advice to "stop responding" to repetitive requests when the answer will STILL be no?

Granted, its a tiny part of Kohn's book (one paragraph, page 151). But I was actually surprised when I read it, kinda. It's about a child asking repeatedly for a brownie, and that after giving reasons (why she can't have a brownie right before dinner) and emphathizing ("it's hard to resist something so yummy"), and after so many requests it is fine to just comepletely stop responding to the requests. NOT the child, obviously. The reason Kohn gives is that you've stopped answering because there is nothing more you can say about it.

I was a bit surprised when I read it, because I would have guessed Kohn would have suggested to reconsider giving the brownie.


That seems like a good comparision. If you are continually reassessing your requests when your child starts showing some emotion they are learning to escalate and show off their emotions to get what they want. I don't think this is a deliberate manipulation, children are so into their needs and wants that it is hard for them to see past that and it is hard not to go to whatever lengths you have to go to get what you WANT even as an adult, even if it is not something that is going to be good for you or in the family budget.


----------



## Soundhunter (Dec 13, 2003)

Well, Kohn's writing leaves me thinking that children are extremely fragile and delicate creatures.

Wolf's writing leaves me thinking that kids are strong and resilient.

These are two big differences I've gathered, though I like both books and have gotten useful info out of both of them. Sometimes I need to remember how fragile my little ones are, and sometimes I need to remember that they are strong and resilient too.

I never got out of Wolf's stuff that it's about guilting them, I didn't get that at all.


----------



## Fanny1460 (Jul 1, 2005)

:


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Bumping.

Pat


----------



## crb (Aug 22, 2005)

Well, before this discussion I pictured the Wolf parent just staring, stone-faced at a child in turmoil. Interesting to see some possible points of connection between Wolf and Kohn. I think I can see the idea of a) state situation, b) empathize w/feelings, c) disengage from argument as having healthier applications, especially for those discussions where everyone gets upset.

Quote:

I never got out of Wolf's stuff that it's about guilting them, I didn't get that at all.
I went back to look at Wolf again - I see guilt being used (maybe it is just my perception of the technique) but it is for serious "wrongs" (not just day to day things) - when he talks about letting the child "feel discomfort" about what they have done and says they will probably try to put the "blame" back on the parent for the way they feel (this is a big paraphrase/interpretation on my part since I just returned the book to the library):

Parent: You didn't bring in the firewood and it was your job. It was your job, but I had to do it.
Child: Well, it's your fault, you didn't give me enough time and I was tired. I was going to do it!
Parent: (silence).

So this still seems like guilt to me - Not the same as "laying a guilt trip" on someone, but definitely pointing out a situation where a child should feel bad about their behavior and then allowing that bad feeling and hoping that will cause the child to act differently in the future. What do you think?


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crb* 
So this still seems like guilt to me - Not the same as "laying a guilt trip" on someone, but definitely pointing out a situation where a child should feel bad about their behavior and then allowing that bad feeling and hoping that will cause the child to act differently in the future. What do you think?

I do have mixed feelings about this.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a child feeling badly when they've done something that hurts someone or really inconveniences them, or maes someone else uncomfortable (I hesitate to say something 'wrong' or 'bad', because those are subjective) - because part of self discipline is thinking about how your actions impact others and making decisions from there, so kids need to develop their own moral compass, which can involve guilt as a tool/barometer - and I see a big difference between *guilt* and *shame*. BUT, I'm not sure how much I'm OK with the parent "imposing" that guilt by not offering _some_ sort of brief amelioration like "It's OK, try to remember X next time." or some other kind of assurance that though the parent is upset it's at the individual action and not "the child", KWIM? But also I don't feel like the parent should always try to "fix" the child's feelings.

So I don't there's anything *inherently* wrong with this (child feeling badly as a result of their actions), but I think it's a fine line.

Which is why I'm somewhere between Kohn and Wolf.


----------



## *LoveBugMama* (Aug 2, 2003)

Can I BUMP this thread?

This is so interesting to me.







Anyone else have more to say?


----------



## Deir (Aug 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama* 
I have the sulker tempermant lurking inside me too







: . I definitely "get" the behavior,and the unproductive selfish misery behind it.

I know there are times when it's not realistic to stop everything and go along with a sulker. I get that, definitely!

Just as true~my experience isn't going to be a fully happy moment if a member of my family is upset to the point of feeling unable to interact with everyone. If it were possible to help them, that would be much better for everyone.

As a child I never got any help with sulking behavior. I think my parents believed by ignoring sulking completely, never feeding it, the behavior would disappear. In reality, that just made me a better, chronic sulker.

Not until adulthood did friends or partners reach out and offer help in those sulking moments. I never thought I had it in me to climb out of that miserable feeling of my own accord. Now, I have skills to implement in the moment that have been invaluable. I can see *now* that sulking is a very complex response to a situation~it is emotions in conflict with expectations.

When I read Wolf I thought "This is a good emergency approach. It avoids punishing or exploding at the child". I also see the need to work through the behavior. From a parenting point of view, deciding to ignore all sulking is like deciding to ignore all grief, or anger. Do these emotions go away because they are ignored? "Sulking" is kind of an ugly word. In my experience a sulker is *struggling*. They are overwhelmed by their own emotions. It's not fun. If you grow up in the habit of feeling overwhelmed by your emotions, you may not magically outgrow that. There is a real need to consciously practice coping skills. I think sulkers in general are intuitive, sensitive, detail oriented people. Those are good things. There are absolutely ways to channel the emotions in a positive way.

Wow- I think a lightbulb just wentoff inmy head due to what you wrote Thanks!!!


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs* 
I do have mixed feelings about this.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a child feeling badly when they've done something that hurts someone or really inconveniences them, or maes someone else uncomfortable (I hesitate to say something 'wrong' or 'bad', because those are subjective) - because part of self discipline is thinking about how your actions impact others and making decisions from there, so kids need to develop their own moral compass, which can involve guilt as a tool/barometer - and I see a big difference between *guilt* and *shame*. BUT, I'm not sure how much I'm OK with the parent "imposing" that guilt by not offering _some_ sort of brief amelioration like "It's OK, try to remember X next time." or some other kind of assurance that though the parent is upset it's at the individual action and not "the child", KWIM? But also I don't feel like the parent should always try to "fix" the child's feelings.

So I don't there's anything *inherently* wrong with this (child feeling badly as a result of their actions), but I think it's a fine line.

Which is why I'm somewhere between Kohn and Wolf.









Here is Wolf when a seven year old child has eaten snacks after being speficially told not to as they are needed for a meeting:

_Parent: I asked you not to eat the cupcakes, but you did. Now I am not going to have ennough for my meeting.

Child: Are you mad at me.

Parent: No, but I wish you hadn't eaten the cupcakes._

This seems to me an appropriate level of 'guilt' to impose. A statement of the consequences of the child's actions without anger or withholding affection.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44* 
Here is Wolf when a seven year old child has eaten snacks after being speficially told not to as they are needed for a meeting:

_Parent: I asked you not to eat the cupcakes, but you did. Now I am not going to have ennough for my meeting.

Child: Are you mad at me.

Parent: No, but I wish you hadn't eaten the cupcakes._

This seems to me an appropriate level of 'guilt' to impose. A statement of the consequences of the child's actions without anger or withholding affection.

OK, but what if you ARE mad? This is where I go wrong with Wolf. I'm having trouble with the waiting approach and with simply stating my expectations when they haven't been fulfilled because I can't keep my anger out of it. I think I have a hard time with the waiting because it's hard to consciously give your child the space/trust that they will make the choice you want them to.

Anyway, sorry to just jump in!


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

I've read both and prefer Wolf. That said, I sometimes find Wolf pretty tough to implement with my extremely persistent, spirited kid. Sometimes that bus just takes FOREVER to get here!







Also, at times DD really seems to panic when we disengage. For us, Wolf is good for little things, but less effective when really major emotion is involved. If I feel Wolf's methods aren't working well, I usually switch to the collaborative problem-solving discussed in The Explosive Child.


----------



## ryansma (Sep 6, 2006)

natensarah said:


> OK, but what if you ARE mad?
> QUOTE]
> 
> I have read all the posts and had the same question. If you are mad/upset could it be productive to say so? Your dc (of an appropriate age) will see that even when mommy is mad she is capable of being rational, still loving and moving on quickly. Dh and I deal with each other this way. We say what is bugging us and why (all in a very civil way) and get on with the business of life. If you can be mad without the negative manifestations of that anger (yelling, demeaning, etc) I think that can be a valid thing for children to learn.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah* 
OK, but what if you ARE mad? This is where I go wrong with Wolf. I'm having trouble with the waiting approach and with simply stating my expectations when they haven't been fulfilled because I can't keep my anger out of it.

I think it's okay to say you're mad (in a calmish way), even if you're doing things a la Wolf. If I feel angry and my child asks if I'm angry, I'm going to say yes because that's the honest answer. Though I do think that anger is usually secondary, that anger happens when other feelings are neglected/unrecognized too long. So in the cupcake thing, when child asks "are you mad at me?" I might say "I'm frustrated (or worried? disappointed?)." I find that talking about my feelings, even anger, can be very helpful at times.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ryansma*
If you are mad/upset could it be productive to say so? Your dc (of an appropriate age) will see that even when mommy is mad she is capable of being rational, still loving and moving on quickly. If you can be mad without the negative manifestations of that anger (yelling, demeaning, etc) I think that can be a valid thing for children to learn.









IMO, talking about it makes anger, which is a very normal human emotion that everyone (I assume) feels at some point in their lives, less mysterious and less frightening. And it helps kids learn how to express and manage their own feelings of anger.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I believe that I can authentically express my feelings AND *own* responsibility for them. I can choose to be angry. I may feel angry (I believe this is a secondary emotion related to an unmet need), but I do not _have to be_ at the mercy of my feelings. Feelings are valuable as a message of a core value, need, or priority, ime. This provides information *to me* about myself.

What I choose to do with that awareness can be empowering in a manner of feeling (self)validated to *ask* for what I want or need. *I* can choose to honor my core values, needs and priorities. When there is the underlying assumption that others are responsible for how I feel, it seems to be a very dis-empowered way to live life, dependent upon others to "make" me feel happy or 'not make me mad'. I can concurrently share that something is important to me or that I do or do not like something which happened, WITHOUT expecting others to meet my needs. I can make *requests*, rather than stating expectations that others meet my needs. Giving away power over my emotional state to anyone is a slippery slope into resentfulness and anger, imo.

The Center for Non-violent communication articulates this process of sharing observations, feelings and needs AND making _requests_ of others. It is more in line with Alife Kohn than Anthony Wolf, imo. http://www.cnvc.org/

Pat


----------

