# Is some GD philosophy *too* gentle???



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I feel like there is a time and place to say, "no." ITA that there are lots of other/often better strategies, and I see lots of good suggestions here for those.

But sometimes it seems like there is this prohibition here on ever exerting authority, ever telling a child "no, that is not okay."

I had a thread here awhile back that was super extra amazingly helpful and made all the difference in me changing a dynamic that had developed with my dd where I was power struggling with her.

But I keep thinking about an example I wrote about where we were at the beach, and it was time to go. We climbed the hill to the car and dd turned around and ran back down the hill to the water, despite me telling her no and urging her to come back. It was suggested that she must not have been ready to leave, and I should just resign myself to waiting, to helping her want to leave, time is not a big deal, sometimes part of parenting is being somewhere and wishing like crazy you were somewhere else, etc. One mama suggested she stays at the park even when she really has to pee, if her children are not ready to go yet.

Another time I was trying to get my daughter dressed, as we had to be somewhere. She refused to get dressed and was physically struggling. I tried to distract, convince, etc. Didn't work. Finally I picked her up, put her in my bedroom, told her I was putting her for a time out because she wasn't getting dressed, and walked away. She started to cry, followed me out of the room, and I got her dressed. But I'm sure many here would be horrified by that.

So my question is... is this constant giving, following children's agendas at the expense of our own, not saying "no," never giving a parent-driven consequence to a behaviour... is that mandatory for GD?

And is that necessarily good for children? What is that teaching them? Is it good for kids to get the message that their own needs and desires always come before their mama's/other people's? Is it good for them to never be told "no," or to give up their own desires because someone else's agenda (like mama's agenda to go pee) takes precedence?


----------



## MeganW (Jul 11, 2004)

Wow ITA with you. I'm trying to learn about and embrace GD however I am also having trouble with these issues. Children have to know that the entire world is not going to stop because they "want" to stay at the beach/park etc. While I totally want to be understanding of my DD's wants and needs I want her to understand that there are responsibilities and there are other peoples wants and needs other than her own. Besides the issue of things just being dangerous. No amount of that hurts me will get my dd to stop smacking me in the face.


----------



## Prajnamom (Jun 14, 2006)

I think you have to strike a balance. For me GD means not disciplining out of anger and frustration but with what is best for my son in mind. For example when it's time to leave the park we're going to go home whether he wants to or not but I would never spank him, yell or be verbally abusive.
I don't think that my son is old enough to know that he needs to leave the park because he's had too much sun, he needs sleep, food, whatever...It's a parents job to take care of their kids and that sometimes means getting them to do things they don't want to.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

too gentle? nope, imo.
I'm sure there is too hands-off, or being too child-centered. But never too gentle. lol.
The beach thing, I would have picked up ds and left if it was really important to me that we go NOW, and less important to ds that we stay (I vaguely remember the thread). If its between his desires (to stay) and my needs (to pee) I go with my needs. kwim?

Yeah, I gotta say I dislike the timeout for not getting dressed thing. Not being snarky, just honest. I would have just stopped, given him a minute to get his head straight, and for me to chill out. Go get my coffee, or fix my hair or whatever. Then come back and tried again. Ime, it almost always is better the second time around.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
So my question is... is this constant giving, following children's agendas at the expense of our own, not saying "no," never giving a parent-driven consequence to a behaviour... is that mandatory for GD?

mandatory, no. I think you are bundling up a lot of different things, and putting them in one category. I "give constantly", but I don't follow ds's agenda at the expense of my own. I try very hard to find mutually agreeable solutions that match up with both of our agendas. The more I cooperate with ds, the more he cooperates with me. I don't give consequences for anything. But I am clear about what I am ok with. But all of my limits are REAL limits- ie, don't hit the dog. Don't hit me. Don't throw hard toys.

Quote:

And is that necessarily good for children? What is that teaching them? Is it good for kids to get the message that their own needs and desires always come before their mama's/other people's? Is it good for them to never be told "no," or to give up their own desires because someone else's agenda (like mama's agenda to go pee) takes precedence?
I think it IS good for kids to see parents trying hard to find a solution that works for everybody. To know that their desires matter just as much as mom and dad's. But I don't think its good for dc's needs/desires to come before others' desires. They matter just as much, not more.
Is it good for them to never be told no? No. I definitely have things that I say no to. That directly affect me (or the dogs, who I speak for). Hitting for one. Um, I will go to the bathroom whether he likes it or not, but I try to make it agreeable to him. So I'll suggest getting a book and coming with me. Or that he can sit and play with a toy where he is. Then I go (as long as he's not super upset- if he is, there is something deeper that I need to figure out).

I think you are tying up all these things, that can be separated. You are combining "putting kids desires ahead of all other needs" with "no consequences for behavior" and I just don't see how those are one and the same. They can definitely be separated, and one can use one and not the other.


----------



## LuckyMommaToo (Aug 14, 2003)

There was recently a thread in Parenting about being selfless that was addressing a similar point. For me, it has gradually changed as DS has gotten older. For the first year, I was the momma waiting to pee. But as his communication skills improved, my needs have shifted. His needs are still first (well, actually, newborn DD's needs are usually first right now), but mine are a closer second.

When I expressed my doubts about how having a second DC would affect my son, my doula said, "You're not raising a child now, you're raising a family." That really changed my viewpoint. DH and I talk a lot about what's working for our family and what isn't.

Oops -- gotta run. Can't wait to read other replies.
-Erin


----------



## TinkerBelle (Jun 29, 2005)

Me three.

I don't understand why some of these kids are hitting, kicking, biting and even spitting on their parents, if all the parents have done is model gentle behavior.

I would like to understand this. And I am NOT criticizing anyone here. I am trying, like everyone else, to do the best for my kids.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

I can see what you're saying. If I am at the park with the kids & I have to pee badly I DO expect them to understand I have an urgent need & it trumps their wants at that moment. What really irritates me is some people who practice consentual living. Nothing against it, I do it myself! Some, however, take it WAY too far! I heard one mother say she doesn't make her DD (age 2!) sit in a car seat when she doesn't want to because it should be her choice. Um, no. If we have to go we have to go & you WILL be strapped in!







I am flexible & take all things into consideration - but there are a very few things I WILL NOT bend on...car seat usage is one.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TinkerBelle*
Me three.

I don't understand why some of these kids are hitting, kicking, biting and even spitting on their parents, if all the parents have done is model gentle behavior.

I would like to understand this. And I am NOT criticizing anyone here. I am trying, like everyone else, to do the best for my kids.

Because these behaviors are age appropriate & most children will at some point engage in them. Even if mom & dad don't do these things - people at school may, or on TV, etc...


----------



## AutumnMama (Jan 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
So my question is... is this constant giving, following children's agendas at the expense of our own, not saying "no," never giving a parent-driven consequence to a behaviour... is that mandatory for GD?

And is that necessarily good for children? What is that teaching them? Is it good for kids to get the message that their own needs and desires always come before their mama's/other people's? Is it good for them to never be told "no," or to give up their own desires because someone else's agenda (like mama's agenda to go pee) takes precedence?

I'm certianly not an expert on GD, but IMO, no.
It's one thing when they are babies, they have needs that must be attended to right away...sometimes at the expense of whatever you should be doing at the time (going potty, leaving so you're not late, etc.).

IMO letting kids 'get their way' all of the time (yes, I could word that better, but ykwim I think







) is not painting an accurate picture of the world/society for them. Yes, we need to shelter them from alot, but I believe that it does them a great disservice to believe they should get whatever they want whenever they want it.

I'm certianly not suggesting that you force them to do (or keep them from doing) X when they really don't need to, just to teach them that lesson (ala Dobson







: ), but they do need to understand that family dynamics have to include everyone's needs.

If we want to raise caring, unselfish human beings, we need to 1st: model it to them, but 2ndly: raise them in a way that they are aware and concerned about other peoples needs and boundaries.

I believe that every parent here desires to raise a strong, emotionally healthy, independant person, whose needs as a child have been met, and they are balanced.
I've seen the results of parenting so that your child gets their every whim fulfilled as far as humanly possible (and a bit farther too







), and from what I've seen it creates a very self-centered person, who things that the world owes them everything, and is totally inconsiderate of others.

Not the type of person I want my children to be.

Just to be clear, I certianly don't mean to offend anyone, and I'm not saying that any parents here are doing this, just my $.02 worth









(ETA: I'm slooow, when I started this there were no other replies







)


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

To me GD is not about stopping the world for your child. Natural consequences, consentual living, and communication is how the real world works. Unnatural punishments teach them to obey me. I am not interested in them obeying me forever, I am interested in them learning why, where, when, and how they should act to get their way and be an independant, successful person. For the most part the why, where, when, and hows in our adult lives are not really that dissimilar from a child's.

It is hard to figure out how to satisfy the immediate need to pee while still satisfying the long term need to teach your child to be successful at communication and compromise, but there are definatly a good panel of experienced parents on here to help









Scream at a police officer that you WANT TO SPEED, and see if you get out of the ticket.

Tell the waiter he is a stupid head and needs to bring your food now, see if your food is spit-free.

Tell an employee that he better get his 3rd quarter projects in by friday or he is gonna get a spanking... see if you get sued.

Gentle discipline is real life. It is hard to solve problems in real life, but there are a lot of people here to help.


----------



## TinkerBelle (Jun 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rmzbm*
Because these behaviors are age appropriate & most children will at some point engage in them. Even if mom & dad don't do these things - people at school may, or on TV, etc...

Maybe the temperment of the child is a determining factor as well? I have a friend who is terrific and very GD. Her children have never physically attacked her or degraded her by spitting on her. My kids have never hit, spit or kicked me, either. Granted I am not full-on GD and use timeouts as a last resort. (Carseats are not optional.) I also do my utmost to sound and behave gently with my kids.

I just see the posts of mamas whose children hit and kick them and spit on them and my heart just flip-flops. That must be very hard.

Again, just trying to understand.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Perfectly said, ShaggyDaddy!


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TinkerBelle*
Maybe the temperment of the child is a determining factor as well? I have a friend who is terrific and very GD. Her children have never physically attacked her or degraded her by spitting on her. My kids have never hit, spit or kicked me, either. Granted I am not full-on GD and use timeouts as a last resort. (Carseats are not optional.) I also do my utmost to sound and behave gently with my kids.

I just see the posts of mamas whose children hit and kick them and spit on them and my heart just flip-flops. That must be very hard.

Again, just trying to understand.

Yes, I understand. My children have never done these things either so - granted - I have no hands on experiance. I agree temperment may play a part. But I do really think alot of these things are just normal "kid phases."


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy*
To me GD is not about stopping the world for your child. Natural consequences, consentual living, and communication is how the real world works. (snip)
Gentle discipline is real life. It is hard to solve problems in real life, but there are a lot of people here to help.









ita


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TinkerBelle*

I don't understand why some of these kids are hitting, kicking, biting and even spitting on their parents, if all the parents have done is model gentle behavior.


Because sometimes hitting and kicking and biting are ways of showing emotion that kids don't know how (or dont want to at the moment, or can't find a way to ..) express some other way. I am not saying it's great mind you, but it happens. I am gentle with children (as often as is humanly possible...im not perfect) because I believe it to be the right thing to do, but it isn't necessarily going to produce an always compliant, never aggressive kid.

Regarding the OP:

I think there can be a time for being firm with people, and kids are people too. It's so hard to say what I would have done in your specific situations, because I tend to just rifle through my options with kids on the spot, ya know? I don't have a problem attending to my own physical needs to use the bathroom, and etc. Perhaps we could have gone back for a few minutes after I had gone potty? Maybe we could have decided to do something else she wanted to do after we got home? (Some people call that bribing. I call it planning, and something to look forward to. Who knows? lol







)

The getting dressed thing must seriously be something like a required PITA thing parents are required to deal with in toddler/preschool kids. I imagine it's in the great big "Things you must go through as a parent" book somewhere. :eh: Yea it's right up there with that back arching thing they do when they don't want you to put them in a carseat or refusing to eat anything but jelly beans and cheese.







I might have tried to make it fun. (I know you did say that you tried stuff, and that's cool.) Maybe wearing ridiculous mismatched stuff and a silly hat, or her pajamas, or a cape lol.

I am not anti time out if it's used as a chance to regroup and chill, but I don't care for it as a punishment. I take care of a 4 yr old little girl who often hits, scratches and takes things from other kids by hurting them. I just gently remove her (the other kid has a right to be safe, etc.) telling her that so and so "doesn't like to be hit/was using that book right now." and often she will do the wild legs and attempt to bite. So we usually go sit somewhere until things are more peaceful. We always talk about how she was feeling, and she's never been in time out "because you didn't do xyz when I asked."


----------



## Justmee (Jun 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
I don't give consequences for anything. But I am clear about what I am ok with. But all of my limits are REAL limits- ie, don't hit the dog. Don't hit me. Don't throw hard toys.

Not trying to be snarky here at all, really trying to learn









When you say you have real limits but no consequences, how does that work? If he throws a hard toy do you distract? If he goes right back to it do you ever put that toy away (and isn't that a consequense?) Maybe it's a semantics thing, but I don't get how you can have real limits with no consequenses.


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

Gentle Discipline is all about knowing age-appropriate behavior, respecting age-appropriate behavior, and knowing that you have to work *with* age-appropriate behavior in order to build a long term, respectful relationship with your children.

Here's an example: would any of us ever tell a newborn "sorry that you're hungry - you'll have to wait for your lunch while I go to the bathroom, I'll be back in 10 minutes." Of course not. But people often mistakenly believe that once a child is capable of communicating, they are capable of understanding things the way an adult understands them. That ability takes years and years.

Quote:

So my question is... is this constant giving, following children's agendas at the expense of our own, not saying "no," never giving a parent-driven consequence to a behaviour... is that mandatory for GD?

And is that necessarily good for children? What is that teaching them? Is it good for kids to get the message that their own needs and desires always come before their mama's/other people's? Is it good for them to never be told "no," or to give up their own desires because someone else's agenda (like mama's agenda to go pee) takes precedence?
It would depend on the age of the child. If you are talking about child before the age of 6 then you can try to teach them all you want about "mommy's needs" but it won't sink in. They are not developmentally ready to understand about other people's needs until they are at least 6 (this varies but it is around this age), they are far too egocentric. Even if they *seem* that they are understanding about other's needs by being compliant, they really are not getting it - they aren't capable.

The other thing is this: to you, it appears obvious that you are constantly meeting your children's needs and they therefore can get the message that they come first. But if you look at it through their eyes, they may see it differently. They may be thinking "I wish I had a red dress but mommy picked out a blue one for me" or "I wish I could eat meat but mommy's a vegetarian" or "I wish we had a television" or "I really prefer a three-bedroom house to this two-bedroom." I know that those examples sound ridiculous but the fact is we as parents are controlling every aspect of our children's lives, we make all of the decisions. Our children are powerless so we empower them by giving them some choices during the day. It seems like a lot to us but if you think about every choice that is made in a day, it is the adult who is making most of them.

The bottom line is you have to function in a way that meets your needs or you will become resentful very quickly. I would not hold in pee to let my DD play in the park because I would be extremely resentful of that - it would not be a good choice for me. If somebody else can do it and not resent it, that's great for them.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

When you say you have real limits but no consequences, how does that work? If he throws a hard toy do you distract? If he goes right back to it do you ever put that toy away (and isn't that a consequense?) Maybe it's a semantics thing, but I don't get how you can have real limits with no consequenses.
I know this wasn't addressed towards me, but would like to put my thoughts out there. I don't impose consequences, that sounds like punishment. It is possible to have boundaries and limits just by EXPRESSING them. It is possible to express your wants and needs too as well as listen to your child's. Doesn't mean they will *always* be respected. But I'm fairly certain my kids wouldn't be any MORE likely to respect limits and personal boundaries IF I WERE TO IMPOSE CONSEQUENCES OR PUNISH THEM WHEN THEY DIDN'T. I think they would be less likely to be respectful if they were not being respected. I am not perfect and I do not expect my children to be. We talk about it when I am disrespectful, snippy, rude, etc, just the same as we talk about it when they are. I have a couple times made the motion to put up a toy that was being thown after I mentioned it could hurt/ damage, saying something like, I'm going to put this up so no one gets hurt and nothing gets damaged. But ds has always asked for it back directly and I have handed it to him. He didn't throw it again. Most of the time just stating what could happen was enough and redirecting to a more acceptable activity, throwing balls or racing the cars that were being thrown.

Quote:

To me GD is not about stopping the world for your child. Natural consequences, consentual living, and communication is how the real world works. Unnatural punishments teach them to obey me. I am not interested in them obeying me forever, I am interested in them learning why, where, when, and how they should act to get their way and be an independant, successful person. For the most part the why, where, when, and hows in our adult lives are not really that dissimilar from a child's.










And as far as consensual living, I do GET that this isn't for everyone. Some people are more comfortable and able to be a better, more relaxed, gentle parent when they are authoritive. Some people are comfortable finding mutually agreeable solutions to some or most things, but not others. ETC ETC ETC. until every type of parent under the sun is mentioned. The way I see consensual IS NOT about putting a child's every need before your own, that just DOES NOT fit the description of consensual in any way shape or form. It is a misconception to see it this way. If someone is living that way I WOULD NOT think of them as living consensually.

Quote:

Yeah, I gotta say I dislike the timeout for not getting dressed thing. Not being snarky, just honest. I would have just stopped, given him a minute to get his head straight, and for me to chill out. Go get my coffee, or fix my hair or whatever. Then come back and tried again. Ime, it almost always is better the second time around.








ITA with this


----------



## Attila the Honey (Mar 15, 2003)

I think "too gentle" is like "too compassionate". No such thing.







:

But, having said that, I never equated "gentle discipline" with never saying "no". I do equate it with being respectful, compassionate, understanding, and non-coercive or manipulating, but not with never saying, "no".

I respect my daughter's feelings and I don't assert my dominance just because, but sometimes the answer is "no". I try to remember that adage, "Make your 'no's as kind as your 'yes'es" (or however that goes), but I still use "no".

But really, that's true for dealing with everyone. I have a kind and 'gentle' relationship with my dh and we respect each other and talk things out, try to work as a team, but sometimes we make each other unhappy. I see it as similar with dd. We ARE a team, and we have to do what's best for the team, and if it's time to leave the park because it's late and we are tired and everyone is hungry then, no, we don't sit and suffer because one member of the team is upset that we have to leave.

I think it's a common misconception that gd = never letting the child be upset in any way. that's not very practical. To me, the difference between a gd parent and a non-gd parent might be, for example, that the gd parent understands and 'allows' their child to cry and scream when it's time to leave, maybe with some hugs and reassurances if that helps; whereas a non-gd parent would be more likely to coerce/manipulate ("Stop crying and I will give you some candy.") or punish ("Stop crying or I will give you something to cry about.").

It's not that gd = letting the kid dictate how long you stay, it's how you deal with the issue of needing to leave.

Hope that made sense.


----------



## bamamom (Dec 9, 2004)

yes.

sometimes i feel like the discipline or lack thereof promoted here is just not reality. In truth, I have used GD in the past, and things were totally out of control. What works for us is consistent, immediate discipline....quickly done, but quickly over. It is just little reminders along the way of what is and isnt acceptable in our house...

I remember maybe last year sometime I actually read a mom on here say that If her child wasnt causing more than $20 in property damage she just let him run. WTC???????????? Are you kidding me?? So...lets say he does only $19 worth of property damage 5 times a day...geez. yeah right!

I think the prevailing theme is to let them be kids no matter the cost, and not to upset them, and just dont mess with their worlds. It just isnt reality.

And it doesnt work alot of times. How many times do you see parents posting begging for help b/c suddenly their 3 or 4 or 6 yr old is angry and fighting? hateful in their attitudes and words, and their spirits. That is not good fruit from GD...That is a child crying out for boundaries. A Child frustrated by lack of discipline.

In our home, We HAVE to discipline. There is no way around it.

Yes, I feel frustrated when I come here, and read about GD.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

And it doesnt work alot of times. How many times do you see parents posting begging for help b/c suddenly their 3 or 4 or 6 yr old is angry and fighting? hateful in their attitudes and words, and their spirits. That is not good fruit from GD...That is a child crying out for boundaries. A Child frustrated by lack of discipline.

In our home, We HAVE to discipline. There is no way around it.

Yes, I feel frustrated when I come here, and read about GD.
Woah, are you saying your child has never been angry and has never been fighting, never had a 'hateful'(not a word I would use to describe one of my children, EVER, but I'm thinking you are saying angry, rude, etc?????) attitude or word? Sounds inhuman to me. There is discipline in my home as well, yet it doesn't revolve around power, control, and punishment. It revolves around learning how to coexist in a respectful, evolving way. It involves me learning JUST AS MUCH, if not more, than my children. I'm sorry that hearing about GD frustrates you. Hearing about families living with parents hitting, yelling, punishing, shaming, and coercing in the name of 'discipline' saddens me. What is that supposed to teach?


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
The beach thing, I would have picked up ds and left if it was really important to me that we go NOW, and less important to ds that we stay (I vaguely remember the thread). If its between his desires (to stay) and my needs (to pee) I go with my needs. kwim?

ITA, me too.

Quote:

Yeah, I gotta say I dislike the timeout for not getting dressed thing. Not being snarky, just honest. I would have just stopped, given him a minute to get his head straight, and for me to chill out. Go get my coffee, or fix my hair or whatever. Then come back and tried again. Ime, it almost always is better the second time around.
Yeah that would have been a better strategy for sure.

At the time, I was at the end of my rope and was feeling really angry.







I needed to just walk away, by whatever means necessary, and I was not thinking creatively at all.

Quote:

They matter just as much, not more.
Yes, this is what I want my daughter to learn.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RachelEve14*
Not trying to be snarky here at all, really trying to learn









When you say you have real limits but no consequences, how does that work? If he throws a hard toy do you distract? If he goes right back to it do you ever put that toy away (and isn't that a consequense?) Maybe it's a semantics thing, but I don't get how you can have real limits with no consequenses.

If he throws a hard toy I remind him that I don't like that, hard toys can hurt people, etc (I would also physically stop the hitting if words didn't stop it).
I know that the *impulse* behind the throwing is a legitimate impulse, but that he needs to LEARN an acceptable way to express that impulse. So I'd figure out what it was, and go from there. If he wants me to read him a book, I tell him not to hit me with it, but to put it in my hand.
The only time I'd put the toy away is if (and this hasn't happened since he was 15 mos old or so) it was just really really too tempting to throw it again and again, and I'd say "let's put this away to take away the temptation to throw it" and he'd agree, and help me put it away.
I think the main thing is that I totally believe that ds wants to do the right thing. He doesn't WANT to hurt me, or destroy property, and he wants to do the socially acceptable thing. I just have to help him do that. And "helping" doesn't involve behaviorism like rewards or punishments. That's not helping him learn the socially acceptable thing. That's making him obey me for self-centered reasons (ie he'll refrain from hitting because he doesn't want a time-out, as opposed to not hitting because he knows the dog doesn't like it, and he knows a better way to express himself)


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*

At the time, I was at the end of my rope and was feeling really angry.







I needed to just walk away, by whatever means necessary, and I was not thinking creatively at all.


Yeah, don't get me wrong at all! I am NOT perfect by a LONG shot. I just yelled at ds to "STOP WHINING!!!!!!!!" and just ignored him after that. (good thing dp was here and dealt with the whole thing). I was feeling at the end of my rope too. I totally feel that.
I guess I ought to say that what I'm posting is what I strive for, and what I do actually do most of the time. Definitely not ALL the time! lol


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

I guess my point is that gentle discipline works for ANY age person the practicality is a big draw. No matter if they are too small to be called a "person" by the "mainstream" yet. Why change your parenting philosophy with each new benchmark? You GD your spouse, your waiter, your boss, your employees, your neighbor, etc etc. Try using positive phraising to negotiate with an adult some time... it works GREAT.

A for-instance we all can probably relate to: You can't spank a newborn, you can't spank a 15 year old, why spank in-between?

Same can be said for time out, yelling, etc etc?

I believe the same for EC (maybe I wouldn't if it was harder with Jet







), "You must poop in your diaper... oh wait now you are 3, new rules!"

Every time you have to re-establish a relationship with someone it is very difficult.

I am luckey enough to have had the wonderful opportunity to have kids of all ages and dispositions live with us for months, weeks, days, and just hours. The one constant is that they know that they will be given respect and they will be allowed/encouraged to have a lot of fun within the rules. They love how lax the rules are, and they love that they have input into the rules. They trust us to never do anything arbitrary.

I see no problem with teaching children that if they ask, compromise, bargain, work, and trade the right way they will get pretty much anything they want. It is true in my life and it has been for a long time (since I left my parent's authority).

People (adult or child) will almost always choose the path of least resistance, the easiest way to get their way. Sometimes the easiest way to get our way is to compromise in our desires, sometimes it is to trade, most of the time (especially for a child) it is to ask the right way.

You haven't cryed till you have seen a 12 month old ask if he could please use the computer next if he waits patiently (with no prompting).

The key is communication in any relationship, especially a parenting one.


----------



## Wugmama (Feb 10, 2005)

To me, GD means a non-punitive way of living with your children. Yes, the consensual living paradigm is difficult to understand. It is NOT about letting a child always have their way no matter what, it is about taking the time to search for a solution such that everyone is satisfied - even mommy! I think this would fall under GD but is not the only way to practice GD.

Bamamom, I am sorry to hear you get frustrated reading the GD forum - I think we all do from time to time. I would encourage you to keep reading. I have learned a lot here and think there is often good info.

As a side note, I think people often use the word discipline to mean punishment. Discipline does not mean punishment. To discipline is to teach. Think Disciples - Jesus taught them, they went on to teach others. You can teach without punishing. It takes more effort and time, but is WAY better for parents and kids in the long run.

Peace,
Tracy


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RachelEve14*
Not trying to be snarky here at all, really trying to learn









When you say you have real limits but no consequences, how does that work? If he throws a hard toy do you distract? If he goes right back to it do you ever put that toy away (and isn't that a consequense?) Maybe it's a semantics thing, but I don't get how you can have real limits with no consequenses.

I don't know about the poster you were responding to but I give consequences but ONLY to protect the person or the property of another.

If my dc kept throwing the toy at me, I would, in theory, remove it until she was ready to not throw it (though with a very young child I would just distract).

I say "in theory" because honestly that never happened. When I set a clear limit using a VERY SERIOUS quiet, though, voice...(and I definitely used "NO's") they almost always complied.

I never had them not comply with something like hitting or throwing.


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Mostly I'm with Attila the Honey on that.

But otherwise, I'd have to say you can't really go by what everyone says when they say they are following this ideology or that one. Some people just see what they want to see, regardless of what's actually there. Some people take things to the extreme in the name of GD or consensual living. Sometimes there just aren't any good answers. (Or not any easy ones, at least.)

*Unconditional Parenting:*
A lot of people refer to Unconditional Parenting and Alfie Kohen as their GD Handbook, or to explain why they forgoe their need to pee so that their child can dig in the dirt for an hour longer. The coments I read really turned me off to that book before I even read it, but I found it someplace for 1/2 price, so I gave it a try. Turns out the book is really comparing certain old-fashioned, ridgid and dictatorial types of parenting to parenting with heart and compassion and being open to see possibilites rather than being on autopilot about the rules....But it's not about parenting without common sense, safety, and without an eye towards spoiling a child and making him think the universe revolves around him! LOL! .

All the same, today, when I read what some people say, I wonder what book they are reading. Sure AK want's us all to consider if all the rules we have are necessary. But are people skimming over where he says stuff like _"There will be times when, in order to do the right thing, we have to put our foot down and cause our kids to become frustrated with us....."_ Pg. 123. Or with regard to not using "no" to excess--- _"Of course no responsible parent can avoid all such interventions. But it's worth asking whether we do them to excess. When safety is at risk, for example, we have to intervene, no matter how much frustration it may cause."_ pg.133 Or you know that oft recommended tool, "distraction?" Even that has it's limits to A.K. _"But distraction is ineffective and even insulting when applied to an older child, just as it would be if you complained about something that was bothering you only to have your spouse try to change the subject."_ Pg. 129 (Frankly, I've found distraction is often became insulting to my daughter at 17-18 months old.) And last but not least-- so many read the book and say the feel guilty because they can't live up to what they perceive he's asking of them. Uhhh, pg. 120- _"I'm not suggesting that you become consumed with guilt and feeling so inadequacy: there is such a thing as being too self-critical (or critical in an unproductive way.")_ And then the one that really got me? One person will say there is no right or wrong, and AK will say _"...I don't say this because I'm a relativist who believes that all things people do are equally valid and can't be judged."_ Pg. 128

The way people talk about this book, you'd think the man had written a book that says "Everything goes, and if you can't conform to your child's every wish, you aren't bending over backwards enough!" LOL! So many of us would have to look and say "Is there such a thing as "too GD?" But I guess it's just human nature for some people to take things to the extremes.

I think parenting is too important and too stressful to be taking on ideas that don't allow for some balance in your life. I'm glad that there are a variety of voices here, rather than just constant agreement on stuff. Don't let people fool you into thinking you're not enough this or that. Read up on stuff for yourself, use your own two eyes, your heart and your instincts to figure out what your children need, and then do your best. No one can ask for more.

Faith


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bamamom*
I think the prevailing theme is to let them be kids no matter the cost, and not to upset them, and just dont mess with their worlds. It just isnt reality.

I have to respectfully disagree here. What I see on the GD board is a lot of people talking about age appropriate behaviors and expectations, and how to work *with* your child to let them learn and explore, WHILE teaching them respect for themselves and others....instead of just saying "Don't do that, 'cause I said so". What happens when the parent isn't around to say so? My goal is to have my children do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because they're worried about what might happen to them if they don't. It might take a little longer, but they're learning SELF-discipline, not just following what I say.

I will concede that there are many consensual, or near consensual mamas here, but there is also a group of us who are more authoritative...sometimes we just don't get around to posting as much.







There may even be mamas here who do not give guidance or discipline and believe they are practicing "Gentle Discipline", but there was a thread a while ago where we basically laid out that even the most consensual mamas here work towards MUTUAL solutions, which does NOT mean that the child just runs around doing whatever they want. I can't imagine any of the regulars here saying they'd be OK with their child doing $20 in damage to someone else's property before they'd step in. I don't practice consensual living strictly, but the consensual mamas here have inspired me to be a LOT more flexible and creative in figuring out solutions to issues than I was before, and for that I am truly grateful.









There's also a great resource here for learning about yourself, and learning what is "big stuff" and what is "small stuff"...and honestly, most of life is "small stuff". Picking your battles is a huge part of GD.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bamamom*
How many times do you see parents posting begging for help b/c suddenly their 3 or 4 or 6 yr old is angry and fighting? hateful in their attitudes and words, and their spirits. That is not good fruit from GD...That is a child crying out for boundaries. A Child frustrated by lack of discipline.

Again, respectfully, I would practically guarantee you on any other parenting board out there there are posts by moms having the same exact issues, even though they are using spanking, yelling, shaming, and punishment as discipline measures. As I said above, some things are just about universal and age appropriate...and about the only way to NOT have the issues crop up is to have your children afraid of what will happen to them if they cause the issue - which is NOT where I want to be as a parent. Fear is one emotion I never want my children to feel towards me. AND, fear and respect are most assuredly not the same thing.

I hope you can maybe take a different point of view when reading some future GD board posts, and see them as parents and children trying to work together, instead of the more popular "us versus them" dynamic that pervades society today.


----------



## Chanley (Nov 19, 2001)

I am neglecting the kitchen clean up so I will try to make this brief.

My son is about to turn 3. He is exploring his "no" and "not yet" by refusing to comply when we are out and about. He will refuse to go from one place to another. One of my favorite tools in the discipline toolbox is to use my imagination.

He LOVES trains, cars and planes. So I say, "Hey! Wanna be an airplane and see how fast we can fly to the car?" He loves this, I pick him up. He holds his arms out and we make airplane engine noises all the way to the car. We do a turn around and some up and down and hit turbulence on the way. It is fun.

Sometimes, we pretend we are getting suited up into a rocket ship when we are getting into the car. I am the captain and he is my co-pilot. "Snap one? Check. Snap two? Check. Mission control, we are ready for countdown!"

Then there are times we are a freight train. He gets to be the engine, I am the passenger car and my daughter is the caboose (he never gets to be the caboose). The trick here is to make a LOT of noise. We get so into it and noisy that we forget we are transitioning from one thing to another.

When I act like one of them, I can usually get my needs met too.


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bamamom*
How many times do you see parents posting begging for help b/c suddenly their 3 or 4 or 6 yr old is angry and fighting? hateful in their attitudes and words, and their spirits.

I know this is going to sound annoyingly GDish but...how can a 3,4 or 6 year old child be hateful in his spirit?


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

I agree with you. I have tried everything I can think of thus far to get DD to stop yelling, name calling, spitting, etc.

Finally, today, I said SCREW THIS. I quoted Super Nanny.

DD was in the middle of a spitting frenzy, and I said, "Spitting is NOT acceptable. If you do it one more time you're going to the office."

She stopped RIGHT AWAY and didn't do it again today. And honestly, she looked relieved that I took charge.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Okay, I am not feeling very GD right now reading this thread









I feel the need yet again to defend consensual living to some people who completely reject it without actually knowing what it is. I think completely rejecting something without even accepting the definition of it by people who actually practice it is a convenient way to justify control over your children. I have no problem with people who understand consensual living but choose not to practice it, I can respect that, but I get annoyed at people who twist it into their own definition in order to justify their punitive practices.

Let me tell you what consensual living ISN'T. We don't follow our 13 month old around all day catering to her every whim and desire at the expense of our own needs and wants., We don't beg her for permission for us to go to the bathroom. We don't let her reek havok on other people's bodies or personal belongings with wild abandon, terrified she might be upset at us. That is just ridiculous.

Let me explain for the bazillionth time what consensual living IS. The root of it is CONSENT. We work together, as a family to attempt to meet the needs and wants of all parties. We do give special consideration to the fact that our daughter has been in the world less time than some of our T-shirts have, to her developing impulse control, empathy, limited verbal skills, and to the fact that she is still figuring out this world and will be for a long time. We accept and embrace the fact that by both default and a strong secure attachment, she looks to us for information, guidance, and to provide her needs as well as keeping her safe. We don't exploit this special responsibility.

We honor her desires and needs as we do our own. Sometimes they come before ours, due to the special considerations above. Sometimes they don't, depending on the situation. We attempt to make our home as safe a place to explore as possible, and work with our in situations that may not be as safe as we would like. We respect her need to express her opinions, desires, and we respect her right to be safe and comfortable in her home. That means that we all work together to meet the needs of all. We strive in every situation to find mutually agreeable solutions. For example, if I want to go somewhere and she doesn't want to get in her carseat, I try to figure out why. We don't subscribe to the idea that she is just "being bad". Is she uncomfortable? Is she playing with something she wants to finish with first? Does she need a drink? Does she not understand where we are going? Does she just not want to go? We respect these needs/wants/preferences the same way I would not force my husband into a car against his will. If it is truly something I NEED (I can't think of much that can't wait until she is more agreeable) then sometimes we have to just make do, but I have never in almost 14 months had to "force" my daughter into anything.

i recognize and fully accept that any time I put my wants on hold to attend to her needs or wants, that it is a CONSCIOUS CHOICE I am making in the spirit of kindness, love, and helping to teach my daughter a level of compassion or empathy and to build a stronger attachment. I am highly offended at people suggesting we would put off our basic bodily needs (like going to the bathroom) to *cater* to our daughter's wants. Sure, sometimes she doesn't want me to pee, gets a little upset... that is where mutually agreeable solutions come in, which are the cornerstone of living consensually. I'm going to pee, that is a non-negotiable and reasonable need. However, I can make it more agreeable to her. That is why I say it is an attitude. Sure, I could say something like "mama has to pee and that's it!" as I huff off to the bathroom, or, I can say "I've gotta pee, do you want to play with your potty/help me get the toilet paper/flush the toilet (whatever) and make it an enjoyabvle experience for the both of us? Sure. Okay, perhaps some people are way more private, but with a 13 month old, I don't know of many mamas who get huge amounts of bathroom time alone









We treat our daughter as we would treat anyone we love and respect --- with the special considerations mentioned in the first paragraph. She is our equal. Okay, perhaps safety, better judgement, and federal law prevents her from taking the car for a spin or popping open a cold one from the fridge, but I think most intelligent people can distinguish between the two when I speak of being equal. Seeing her as an equal HUMAN BEING with the same rights to her body, her autonomy, her expression of opinion, her desire to explore and learn about her world in an environment where she is never punished, or shamed, or hit, or berated, or yelled at, or forced into isolation, or forced to lose privledges contingent on her behavior is how we strive to live.

Are we perfect? Goodness no, no one is and I don't claim to be. It is a way of life, but like most things, throw in stress, or long days, money issues, pms, cutting molars, ...a world of external forces, and of course a "no!" or "stop!" or a punitive tone of voice may slip in once in a while... but that doesn't undo the way of life we strive to live every single day, in every single interaction.

We work with our daughter instead of against her. We are her allies, ALWAYS, not her adversaries. She will meet plenty of the latter in the "real world" everyone talks about. We want her to have the tools to try to work with people to try to meet the needs and wants of everyone involved, while also respecting herself, her boundaries, and her spirit.

I don't want her to live any part of her life in fear. Fear breeds resentment. Fear of punishment, fear of dissapointing parents, fear of imposed punitive consequences. Fear creates complacency, and the last thing I want to teach my daughter is complacency.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I have never in almost 14 months had to "force" my daughter into anything.


Oh, goodness. I can agree with you 100% on that when I talk about my 2nd DD, who is 15 months old. A 14 month old is pretty straightforward and it's quite easy to live in harmony, IMO. Their wants and needs are about the same, so there are no great mysteries.

However, a 4 y.o. (IMO) is a different story. Many, many times we are able to reason with our DD, and are able to find a compromise that works for us all. However, it is MUCH harder to do this, much harder to live in harmony. We have failed many, many times. She wants what she wants and does not have a sense of empathy yet. That is what I see as the biggest flaw in reasoning with 100% consensual living . . .it expects that a child has the same emotional maturity as an adult-- can see things from different perspectives. However, from what I've read and experienced first hand, children are (in a good way) self-centered and it is VERY hard to for them to do this, and almost unfair to expect it of them.

And honestly, if DD were an only child, it would be easier, but she isn't . . .life changed a lot for us all when there were 2 children to focus on. I have no idea what life will like will be when #3 is born!

I am certain there are mamas out there with 6 kids under the age of 10 who can say they live in perfect harmony all the time and never use coercion, fear, or anything else negative. They are my HEROES (and wherever you are, come out, because I'd love advice from you). Maybe I'm cynical, but I believe this would be rare . . .


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

I have a four yr old son and 6 yr old daughter. They definitely have a 'sense of empathy' and have for a long time. Do they sometimes act in ways that seem self-centered? Yes. Do I? Yes. Does my partner? You bet. My kids are wonderful, empathic, caring, individuals who CARE about me and what I want, think, and feel. Some times when they aren't acting 'right', they aren't feeling 'right'. Sometimes something is going on in their world that they need info about or help with, or they might not even know their actions are negatively affecting someone else without being told.
I've cried several times today for people who think they have to DO SOMETHING to their children in order for them to be good people. You know what, they already are, they just need someone to treat them like they are and recognize it, to guide them and teach them about this world and the people and animals in it, rather than treat them disrespectfully or worse every time they do something the parent doesn't like. I am so tired right now


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

I am certain there are mamas out there with 6 kids under the age of 10 who can say they live in perfect harmony all the time and never use coercion, fear, or anything else negative. They are my HEROES (and wherever you are, come out, because I'd love advice from you). Maybe I'm cynical, but I believe this would be rare . . .
I don't believe anyone could say they lived in harmony all the time and never do anything negative. Nobody is perfect. Nobody is 100% anything. It's not humanly possible. So if you're waiting for someone like this to come along and have all the answers for you, STOP.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Wow, great post, captain crunchy.

I notice your daughter is only 14 mos tho, and I was not having any discipline problems at that stage either. It'll be interesting to see how you live into your ideals as she grows.

Part of my difficulty is that there is a lack of models in my life for how to parent in a kind, but non-martyr-y way. I have one friend who manages it in a way I'd like to emulate. But she is a kinder, gentler person in general than me.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I think a crucial sentence of my post was looked over ---

Quote:

Are we perfect? Goodness no, no one is and I don't claim to be. It is a way of life, but like most things, throw in stress, or long days, money issues, pms, cutting molars, ...a world of external forces, and of course a "no!" or "stop!" or a punitive tone of voice may slip in once in a while... but that doesn't undo the way of life we strive to live every single day, in every single interaction


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
Wow, great post, captain crunchy.

I notice your daughter is only 14 mos tho, and I was not having any discipline problems at that stage either. It'll be interesting to see how you live into your ideals as she grows.

Part of my difficulty is that there is a lack of models in my life for how to parent in a kind, but non-martyr-y way. I have one friend who manages it in a way I'd like to emulate. But she is a kinder, gentler person in general than me.

I do sympathize with you thismama, I don't pretend to understand completely the circumstances of raising your daughter, her individual personality, her age etc... and I hope you don't think I was speaking of you directly in my post. I have read some of your posts and you strive to be gentle with your daughter and you have sought help here -- I can respect that. I don't expect everyone to do as we do, I just was asking that people actually know what it is and accept the definition of consensual living from people who live it instead of writing it off as "wow, you didn't take a crap for 5 days because your kid didn't want you to" (of course that has never happened LOL), which conveniently makes it easy to dismiss as a whole.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I think a crucial sentence of my post was looked over ---

Not by me. But it's one thing with a very young toddler, at least IME, and another thing with a 2 or 3 year old.

For me, my daughter's babyhood and early toddlerhood was exhausting yes, but in terms of our relationship it was mostly a blissful sea of loving interaction. I share a similar philosophy to you, and it was easy to put it into action when she was younger. At 2 it got harder, and at 2.5 I really had a huge struggle. It has eased up a lot, but I find myself not living up to my GD ideals in the way I imagined I would when she was younger.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I do sympathize with you thismama, I don't pretend to understand completely the circumstances of raising your daughter, her individual personality, her age etc... and I hope you don't think I was speaking of you directly in my post. I have read some of your posts and you strive to be gentle with your daughter and you have sought help here -- I can respect that. I don't expect everyone to do as we do, I just was asking that people actually know what it is and accept the definition of consensual living from people who live it instead of writing it off as "wow, you didn't take a crap for 5 days because your kid didn't want you to" (of course that has never happened LOL), which conveniently makes it easy to dismiss as a whole.

Oops, x-post. yeah, I did think you were talking to me.









It was really good to see your philosophy written out so clearly. Half the time I have no idea what I'm even aiming for, other than a feeling, yk? I've seen mainstream punitive discipline and I dont' want to do that, and then I've read about and seen forms of interaction that I consider to be too much about martyring one's own agenda for the child, and I don't want to do that either.

Consensual living as you describe it fits what I have been feeling as an ideal, and it embodies a lot of common sense.

It's just not always that easy for me to put it into practice, at least since the little bugger hit 2. Getting easier again now, that thread here awhile back was a big turning point for me.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Yes, I hear ya. Everything ebbs and flows. Believe me, I can't say we practice consensual living in every.single.interaction.we.will.ever.have.with.ou r.daughter.forever. but it is something we strive to do -- it is how we approach every situation. It isn't like, oh crap, I raised my voice once, consensual living is out the window, forget it, I suck. It is more like, okay, no one is perfect, we all make mistakes, when you learn better you do better type mindset.

It is hard not to fall into mama martyr syndrome, I think even if you don't practice consensual living it is an easy trap to fall into. It has helped me (like I wrote in my first post) to accept and to own that when I do put my daughter's wants before my own (which is not all the time) it is a choice I choose to make for the time being and that there will be a time where my wants will come before hers. I *hope* that by modeling this, she will learn to do the same... will she learn it by 2? or even by 5? Who knows, I doubt it... and even when she does learn it, like me or anyone else, she will not be perfect either.

I think any time anyone is trying to build a stronger relationship with their children, striving to understand them more, learn more about themselves, seek information and support with the intent of building a stronger, more respectful relationship with their child, they are moving in the right direction. You seem to be coming along fine. Be gentle with yourself, be gentle with your daughter. It will unfold as it should.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
It has helped me (like I wrote in my first post) to accept and to own that when I do put my daughter's wants before my own (which is not all the time) it is a choice I choose to make for the time being and that there will be a time where my wants will come before hers. I *hope* that by modeling this, she will learn to do the same... will she learn it by 2? or even by 5? Who knows, I doubt it... and even when she does learn it, like me or anyone else, she will not be perfect either.

Yes.

I really feel like getting out of the "I must martyr or I suck" trap I was in (feeling guilty for ever putting my needs ahead of my daughter's, which gets a LOT of cultural support btw), it freed me up to genuinely choose to put her needs first some/a lot of the time.

And I find that now that I have chilled out a bit on the power struggle, things are a lot more consensual. Like, if I say no and then she freaks out, I used to feel like I couldn't "give in." But sometimes I genuinely change my mind, when I see how important something is to her. When that happens, now I say, "well, sure then." Which I used to think would teach her that she can control me. But what I've noticed is that she gets that I actually changed my mind. And already, even at this age, she is able to let some things go and follow my agenda more readily than she used to be. Now that could be a developmental thing too, but I feel like it came about rather quickly when I stopped struggling with her so much.

It's good.







But to do it, I feel like I need to be free of the guilt for sometimes putting my needs/desires first, yk? Otherwise I feel like I won't EVER get mine, or won't get mine when it's important to me, and so I resent when I give up mine for hers, if that makes sense.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Yeah guilt is not a healthy emotion I think we can all agree about that. I think remorse when we have genuinely F-ed up can be healthy but living in guilt is not something that I feel is productive. I mean, people feel consensual living sometimes means we just let our children do whatever they want at the expense of everyone and everything around them. That was my complaint I guess.

Truthfully, I have learned to accept temporary resentment towards my daughter. I know that sounds weird, but I think it is a normal emotion to experience when I am feeling frustrated, or can't do something I want, or when my work is getting undone etc... Of course it is fleeting, which makes it okay for me to feel. I don't feel guilty or badly for a moment of thinking, "I really resent that she can't play alone for 5 minutes while I am doing ____" because like most people, I wanna do what I wanna do. I don't feel like a bad mama for feeling that occasionally ---- now if I felt that on a regular basis, even after the immediate situation, like if hours later I was resenting her, that would be a cue to modify something or examine something.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
I have a four yr old son and 6 yr old daughter. They definitely have a 'sense of empathy' and have for a long time. (

Hmm. Well, I guess I must be doing something wrong. My daughter is not like this, ESPECIALLY at times when there is a problem-- which is when I feel I need her to tap into that sense of empathy. For example, when I am hungry and tell her I need to eat, she will say "Play with me" repeatedly. Of course, I always invite her to eat with me or stay beside me while I eat. However, it takes me several attempts to get through that I need to meet my needs. Ultimately, I DO eat and she usually stops asking (not always), but it doesn't seem like it's because she cares that I am hungry . . .it is because she knows I am going to follow through with what I said I will do (eat).

(And FTR, we play a LOT together; most of the day and part of the evening.)

I am not saying that she is never empathetic, but like I said, not at "key times" (when it seems needed for the problem-solving) . . . she is focused only on what she wants and needs . . .so if I expect differently, I end up frustrated.

Quote:

So if you're waiting for someone like this to come along and have all the answers for you, STOP.
I don't know, but your tone is coming across as harsh to me. Shouldn't we practice being gentle with each other on a GD board?







:


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
But sometimes I genuinely change my mind, when I see how important something is to her. When that happens, now I say, "well, sure then." Which I used to think would teach her that she can control me. But what I've noticed is that she gets that I actually changed my mind.

Yes, this happens here, too. DH is afraid of what you said . . .that we will seem inconsistent and permissive. However, I think that when I explain WHY I've changed my mind, it isn't permissive at all. It makes her realize that I am open-minded and care what she has to say. In some ways, it teaches her more when I change my mind vs. just saying yes most of the time (even if "no" was a mistake initially).


----------



## amaliaday (Dec 10, 2005)

"So if you're waiting for someone like this to come along and have all the answers for you, STOP."

Hmmm I read this as a very kind statement. Nobody is a perfect expert.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

I totally think that consensual parenting is the easy way to do things. Takes extra time, sure. More creative approaches, definitely. But a whole lot better than power struggles and battles all the time. Dh and I do fall back on less than ideal methods sometimes (especially when we are stressed out and exhausted) and it always leads to problems. Why? Because nobody is at their best when they don't feel respected and secure.

I have 3 kids (5, nearly 3, and 15 months). I really find it gets easier as they get older. You can rely on humor in the tricky moments, they can understand more, they can wait a little longer for things when necessary, and they can begin to see things from other perspectives.

I also find that because our kids KNOW that we will always work to find a good solution for the whole family they accept things they don't want to do a little easier. They really seem to get that we are working together to get everybody's needs met. Often one of my boys will come up with the solution to an especially difficult situation. I love that they have the skills to live this way as it will serve them SO MUCH BETTER in life to know they have the power to solve a problem rather than follow someone else blindly.

Surely some days are better than others. We make mistakes. But overall we strive for a home where everyone feels they are respected and their needs are met (mama and daddy too).


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy*

A for-instance we all can probably relate to: You can't spank a newborn, you can't spank a 15 year old, why spank in-between?

Same can be said for time out, yelling, etc etc?











Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy*
I believe the same for EC (maybe I wouldn't if it was harder with Jet







), "You must poop in your diaper... oh wait now you are 3, new rules!"

My favorite of the day! This always puzzled me too (I am a long time ECer )

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy*
The key is communication in any relationship, especially a parenting one.











Come to think of it... would you marry me?







:







:







:

(Just Joking! Don't want your wife coming after me







)


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CC*
Believe me, I can't say we practice consensual living in every.single.interaction.we.will.ever.have.with.ou r.daughter.forever. but it is something we strive to do -- it is how we approach every situation. It isn't like, oh crap, I raised my voice once, consensual living is out the window, forget it, I suck. It is more like, okay, no one is perfect, we all make mistakes, when you learn better you do better type mindset.

I wanted to second this.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that part of consensual living is actively handling the f-ups with honor.

I certainly screw up. A lot.







: Part of my deal as a parent is giving DS and DH the respect of owning up to it in a loving way. It's a positive side effect that it models apologizing to DS. To me, the _focus_ of my apologies is to give DS an opportunity to heal from feeling wronged.

For me, mistakes are not outside of the scope of consensual living - like this moment I'm "loving" and so "good", and that moment I'm "bitchy" and so "bad" - but rather the whole spectrum of interactions is a focus on respect, trust, and connection.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Always late to these things









I remember the thread the OP is refering to with the needing to pee at the beach situation and I was one of the posters that suggested (among other things) waiting 10 minutes to see if dd wanted to leave then. But I also want to point out that it is just a suggestion for people that have stretchy bladders. I cannot pretend to know what is going to be consensual for others. There were all sorts of ideas thrown out in that thread. Some were a little out there. But you never know what idea will be helpful to someone until yuou toss it into the ring, you know?

Anyway, we are being challenged right now. My dd is almost 3 and seems to have hit a phase that is particularly difficult for dh and I. I am reading UP again to try and help center myself a little. We have found oursleves unconsiously slipping into discipline methods we try very hard to avoid. Coming back home to remembering concensual living in every single little interaction really helps. For a long period of time, it was coming easy. Did not have to think about it. But we are back to a moment when it takes work and it is hard. I have to remind myself why I am doing this. But I have faith that this will come back around. At the end of each day, dh and I look back at what happened and what days are better than others. There is no question that the days we slip up and hit the more coersive strategies are by far the worst days. It seems like so much work in the thick of things to try harder to reach for respectful parenting, but looking back it makes the day go much easier. Yes, I might have to struggle to find a respectful solution when I have to pee and dd does not want to leave. And it does seem easier to use a consequence or impose my power in the moment. I do get instant compliance but only at the expense of a more difficult day and temperment thereafter.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

I don't know, but your tone is coming across as harsh to me. Shouldn't we practice being gentle with each other on a GD board?
ITA. It wasn't said gently. I'm sorry. I was in quite a mood yesterday, crying several times, maybe it was hormones, maybe it was the particular I don't understand this world funk I can get in occaisionally. I wasn't feeling 'right', so I wasn't coming across 'right'.







ITA that we should be gentle with each other, we deserve it just as our kids do. This was in response to this comment-

Quote:

I am certain there are mamas out there with 6 kids under the age of 10 who can say they live in perfect harmony all the time and never use coercion, fear, or anything else negative. They are my HEROES (and wherever you are, come out, because I'd love advice from you). Maybe I'm cynical, but I believe this would be rare . . .
What I meant to say was that nobody's perfect and I hope you don't really intend to limit yourself to taking advice from someone who seems to be or claims to be if they do come along. We can all learn from each other even if we differ.

Quote:

Hmm. Well, I guess I must be doing something wrong. My daughter is not like this, ESPECIALLY at times when there is a problem-- which is when I feel I need her to tap into that sense of empathy. For example, when I am hungry and tell her I need to eat, she will say "Play with me" repeatedly. Of course, I always invite her to eat with me or stay beside me while I eat. However, it takes me several attempts to get through that I need to meet my needs. Ultimately, I DO eat and she usually stops asking (not always), but it doesn't seem like it's because she cares that I am hungry . . .it is because she knows I am going to follow through with what I said I will do (eat).
I doubt you are 'doing something wrong'. I said sometimes my children(and myself even) do things that seem self-centered. It just doesn't change that they do have empathy and that they do act like loving, caring, wonderful beings and that is how I see them.


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Great post, as always, *Captain Crunchy*. Despite the fact that I don't use the C.L. lable to describe how I raise DD, it's still describes most of what I do with my own child. And that's the weird thing about this board-- I practice a lot of the same practices. Perhaps most of us practice many of the same practices irl. But our thinking about why we do it, or some of the other things we take into consideration as side points (but important points, nevertheless), make it sound as if we aren't mostly raising our kids the same way. Oh well. What can you do?

But I never realized your DD is 14 months. I dunno. I think anyone can live consensually with children at certain ages. Life with my DD at 14 months was smooth as butter. Now, at 19 months, it looks like my DD is fully entrenched in the "Two" stage early. She's really testing her boundries, walking long distances away from me and saying "no" with a smirk or a smile on her face, clearly waiting to see if I will do anything. And if I walk towards her, she'll run away to see if I'll chase her. She waits to see if I'll make any of my "no's" stick. I haven't taken the bait yet, as I'm trying to decide what it is she really needs out of these interactions. Is she needing to feel autonomy? Sometimes it seems yes, so I give her plenty. But lately it seems no-- it seems she just wants to test boundries. And from my own experience, children can feel a sense of relief or safety when they know their parents will take over. C.C.-- what are you planning to do if you find you have a DC that wants limits? Indeed thrives on limits? I mean, maybe your dd won't ever decide that's a need of hers. But then again, maybe she will?

Otherwise, empathy? She can rub your back and tell you she loves you on her own. But yesterday I was sitting on the toilet, inviting her to play, sit, be read to...whatever. She didn't care that I needed to use the bathroom. She wanted a "cookie" now! And she wouldn't relent. Sorry. The children going through the 2 stage, who can show empathy when you need it most, are probably few and far apart.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mizelenius*
........ I don't know, but your tone is coming across as harsh to me. Shouldn't we practice being gentle with each other on a GD board?







:

Yeah, right?!?!? LOL! That "STOP" thing just seemed like......eek! LOL If I've ever sounded like that in my writings in the past, I think I'm going to make a point to avoid it in the future.

Faith


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amaliaday*
"So if you're waiting for someone like this to come along and have all the answers for you, STOP."

Hmmm I read this as a very kind statement. Nobody is a perfect expert.










Well, the information was good. But somehow the tone seemed harsh to me also. Guess it's because the direct phasing plus the cap letters make it seem like the person is yelling.

Faith


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

****Revised to say, Oh how nice of you Ms. Ruby to apologize. I know your message wasn't directed at me, but somehow I feel better!








Hope you have a better day, today.

Faith


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

Well, the information was good. But somehow the tone seemed harsh to me also. Guess it's because the direct phasing plus the cap letters make it seem like the person is yelling.
Nah, I'm just not much of a yeller. I promise any caps in my typing is meant merely to convey emphasis on the word, not a raised tone.







:

Quote:

Hope you have a better day, today.
I am somewhat, thanks. Being around my kiddos helps relieve the funk tremendously. THEY are my reminder of everything that's understandable in this world.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

You know, it seems to be a common discussion regarding that my child is only 14 months old (almost). The pregnant mom will never understand the plight of the mom with the newborn, the mom of the one year old will never understand the plight of the mom with the 2 year old, the mom with the 6 year old will never understand the mom with the teen. I get that, but it doesn't mean I am willing to abandon my strongly held beliefs and outlook on life and how will raise our daughter.

I never claimed to be perfect. I never suggested parenting comes without challenges or frustrations or times when we will be at the end of our rope, that is par for the course.

I just know that self doubt and giving up in the face of adversity is a recipe for self sabotage. I refuse to let thoughts like "oh dear, what will happen when she is three" enter into my internal dialogue. Instead, I choose to say to myself "things will probably be more difficult in certain situations as she grows and matures, but we will get through them in the least coercive way possible." I think we create our own destiny to a large degree.

We will always live consensually as a whole, and strive for it in our daily interactions. As I pointed out above, no one is perfect, but it is something we strive for every day (I mean consensual living, not perfection lol) ...

I don't know what will happen if our daughter suddenly craves all these limits people speak of. I don't know if I buy into that philosophy that children really want to be controlled and told what to do and when to do it and that they need it. I think children thrive on information, knowing what to expect, knowing that their parents are always there for support and guidance if they need or want it, knowing they are loved and are free to make their own choices -- while also having the knowledge that their parents are a soft place to fall. We all have limits. I just don't want my daughter's limits to be imposed by me, if I can avoid it. In nearly every case, I can. That may be more challenging as she grows, but certainly not impossible. Also, I think the fact that we have parented this way from birth and that she is an only (and may always be) helps a lot. I would imagine it would be more difficult (but not impossible) to have parented differently then introduced consensual living, or when adding more family members into the mix -- but I have seen both done successfully.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
You know, it seems to be a common discussion regarding that my child is only 14 months old (almost). The pregnant mom will never understand the plight of the mom with the newborn, the mom of the one year old will never understand the plight of the mom with the 2 year old, the mom with the 6 year old will never understand the mom with the teen. I get that, but it doesn't mean I am willing to abandon my strongly held beliefs and outlook on life and how will raise our daughter.

I never claimed to be perfect. I never suggested parenting comes without challenges or frustrations or times when we will be at the end of our rope, that is par for the course.

I just know that self doubt and giving up in the face of adversity is a recipe for self sabotage. I refuse to let thoughts like "oh dear, what will happen when she is three" enter into my internal dialogue. Instead, I choose to say to myself "things will probably be more difficult in certain situations as she grows and matures, but we will get through them in the least coercive way possible." I think we create our own destiny to a large degree.

We will always live consensually as a whole, and strive for it in our daily interactions. As I pointed out above, no one is perfect, but it is something we strive for every day (I mean consensual living, not perfection lol) ...

I don't know what will happen if our daughter suddenly craves all these limits people speak of. I don't know if I buy into that philosophy that children really want to be controlled and told what to do and when to do it and that they need it. I think children thrive on information, knowing what to expect, knowing that their parents are always there for support and guidance if they need or want it, knowing they are loved and are free to make their own choices -- while also having the knowledge that their parents are a soft place to fall. We all have limits. I just don't want my daughter's limits to be imposed by me, if I can avoid it. In nearly every case, I can. That may be more challenging as she grows, but certainly not impossible. Also, I think the fact that we have parented this way from birth and that she is an only (and may always be) helps a lot. I would imagine it would be more difficult (but not impossible) to have parented differently then introduced consensual living, or when adding more family members into the mix -- but I have seen both done successfully.

Yep.

I have been here for quite some time and this arguement always comes up. Someone always has to step in and claim that someone elses advice/opinion is somehow lesser because their child is not old enough/not the right gender/does not have the magic number of siblings/whatever. I remember when my dd was one year old and being basically told to go away since I did not know anything about the "terrible twos" or a toddler that can run or whatever. Now someone can claim that I cannot have an opinion because my dd is only 3 and an only child and I have no idea what living with a teen will be like. It never ends. I have hit many childrearing challenges. There will be many more. But I am pretty sure my feelings on basic human dignity and respect will not change. I do not want to manipulate people of any age regardless of how they are related to me. I think that goal (while maybe not 100% possible for everyone since we are in fact human) is a reasonable one to strive for no matter what age my dd is.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

True 'dat yooper. Thanks for understanding









ETA: I really don't mind, and actually embrace wise advice from people along the lines of "we try to live consensually though when our child reached *whatever age* it was more difficult becase...." that is useful to me and I learn much. However, I really can't stand the whole "you just wait" vibe, like I will throw my whole belief system out the window because it may be a more difficult balance.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I feel like there is a time and place to say, "no." ITA that there are lots of other/often better strategies, and I see lots of good suggestions here for those.

But sometimes it seems like there is this prohibition here on ever exerting authority, ever telling a child "no, that is not okay."

I had a thread here awhile back that was super extra amazingly helpful and made all the difference in me changing a dynamic that had developed with my dd where I was power struggling with her.

But I keep thinking about an example I wrote about where we were at the beach, and it was time to go. We climbed the hill to the car and dd turned around and ran back down the hill to the water, despite me telling her no and urging her to come back. It was suggested that she must not have been ready to leave, and I should just resign myself to waiting, to helping her want to leave, time is not a big deal, sometimes part of parenting is being somewhere and wishing like crazy you were somewhere else, etc. One mama suggested she stays at the park even when she really has to pee, if her children are not ready to go yet.

Another time I was trying to get my daughter dressed, as we had to be somewhere. She refused to get dressed and was physically struggling. I tried to distract, convince, etc. Didn't work. Finally I picked her up, put her in my bedroom, told her I was putting her for a time out because she wasn't getting dressed, and walked away. She started to cry, followed me out of the room, and I got her dressed. But I'm sure many here would be horrified by that.

So my question is... is this constant giving, following children's agendas at the expense of our own, not saying "no," never giving a parent-driven consequence to a behaviour... is that mandatory for GD?

And is that necessarily good for children? What is that teaching them? Is it good for kids to get the message that their own needs and desires always come before their mama's/other people's? Is it good for them to never be told "no," or to give up their own desires because someone else's agenda (like mama's agenda to go pee) takes precedence?

Haven't read the response - but what you are describing is a particular discipline style called "non-coersion". I think Alfie Kohn is an author on that topic. There are other styles of discipline that are considered GD - that do not fall along those lines. I'd suggest Positive Discipline by Jane Nelson.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mizelenius*
I agree with you. I have tried everything I can think of thus far to get DD to stop yelling, name calling, spitting, etc.

Finally, today, I said SCREW THIS. I quoted Super Nanny.

DD was in the middle of a spitting frenzy, and I said, "Spitting is NOT acceptable. If you do it one more time you're going to the office."

She stopped RIGHT AWAY and didn't do it again today. And honestly, she looked relieved that I took charge.

Have you read Positive Discipline by Jane Nelso. Excluding the "Screw it" comment - your consequence would have fallen right in line with that books recommendations. FYI - this book is on the GD book list.

My point here is -- what is considered GD on this board runs a broad spectrum from CL to PD -- and the approaches are very different, but the concern and the intent the same.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Have you read Positive Discipline by Jane Nelso. Excluding the "Screw it" comment - your consequence would have fallen right in line with that books recommendations. FYI - this book is on the GD book list.

My point here is -- what is considered GD on this board runs a broad spectrum from CL to PD -- and the approaches are very different, but the concern and the intent the same.

No, I haven't-- I will have to check it out!

(FTR, I didn't say "screw this" out loud . . .







).

I have a general understanding of what CL is (and see it is a goal, though not one I am currently attaining). . . is CL not considered to be a form of PD?


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
What I meant to say was that nobody's perfect and I hope you don't really intend to limit yourself to taking advice from someone who seems to be or claims to be if they do come along. We can all learn from each other even if we differ.

Thank you for that.









What I wrote was an exaggeration, of course. I certainly didn't mean to imply I'd ONLY take advice from the type of mama I described (because she's a fantasy) . . .I just mean that sometimes I feel I can worry/complain that things aren't working, and someone will come back and imply that there is ALWAYS a way to work things out and solve them. It's that implied goal of perfection (even though everyone agrees that it isn't actually possible) that wears me out. Sometimes I think there are just rough periods in life and it just sucks, and one has to find a way to get through them vs. believing one has the control to make it fabulous. Does that make sense?

But, I have come along way in believing this. I used to think I COULD solve things or at least prevent pretty much every problem. When I read Dr. Sears when DD was under a yr. I felt he implied discipline would be easy because we'd be attached . . .certain things wouldn't even be issues. When I had a 1 yr old (only) and saw parents doing things I swore I'd never do, I judged them. And then my baby grew up . . .and I realized that I didn't have the answers. When I looked down my nose at formula and then had a 2nd DD that refused to nurse most of the time (at 6 weeks with a lot of work, we finally succeeded), I learned my lesson. Had she not been like that, I STILL would have tended to judge mamas.

In other words, I "try" to always preface things as "This has been my experience, I have not walked in your shoes and never will." I am saying this has been a LONG hard lesson to learn-- to not judge (and I still stuggle with this). When I feel the judging tones come out on this board (from my perception; I don't know that people are truly judging), I get really frustrated and HOPE people don't have to learn their lessons the hard way like I did, but then again, I also wish they'd appreciate that they simply CANNOT know.

Sorry for going all James Joyce and getting my stream of consciousness groove on . . .it's just been a rough few weeks for me!


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Miz---I've said a lot worse in my head--don't feel alone









Quote:

When I feel the judging tones come out on this board (from my perception; I don't know that people are truly judging), I get really frustrated and HOPE people don't have to learn their lessons the hard way like I did, but then again, I also wish they'd appreciate that they simply CANNOT know.










I find it's really easy to give advice when you've got the emotional and physical distance! My biggest challenge is "in the moment"....it's such a challenge


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mizelenius*
No, I haven't-- I will have to check it out!

(FTR, I didn't say "screw this" out loud . . .







).

I have a general understanding of what CL is (and see it is a goal, though not one I am currently attaining). . . is CL not considered to be a form of PD?

This board uses them term "Gentle Discipline" -- and I don't think that is defined by any one approach - but if you go by the suggested reading list in the Sticky -- it captures a range of approaches -- including CL and PD. If you talk to the CL people -- PD is NOT GD. If you talk to the PD people - CL is far too permissive to be D at all. Yet both approaches are on the suggested reading list here. I think the only thing they really have in common -- is that neither approach is mainstream. CL people may object to this next statement (as their definition of what is and is not authoritarian is a lot broader than others) - but IMHO neither approach is authoritarian -- both approaches are "Gentle".

And to answer your original question -- Yes - I think some GD approaches are too "Gentle". IMHO - I find CL -- too "gentle", or probably better described as "too permissive".


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

CC and Yooper, I love you guys!!


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
CC and Yooper, I love you guys!!























aw shucks *blush* you ain't so bad yourself honey


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

:


----------



## oliversmum2000 (Oct 10, 2003)

i am subscribing to this thread as i worry about being overly permissive and some days i think i just come off as being grumpy

i love my children so much and i do struggle with discipline and not having any role models around who dont use shame, punishing, shouting it is all too easy to be influenced by what you see and hear

so thanks for helping to renew my determination to be my childs ally and be on the same team as him, work with him not against him, to do things with no to him

and to remember at all times he ias a wonderful, amazing and good child and work from that basis, that if he isnt acting in a way that reflects how great he is, there must be an underlying reason or problem that i need to help him get to the bottom of

keep reminding myslef i am not rewarding him i am helping him to be the best he can be (plus we dont do rewards do we!)

thanks for helping me remember what i am trying to do


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I feel like there is a time and place to say, "no." ITA that there are lots of other/often better strategies, and I see lots of good suggestions here for those.

But sometimes it seems like there is this prohibition here on ever exerting authority, ever telling a child "no, that is not okay."

*****
So my question is... is this constant giving, following children's agendas at the expense of our own, not saying "no," never giving a parent-driven consequence to a behaviour... is that mandatory for GD?

I think what you are seeing is that many of the active posters on this board now lean towards noncoercive parenting.

Gentle Discipline seems to be a spectrum of ideas. Some would say that the far end of the spectrum (TCS for example) is "too gentle" for their family. But some strive for those ideals.

I think it just changes over time. A couple of years ago, when I first started reading at MDC, it seemed to me that the posting was more along the lines of "Positive Discipline" writers, like the Spirited Child book, and others like it, to give examples. I think the board has changed, but that doesn't mean that what Gentle Discipline means, has changed.

Like others have said, the problem I have run into with my own 4 year old, is the lack of reasoning ability, and lack of understanding for other's needs. Especially when there is a younger sibling involved, who has more immediate needs. I have seen an incredible ability to cooperate and understand, and then there are times when he is completely unable to work with me on mutually agreeable solutions. Those are my most difficult moments, and there sure do seem to be a lot of them these days. But then, I just have to forget all the nice theories from Alfie Kohn and anonymous people on the internet (as helpful and inspiring as they have been














) and be the Parent, and take charge.

Still don't agree with traditional timeouts, but surely there are times when a raging child cannot be allowed to hurt other family members, and need to be taken aside until they can control their bodies better.

I also don't agree with arbitary consequences imposed by the parent. But if the family needs to be somewhere, or one of them needs to pee, but a child refuses to leave--well, then insisting on leaving is not an arbitrary consequence, or a punishment. It is just a fact that leaving needs to happen, and the parent has to take the lead. It would be great if this could be worked out without the use of force (because to me that is a last resort type of thing) and that is where all the other GD tools come in (theoretically).


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

just want to say that consensual living has no age limits. consensual living is not a cookie cutter way of parenting. what is acceptable/agreeable for one family is not for another. in my house, we don't really care if our walls get messy with crayon or whatever. we dont' encourage it, but it's not a big hot-button issue for us. in another family it might be different. our 3yo tries my patience every day, and of course i make mistakes and make bad decisions but my frame of mind is always from a consensual living perspective. i think that makes a difference.

i've been accused by others of being too permissive, and i just don't give a hoot anymore what other people say about my parenting. my children are happy, spirited little souls. i have nobody to answer to except for them. my responsibility is to them, not to anybody else. if others don't like it, they can bite my arse.









is consensual living more difficult with an older child? hm...i suppose it depends on how you look at it. i think *life* is more difficult with an older child than with an infant, new toddler. LOL and i think that consensual living helps to IMPROVE that life, moreso than other methods of "discipline", etc.

uhoh, my little dude needs me. be back later.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slightly crunchy*
But if the family needs to be somewhere, or one of them needs to pee, but a child refuses to leave--well, then insisting on leaving is not an arbitrary consequence, or a punishment. It is just a fact that leaving needs to happen, and the parent has to take the lead.

Curious. How would the CL parent handle this?


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Well, it's important to remember that intent goes a long way. Sometimes similar actions or words can be very different in different contexts and with different intentions...

I pretty much always assume that DS is "on my team" and that we face things together. Using this approach has been largely very effective.

In the case above, I explain to DS that _we_ have a parameter. I know that he wants to stay at the park, but we have a deadline, and could he help me get everything done_. "Everything" includes what he wants to accomplish too._ If I were to presume that he will melt down and that I have to "set a limit" then it will happen. So I say that we will be at the park until (whatever tangible marker I can use), and after we will accomplish X. Alternately, I ask him what last thing he wants to get in before we go do X. Trusting that the child can handle and understand reasons why we do things is critical. It conveys that I trust his ability to cooperate, and doesn't undermine his problem-solving ability.

Approaching it with an idea that I'm gonna have to "take charge" just breeds resentment and shuts down his expression, self esteem (since it conveys that I don't trust him), and sets us up on opposing sides of the issue.

These subtle differences in intention make a huge difference.

I'll post this and then add an example later...

_ETA:_

*Examples:*

1. A while ago (during winter) my mother came over to go out with us. She tends to dig in her heels about things, and refused to leave unless DS wore a hat. He refused.

To me, the thing to accomplish is keeping warm. To my mother _the means_ to keep warm had to be a hat. Who cares? If DS prefers another way to keep warm, it's his body. But mom had really set a limit - hat or no go.

Well, of course DS melted down. And she's my mother and never listens to _me._ So this situation just escalated and escalated. DS was inconsolable. I finally grabbed him away, told my mother to back down, and went in another room. DS and I talked about how he felt about Mimi forcing that hat on his head. He was livid and insulted and the whole bit. I apologized for her (only because she is incapable of it) and told DS that she is worried about him being too cold and wants to keep him warm. I asked if he liked other warm things, and he suggested the blanket.

I told him it was a great idea, and asked if he was ready to go out and tell Mimi that we found a great solution. He was, and was very proud of it.

2. There are times I reschedule. I don't "give in" or let DS dictate what I do. But I certainly take his feelings into consideration when I plan - and revise plans if they aren't working.

Last night I was determined to go buy clothes hangers. I'm sick of living in bins from moving and I want my closet organized, damnit! So, well, several things snowballed to just frustrate the crap out of DS last night, until he was uncharacteristically grumpy. (Hmm, strange it was also mostly from my mother...














I mean, he gets grumpy sometimes, but I could tell this was extraordinary. He was happy in the car going to the store and I thought we were past the upset, but when it was time to go in he refused. He usually likes to go in stores, but not then. As I asked him why he just melted down more and more. So I probed a little, and it came out that he was really angry at feeling tricked by my mother telling him she would walk the dogs with him and then just leaving instead. He was too upset about it to cope with anything.

I didn't get the hangers (and I was right there!!!!







), and instead took him to the park so he could get his frustration out. As soon as we got home, he sought out my mother and explained that he was angry at her about it. If I had pushed through him, he wouldn't have had an opportunity to get in touch with why he was so upset, and certainly not to process it.

As it turns out, he didn't care that she didn't apologize - he was happier as soon as he told her.

Oh, and I got the hangers this morning with a happy DS!!














Organizing closet as soon as I can pry myself away from MDC...

Sorry for the novel...


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Curious. How would the CL parent handle this?
Again, consensual living doesn't mean that every single interaction with your child every single moment of every single day is going to be perfect. That is a level of perfection that I think is a convenient arguement for people who are not agreeable with consensual living.

If I have to pee, I am peeing. Consensual living means ALL parties consent *when at all possible*. *It means that mutually agreeable solutions are always the goal, but it doesn't mean they are always neccessarily the outcome*. If I have to pee, it is not agreeable to me to get a UTI or to piss myself, so in that instance, if my child was really not wanting me to pee, my needs would have to trump her immediate wants for the moment. I don't look at my child though, as someone who is out to foil my attempts at taking care of my bodily functions. I don't approach situations with that dynamic, like she is "out to make my life harder" or something. I see it as she probably doesn't understand the urgency of me having to pee and doesn't truly get that I have to go...now.... I would attempt to make the fact that I have to pee more agreeable by either playful parenting (laughing and doing the pee dance) or by asking for her help (flushing the toilet or getting me the tp or whatever) , but I don't think any parent has said "yes, I would piss myself because my child didn't want me to pee". That is somewhat ridiculous.

In terms of leaving some place, we have never encountered that, though I am sure we will in the future. I am more than willing to stay longer somewhere, and more than willing to work with my child if it is important to her. We don't have a rigid schedule.

I think one of the fundamental differences with people who practice consensual living and people who don't, is that the ones who don't truly feel as though they are benevolent rulers of their children. I don't mean that in a snarky way, I seriously mean most people I have encountered who reject consensual living truly believe that while they love their children, let them have some choices, and are gentle in their discipline, everyone knows "who's boss" so to speak...and it is the parent. If I had to pee and my husband wanted to tell me something, I would say "honey, have to peeeee nowwwwwwww" and he would get it and I would pee. My daughter isn't yet at that level of understanding so it takes a bit more working with her, but that's the point, I work with her -- not against her.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

ITA, CC

wow. an entire sentence in just acronyms. LOL!

anyway...it's a mindset, it's a framework, it's an attitude. it's not a recipe or a manual.

and i just wanted to add...how can we possibly expect a child who is still in diapers to understand that mommy can't just pee in her pants? the child does, so why not mommy?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Exactly, and furthermore, people who practice CL approach situations in the spirit of their being an actual reason the child doesn't want you to pee. Do they want to play more, do they think you're leaving for good, do they want to come with you, do they want to help, do they think they won't get to play when you come back, do they not understand? People on the authoritative side seem to feel that the child is just being *bratty* or *selfish*. It is a mindset.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*

I think one of the fundamental differences with people who practice consensual living and people who don't, is that the ones who don't truly feel as though they are benevolent rulers of their children. I don't mean that in a snarky way, I seriously mean most people I have encountered who reject consensual living truly believe that while they love their children, let them have some choices, and are gentle in their discipline, everyone knows "who's boss" so to speak...and it is the parent.

You hit a nail on the head. It's interesting to see different variations, but one can always trace the core of believes to either:

1) I am (the parent) in charge (countless variations ranging from "I'll beat your butt into submission" [not here of course] to "I'll gently guide you and teach you and be all I can be. But when push comes to shove we are going to do it *my* way")

or

2) We are the team (again, variations on temperament, interactions, etc. )


----------



## wednesday (Apr 26, 2004)

I think you've gotten a lot of great feedback so far, and I also wanted to say I really appreciated shaggydaddy's posts. I wanted to say I feel like there is a middle ground between martyr and authoritarian in the examples you gave. My son is almost 3 so we have had the kind of struggles you describe over leaving a park or getting dressed. What has worked for us with leaving the park is to have some kind of transition. Sometimes I'll tell him "I'm going to sing the ABCs and then we're going to leave" or "three more slides down the slide and then we'll leave" or something like that. I don't do the same thing every time. This works really well with my son because it gives him time to adjust. I've heard it doesn't work that well with every kid so I think it's just a matter of figuring out what works for your kid. But if you think about it from their point of view, it's hard to deal with the big bossy boss in your life just dictating that you have to stop the fun thing you're doing and fall in line to leave.

As for the getting dressed struggle -- when my son is resisting this (putting shoes on is frequently a hassle) I usually do something silly like try to put his clothes/shoes on myself. "You don't want to wear these shoes? Can I wear them? Oh no, they don't fit! Can teddy wear them? Oh dear, they don't fit teddy either." By then DS is almost always laughing and grabbing his shoes away from me so they can go on his own feet. You would think this strategy wouldn't work over and over but it still does. Have you read the book Playful Parenting? That book is my favorite parenting book ever. It has been an incredible resource for me in how to turn a situation from stressful defiance/frustration into good-natured compliance.

So to sum it up...I don't believe in being a martyr *at all*...but I very much believe in GD, and that it is worth it to figure out strategies that enlist DS' cooperation, instead of just imposing my authority on him.


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attila the Honey*
I think "too gentle" is like "too compassionate". No such thing.







:

But, having said that, I never equated "gentle discipline" with never saying "no". I do equate it with being respectful, compassionate, understanding, and non-coercive or manipulating, but not with never saying, "no".

I respect my daughter's feelings and I don't assert my dominance just because, but sometimes the answer is "no". I try to remember that adage, "Make your 'no's as kind as your 'yes'es" (or however that goes), but I still use "no".

But really, that's true for dealing with everyone. I have a kind and 'gentle' relationship with my dh and we respect each other and talk things out, try to work as a team, but sometimes we make each other unhappy. I see it as similar with dd. We ARE a team, and we have to do what's best for the team, and if it's time to leave the park because it's late and we are tired and everyone is hungry then, no, we don't sit and suffer because one member of the team is upset that we have to leave.

I think it's a common misconception that gd = never letting the child be upset in any way. that's not very practical. To me, the difference between a gd parent and a non-gd parent might be, for example, that the gd parent understands and 'allows' their child to cry and scream when it's time to leave, maybe with some hugs and reassurances if that helps; whereas a non-gd parent would be more likely to coerce/manipulate ("Stop crying and I will give you some candy.") or punish ("Stop crying or I will give you something to cry about.").

It's not that gd = letting the kid dictate how long you stay, it's how you deal with the issue of needing to leave.

Hope that made sense.











And honestly, lately with 2 small children it is REALLY hard to leave a place







I have had to physically restrain dd by holding her or giving her hugs because she just never wants to leave.What I mean is-for example: kids have been playing at IKEA, playing, for awhile. Dd starts walking off in one direction, ds starts RUNNING FAST repeatedly in another. What am I to do? In my mind, they have hit their attention threshhold in a crowded place and as a respectful parent I need to take them home. But dd doesn't want to go. I feel, because she is overstimulated. So, see I know this about her and I feel it is my job as a loving attentive parent to leave. Also because it is becoming unsafe and they are not following rules I try to implement about"staying together to be safe". So I pick up dd and she kicks, screams, etc. But I know from her temperment that she is partly acting this way because she is overstimulated and currently incapable of calming herself.

So in this instance, I decide it is time to go. Dd does not like it, but she will understand later. I try to be as loving as possible, and explain to her why, but she still doesn't like it.
Now this doesn't happen alot. there are lots of times I will stay longer, I will let them decide. But I think for an almost 4 year old, she is a bit ready to understand that the world doesn't always wait on her.Ok, I am starting to ramble- but I wanted to share. I think being GD oriented is about taking into acount alot of different factors about your specific child, situation, age, etc and then coming up with an appropriate response to behaviors. My kids don't always get their way, but neither do I . I compromise for them as well.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Whoa! There were lots of posts between my posting and editing!!









CC, will you marry me?


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

Curious. How would the CL parent handle this?
I don't choose to label myself CL, but I do admire alot of what the label stands for and strive towards the goals alot. But I'd like to answer.

Tripmom- you have triplets, right? I have no experience with that, but I'd guess at certain ages, 2 and 3 come to mind, that if all three were refusing at the same time, picking up and leaving, empathizing, validating, and reassuring something they enjoy will come next too might be the least stressful route. I don't know?
Several things helps leaving to be consensual here. One is if I know ahead of time there is a reason I will want to leave in a certain amount of time I can tell them that. 'Hey guys we haven't eaten dinner yet. Everyone wants to go to the schoolyard, so lets go for an hour and then come home so I can make dinner.' or 'Its gonna be dark in an hour and the park closes when it is dark, so we can stay for an hour and then go home.' And then just reminding them when it is time to go why we are leaving.
Another is going towards something else thay want, probably not as much as the park, but they have accepted that. Sometimes with ds it is as simple as offering a piggyback to the car. Or reminding him he wanted juice at the store and we've yet to make that trip. Or reminding them we need to go eat so we don't start feeling icky and grumpy.
And with the having to pee thing, I do expect my children to understand that, and many times they have. Recently we were at the pool (walking distance from our house) and I had to go to the bathroom. Dp and dd stayed and ds wanted to walk home with me. He wanted to carry the keys, so he did (we had done this the day before SMOOTHLY







). When we got to the door he wanted to unlock the door. He asked which key it was and I showed him. He started to go back through all the keys and ask is it this one, this one. So I showed him again which one and reminded him how bad I had to go pee. Well he wanted to play with the keys. Keys are fun. I took the keys from him and unlocked the door. He was quite upset. I apologized for taking the keys and explained to him that I had to go so bad it hurt and I didn't want to wait any longer. I think it is rude to take something from someone's hands like this, so I apologized. He accepted my apology and asked if I felt better. Afterwards I thought I could have assured him he could play with the keys for as long as he wanted after I went and it may have been enough for him to let go of what he wanted to do at that moment and see what I needed to do at that moment! It's not as if I think an occaisional instance of putting my needs before his is going to have some long lasting devestating effect on my son or our relationship. It's not as if I was beating myself up for taking the keys and being less than consensual. What it is like is I realized afterwards one small sentence may have made the difference for it to be consensual. My recognizing his want may have helped him recognize my need. All that aside it was said and done and I think recognizing his feelings of upset and being understanding did help him understand were I was coming from.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Whoa! There were lots of posts between my posting and editing!!









CC, will you marry me?









Sure, but I am already married so we will have to move to like, Utah or something.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Me too.

Does Utah have gay polygamy?







The next hot-button issue, I can tell...


----------



## mamachandi (Sep 21, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy*
I guess my point is that gentle discipline works for ANY age person the practicality is a big draw. No matter if they are too small to be called a "person" by the "mainstream" yet. Why change your parenting philosophy with each new benchmark? You GD your spouse, your waiter, your boss, your employees, your neighbor, etc etc. Try using positive phraising to negotiate with an adult some time... it works GREAT.

A for-instance we all can probably relate to: You can't spank a newborn, you can't spank a 15 year old, why spank in-between?

Same can be said for time out, yelling, etc etc?

I believe the same for EC (maybe I wouldn't if it was harder with Jet







), "You must poop in your diaper... oh wait now you are 3, new rules!"

Every time you have to re-establish a relationship with someone it is very difficult.

I am luckey enough to have had the wonderful opportunity to have kids of all ages and dispositions live with us for months, weeks, days, and just hours. The one constant is that they know that they will be given respect and they will be allowed/encouraged to have a lot of fun within the rules. They love how lax the rules are, and they love that they have input into the rules. They trust us to never do anything arbitrary.

I see no problem with teaching children that if they ask, compromise, bargain, work, and trade the right way they will get pretty much anything they want. It is true in my life and it has been for a long time (since I left my parent's authority).

People (adult or child) will almost always choose the path of least resistance, the easiest way to get their way. Sometimes the easiest way to get our way is to compromise in our desires, sometimes it is to trade, most of the time (especially for a child) it is to ask the right way.

You haven't cryed till you have seen a 12 month old ask if he could please use the computer next if he waits patiently (with no prompting).

The key is communication in any relationship, especially a parenting one.

I would love to know what books your reading/have read on gd. I have a 12 year old and am dealing with issues that didn't come up when she was younger...and am having trouble dealing with it...suggestions?? thanks! love your posts!


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Thanks for the reponse to my previous post. Here is what I concluded - at least the people that responded (whether they consider themselves CL or not) -- handle the situation I inquired about (mom has to use the bathroom and kid doesn't want to go) -- the same way I would have. And I would consider myself a postive discipline parent.

In fact - all the examples posed by these PPs having to do with "transitions" - i.e. leaving the park, leaving the house, etc -- all your suggestions on how to handle them are the same way I would have handled them as a PD mom. Exaclty.

Here is the circumstance I've seen posed here many times before - that for me defines the KEY DIFFERENCE between CL and PD -- "If DS does not want leave the park - we don't leave - period - until he wants too" or "If DD does not want to get in his carseat - we don't go until DD wants too". That sort of idea that after you've used the techniques you all discussed above - playful parenting, distraction, etc. (which by the way CL does not have a corner on the market for) -- is DC still says no - we do what DC wants and DC is not forced to leave the park, or get in the carseat, etc. In other words its what DC wants that trumps - always and regardless. I'll note that none of the PPs suggested that in the face of unrelenting resistence despite all parental efforts - DC still won't do X - we go along with DC - so maybe you all don't take it to that exteme - but I have definitely seen that extreme discussed and advocated here.

Otherwise - what you are all saying to me -- sounds a lot like PD?


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
I don't choose to label myself CL, but I do admire alot of what the label stands for and strive towards the goals alot. But I'd like to answer.

Tripmom- you have triplets, right? I have no experience with that, but I'd guess at certain ages, 2 and 3 come to mind, that if all three were refusing at the same time, picking up and leaving, empathizing, validating, and reassuring something they enjoy will come next too might be the least stressful route. I don't know?
Several things helps leaving to be consensual here. One is if I know ahead of time there is a reason I will want to leave in a certain amount of time I can tell them that. 'Hey guys we haven't eaten dinner yet. Everyone wants to go to the schoolyard, so lets go for an hour and then come home so I can make dinner.' or 'Its gonna be dark in an hour and the park closes when it is dark, so we can stay for an hour and then go home.' And then just reminding them when it is time to go why we are leaving.
Another is going towards something else thay want, probably not as much as the park, but they have accepted that. Sometimes with ds it is as simple as offering a piggyback to the car. Or reminding him he wanted juice at the store and we've yet to make that trip. Or reminding them we need to go eat so we don't start feeling icky and grumpy.
And with the having to pee thing, I do expect my children to understand that, and many times they have. Recently we were at the pool (walking distance from our house) and I had to go to the bathroom. Dp and dd stayed and ds wanted to walk home with me. He wanted to carry the keys, so he did (we had done this the day before SMOOTHLY







). When we got to the door he wanted to unlock the door. He asked which key it was and I showed him. He started to go back through all the keys and ask is it this one, this one. So I showed him again which one and reminded him how bad I had to go pee. Well he wanted to play with the keys. Keys are fun. I took the keys from him and unlocked the door. He was quite upset. I apologized for taking the keys and explained to him that I had to go so bad it hurt and I didn't want to wait any longer. I think it is rude to take something from someone's hands like this, so I apologized. He accepted my apology and asked if I felt better. Afterwards I thought I could have assured him he could play with the keys for as long as he wanted after I went and it may have been enough for him to let go of what he wanted to do at that moment and see what I needed to do at that moment! It's not as if I think an occaisional instance of putting my needs before his is going to have some long lasting devestating effect on my son or our relationship. It's not as if I was beating myself up for taking the keys and being less than consensual. What it is like is I realized afterwards one small sentence may have made the difference for it to be consensual. My recognizing his want may have helped him recognize my need. All that aside it was said and done and I think recognizing his feelings of upset and being understanding did help him understand were I was coming from.

Thanks for your post. You see -- I'd call your parenting PD? If you were to use these examples and then told me - if after your attemps at explanation, compromise, playful parenting, etc. don't work -- and DC still want to remain at park after dark or not let you go home ot cook dinner or something - and you went with their wishes - that is what i'd call "CL". The idea that at the end of the interaction - DC is never required to so anything they are objecting too.

Otherwise - your entire post comports exactly with my style of parenting - and I consider myself sort of a devotee of Jane Nelson's PD approach to parenting.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

Sure, but I am already married so we will have to move to like, Utah or something.

Quote:

Does Utah have gay polygamy?
You know as far as I know if you can stay away from that urge to put it on paper you should be able to keep it legal anywhere









Oh and btw I always look forward to reading both of your posts, they're encouraging and inspiring (and well written too)


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

Otherwise - your entire post comports exactly with my style of parenting - and I consider myself sort of a devotee of Jane Nelson's PD approach to parenting.
I've been waiting for my reservation on this book to come in at the library, it sounds like a good book


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Oh and btw I always look forward to reading both of your posts, they're encouraging and inspiring (and well written too
awww....we are getting all kinds of shout outs today aren't we Aira!

Bi polygamists who practice CL unite!

Thank you for your kind compliment missrubyandken, it does mean a lot to me that you feel that way


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
if after your attemps at explanation, compromise, playful parenting, etc. don't work -- and DC still want to remain at park after dark or not let you go home ot cook dinner or something - and you went with their wishes - that is what i'd call "CL". The idea that at the end of the interaction - DC is never required to so anything they are objecting too.

i haven't personally seen anybody explaining CL like this on MDC, but I suppose that there are those who practice it that way all the time. Nevertheless, CL is not monolithic - there are as many permutations of it as there are families who practice it. i must admit that there have been days when i really had nothing to do and i did follow every one of my son's whims. not since i had #2 (because now i have to consider her needs too), but i remember those days well. they were pretty fun.

for me, CL is not about having no boundaries. it's not about doing whatever your kid wants. in fact, i think it's very much about boundaries in some ways. i have my own personal boundaries, as do my children and my husband. i respect ALL of them. and by respecting them and modeling that, i am showing my children how to effectively navigate interactions with others who also have boundaries. if i were a parent who used a certain amount of coercion, i would be showing my children that there are rules that they have to follow rather than that everbody they interact with has personal boundaries. i can't explain it, clearly LOL...ack.

instead of teaching them that MY rules and MY boundaries are the only ones to respect, i am trying to show them that we ALL have personal boundaries that matter just as much as anybody else's. my kids will of course need to learn how to navigate a world in which they don't get what they want all the time. but i personally feel that the best way to prepare them for that is to model how we can all benefit from compromising, even when it doesn't suit our fancy.

my children are equals to me and my husband. just because we were born first doesn't give us more rights. of course we have more experience, but that should make us MORE able to compromise, imo, not LESS so. and i guess i wonder how can we expect our kids to understand that they can't always have anything they want (a common "issue" ppl often have with CL) unless we model that ourselves? by US not always getting exactly what we want? life is about compromise, and i think parents should be willing to do it too.

god i hope this post makes sense.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Exactly, and furthermore, people who practice CL approach situations in the spirit of their being an actual reason the child doesn't want you to pee. Do they want to play more, do they think you're leaving for good, do they want to come with you, do they want to help, do they think they won't get to play when you come back, do they not understand? People on the authoritative side seem to feel that the child is just being *bratty* or *selfish*. It is a mindset.

You know, I consider myself quite authoritative, and I never think of my child as "bratty" or "selfish". I think it's very possible to be able to understand your child's reasons, needs, desires, goals, and likes, and still not practice consensual living. I really take offense at the idea that an authoritative parent's mindset is one that their child is out to get them or screw them over. I would even argue that there is very few moms with that attitude on this board, not just those of you who have chosen to practice "consensual living".


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
You know, it seems to be a common discussion regarding that my child is only 14 months old (almost). The pregnant mom will never understand the plight of the mom with the newborn, the mom of the one year old will never understand the plight of the mom with the 2 year old, the mom with the 6 year old will never understand the mom with the teen. I get that, but it doesn't mean I am willing to abandon my strongly held beliefs and outlook on life and how will raise our daughter.

I never claimed to be perfect. I never suggested parenting comes without challenges or frustrations or times when we will be at the end of our rope, that is par for the course.

I just know that self doubt and giving up in the face of adversity is a recipe for self sabotage. I refuse to let thoughts like "oh dear, what will happen when she is three" enter into my internal dialogue. Instead, I choose to say to myself "things will probably be more difficult in certain situations as she grows and matures, but we will get through them in the least coercive way possible." I think we create our own destiny to a large degree.

We will always live consensually as a whole, and strive for it in our daily interactions. As I pointed out above, no one is perfect, but it is something we strive for every day (I mean consensual living, not perfection lol) ...

I don't know what will happen if our daughter suddenly craves all these limits people speak of. I don't know if I buy into that philosophy that children really want to be controlled and told what to do and when to do it and that they need it. I think children thrive on information, knowing what to expect, knowing that their parents are always there for support and guidance if they need or want it, knowing they are loved and are free to make their own choices -- while also having the knowledge that their parents are a soft place to fall. We all have limits. I just don't want my daughter's limits to be imposed by me, if I can avoid it. In nearly every case, I can. That may be more challenging as she grows, but certainly not impossible. Also, I think the fact that we have parented this way from birth and that she is an only (and may always be) helps a lot. I would imagine it would be more difficult (but not impossible) to have parented differently then introduced consensual living, or when adding more family members into the mix -- but I have seen both done successfully.

Well, I don't think anyone has said you claimed to be perfect. And as for people saying your child isn't x number of years yet-- frankly, you may have wonderful insights into what it takes to parent a 14 year old. But that still does not negate the fact that 14 month olds are _often_ a pleasure to parent, regardless of who's doing the parenting. My daughter was so cooperative and imitative and smart at 14 months-- if I could bottle that parenting experience and sell it, I would. At 19 months, she's not much older than your child, anyway, so it's not like I've forgotton what it was like already.

However, while children may thrive on information, support and love-- it's not the whole kit-n-kiboodle. The people who have found that they have children who did better with limits and boundries (as well as information, love and support) are a dime a dozen, quite frankly. Ideas about the need for boundries or "the wise restraints that make men free" don't come solely out of a parental need for domination and control. They come from experience, and from the fact that hindsight is often 20/20. (I just ran into a neighbor/parent of adult children, the other day, who said she wishes she had been firmer with her children when they were young.) This generation isn't the first one to look and decide they want to raise children differently than their dictatorial parents had done it-- with peace, love, respect, equality, etc. And if you look on this board, you'll find a few people who were raised GD and consensual.....perhaps more GD or consensual than you can imagine, and a few will tell you that while they weren't looking to be beat with wire coat hangers, they would have appreciated having a bit more conventional parents because when they were younger it's what they needed _as individuals._

I was an only child raised by a mother doing things similarly to how things have been discribed on this board-- and quite frankly, a certain amount of freedom can actually feel like a lack of love, concern and support if it's not doaled out in response to the child's emotional needs. And what saddens me the most is that sometimes I see people who have more of a commitment to their ideas or some book than to what it is that their particular child needs as they grow. Freedom to make your own decisions doesn't always feel like a soft place to fall to a child who's unfamiliar with the world he or she lives in. Some people like to say that children know best. Uhhh, some children don't know best, and they _know_ that they don't know best, but they are too afraid that their parents also don't have a clue, because the parents have spent a lifetime telling the kids there are no absolutes and the answer is whatever you think. Some children crave certainty. Some children will take advantage of a parent's laxness to do what they want-- which just happens to be wrong or illegal or harmful things. You don't have to spank a child to find they have choosen to experiment with drugs. You don't have to be punitive to find that your child is just the type to take the easy way out in life. Some really good and compassionate parents have raised some gosh awful human beings.

Whatever the case, nobody knows what their child is really going to need until they grow and present their needs to us as parents, day by day. But I realy hope more and more parents keep an open mind towards the possibility that what you'd like to provide might not be what is best suited to the child you actually have. Because until people start parenting the child they have, more than parenting to a philosophy-- we willcontinue to have children who feel like square pegs in round holes.

All the same, I don't claim to actually know what kind of mother you are or will be to your child. I'm just responding to the vibe that "x" ideas and responses will produce a "y" kind of child. I just personally don't think any of us can count on anything as it concerns our children, until the raising is all said and done. The smartest of kids get caught up in dumb stuff. Followers get burned and become independent. Sheltered kids go wild. Wild kids become Republicans. You just deal with each thing as it comes, if you ask me. None of us, as parents, control what/who we get as children (although some people certainly try.)

Faith
****edited to remove references to sexual orientation.


----------



## aja-belly (Oct 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamachandi*
I would love to know what books your reading/have read on gd. I have a 12 year old and am dealing with issues that didn't come up when she was younger...and am having trouble dealing with it...suggestions?? thanks! love your posts!









you ladies are gonna make his ego so big that we'll need a bigger family bed to fit his head!

we started out years ago reading alot of dr sears. my parents were big on sears (and the like) so that's the example i was comming from. in our long journey to parenthood we spent a good deal of time reading parenting books to eachother and theorizing. we have had alot of practice with younger family members and friend's children before jet ever came along. peter (shaggydaddy) is way into a kinda "evidence based parenting". he does what works.

anyways, to my knowledge he has not really read any gd books (although he has done alot of online reading). i'd like to take alot of credit for his ideals, but the truth is he treats everyone in a very cl way and that was one of the things that really drew me to him.

sorry to ramble - i am not nearly as eloquent as he is, but he has the luxury of posting at work while i am posting while jet "helps".









hope you don't mind me answering for peter, either. he is out seeing superman. gotta make use of the free time he has before he comes up here this weekend.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

n fact - all the examples posed by these PPs having to do with "transitions" - i.e. leaving the park, leaving the house, etc -- all your suggestions on how to handle them are the same way I would have handled them as a PD mom. Exaclty.

Here is the circumstance I've seen posed here many times before - that for me defines the KEY DIFFERENCE between CL and PD -- "If DS does not want leave the park - we don't leave - period - until he wants too" or "If DD does not want to get in his carseat - we don't go until DD wants too".
This is how I see the difference myself, after much reading here on MDC, and it is because of this difference that I would never define myself as CL--even though I, like you, would also use all those same tools from my toolbox.

Actually, we haven't had to do a forced exit in quite a while--maybe I am getting better at this!--but we have done them occasionally, and I will not rule them out. I will absolutely carry a screaming child out of a restaurant even if she is tantrumming and saying she does not want to go. That is part of my social code. I will also put a child in a carseat if I absolutely have to get somewhere and she is refusing. (Can't remember the last time I did this--it's been a while, maybe 6 months or more?--but I know I have.)

Quote:

You know, I consider myself quite authoritative, and I never think of my child as "bratty" or "selfish". I think it's very possible to be able to understand your child's reasons, needs, desires, goals, and likes, and still not practice consensual living.
I echo this. 90% of the time I completely understand why DD is doing X undesirable thing. I empathize with her, and I tell her so. ("I know you've had a lot of fun here and that it's hard to go home.") I don't think she's being a brat at all. She's being two.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:

I will absolutely carry a screaming child out of a restaurant even if she is tantrumming and saying she does not want to go.
I would too. No one in there consented to having a screaming meal... But we would stop outside where it's safe, hug or not, talk, listen, and determine what DS was needing (or wanting). Then I would add my thoughts to the frey, offer suggestions that might make DS feel heard and happier, and ultimately we would decide if his reason for wanting to be back in the restaurant was as important to him after calming down and considering it, as he first thought.

Just recently, his reason was that he was so intrigued with a miniature carosel, and hadn't had a chance to get a look at all the various animals. It was actually DH having this exchange with him, and they concluded that there was time to go back in and have another look and then leave. DH had just been concerned that DS would want to stay for a long time, and was eager to get back on the road. So he had said it was time to go now, and DS lost it.

But they just worked it out, and everyone was happy with the results.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I agree with what incamama said.

Also, I think faithnj, you are confusing consensual living with "I don't give a crap what you do, just don't get killed" parenting and that is offensive. When you use words like "lax" and warn that children may feel unloved or uncared about as a result of this method of parenting, well, it shows me that either you don't get it, or don't choose to get it. That's cool.

I just don't believe imposing my will on my child to create an adversarial relationship, or even power struggles where we are both frustrated, angry, upset, and in the end I "put my foot down" goes any further to create a child who feels loved than the method we choose to raise our daughter with.

If my child ever approaches me and says, hey mama, I am feeling unloved, can you like, punish me or control more aspects of my life, well um, sure.


----------



## aja-belly (Oct 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
If my child ever approaches me and says, hey mama, I am feeling unloved, can you like, punish me or control more aspects of my life, well um, sure.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I agree with what incamama said.

Also, I think faithnj, you are confusing consensual living with "I don't give a crap what you do, just don't get killed" parenting and that is offensive. When you use words like "lax" and warn that children may feel unloved or uncared about as a result of this method of parenting, well, it shows me that either you don't get it, or don't choose to get it. That's cool.

I just don't believe imposing my will on my child to create an adversarial relationship, or even power struggles where we are both frustrated, angry, upset, and in the end I "put my foot down" goes any further to create a child who feels loved than the method we choose to raise our daughter with.

If my child ever approaches me and says, hey mama, I am feeling unloved, can you like, punish me or control more aspects of my life, well um, sure.

Well, the intentionally not getting it seems to be a two way street.

Insinuating that the rest of us are imposing our wills on our children to create an adversarial relationships, intentionally getting into power struggles where you are both frustrated, angry, and upset (glad you'll be able to avoid all power struggles, BTW), and relying solely on "putting our feet down" is either naive or rude, especially after having read a few of the posts on this board.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CC*
If my child ever approaches me and says, hey mama, I am feeling unloved, can you like, punish me or control more aspects of my life, well um, sure.









: Absolutely!


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
and relying solely on "putting our feet down"

It's not relying solely (no one here thinks that the case), but willingness to do it at all. Thinking that one human has a right to do that to another human... because of a parent/child relationship.

That's the difference to me.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
You know, I consider myself quite authoritative, and I never think of my child as "bratty" or "selfish". I really take offense at the idea that an authoritative parent's mindset is one that their child is out to get them or screw them over. I would even argue that there is very few moms with that attitude on this board, not just those of you who have chosen to practice "consensual living".

I do not agree with authoritative parenting - but I agree with the sentiment of the post. There seems to be a tendency on the boards to demonize the more conservative/mainstream styles of parenting. Honestly - I know a lot of more mainstream parents - and it is not my impression that these people think of their kids as "bratty" or "selfish". I get a little fed up with that -- we APparents have a corner of the market for loving their kids -- stuff.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
This generation isn't the first one to look and decide they want to raise children differently than their dictatorial parents had done it-- with peace, love, respect, equality, etc. And if you look on this board, you'll find a few people who were raised GD and consensual.....perhaps more GD or consensual than you can imagine, and a few will tell you that while they weren't looking to be beat with wire coat hangers, they would have appreciated having a bit more conventional parents because when they were younger it's what they needed _as individuals._









I have seen those posters too. And it really bears out what PD talks about . . . . . too much permissiveness is not advisable . . .


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't think I am not getting it, and I never suggested there would never be "power struggles". The main difference I see though, is that when there is a power struggle, people who reject consensual living always come out "ahead", on top, the "winner" if you will because they always know they can pull the parent card and basically make their children do or not do something. In other words, people who are more on the authoritative side of gd are willing to work with their kids *to a certain degree* but when it comes down to it, the parents are boss and if methods to work it out fail, the parent has the trump card. Why does that offend you? It is what it is. I would suggest anyone who is offended at the assumption on my part that they are the boss, however benevolant, in a parenting situation that is more *authoritative* (root word authority), then perhaps should rethink things.

ETA: (posted by aira):

Quote:

It's not relying solely (no one here thinks that the case), but willingness to do it in the first place. Thinking that one human has a right to do that to another human... because of a parent/child relationship.

That's the difference to me.
True 'dat.


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
The main difference I see though, is that when there is a power struggle, people who reject consensual living always come out "ahead", on top, the "winner" if you will because they always know they can pull the parent card and basically make their children do or not do something.

But when your DH gets his way, do you see that as his being authoritarian? Or do you just see it as just a natural part of co-existing - sometimes you get your way, sometimes he gets his.

Not for one moment do I always get "my way" when I have a power struggle with DD. There are many, many times that I consider her position more carefully and decide to go with what she wants.

If I am always following her lead then why is that consensual?


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
Well, I don't think anyone has said you claimed to be perfect. And as for people saying your child isn't x number of years yet-- frankly, you may have wonderful insights into what it takes to parent a 14 year old. But that still does not negate the fact that 14 month olds are _often_ a pleasure to parent, regardless of who's doing the parenting. My daughter was so cooperative and imitative and smart at 14 months-- if I could bottle that parenting experience and sell it, I would. At 19 months, she's not much older than your child, anyway, so it's not like I've forgotton what it was like already.

so...i have 2 kids. one is 3.5 and the other is 7.5mos. does that mean that my opinion should have more sway because i have a child older than yours? i could say the same thing about 19mo - boy, what a dream. 2yo? GREAT! 2.5? getting tricky. 3? BAM! new child completely. my perspective is a bit different than yours, i'd imagine. yet i could have written CC's posts exactly (if i were as good a writer as she). so, given that i agree 100% with CC and have an older kid - does that give her argument more credibility? she is certainly not the only CL on here, and there are many with children even older than mine. my point is - to attempt to negate her position and her insights based on the age of her children is a pointless in this debate, since so many others agree with her 100% and have older children. it's a principle that many of us share. you don't see it, or don't agree with it and that's fine. but please don't shoo it away because she got pregnant 5 months later than you did.

Quote:

However, while children may thrive on information, support and love-- it's not the whole kit-n-kiboodle. The people who have found that they have children who did better with limits and boundries (as well as information, love and support) are a dime a dozen, quite frankly. Ideas about the need for boundries or "the wise restraints that make men free" don't come solely out of a parental need for domination and control. They come from experience, and from the fact that hindsight is often 20/20. (I just ran into a neighbor/parent of adult children, the other day, who said she wishes she had been firmer with her children when they were young.) This generation isn't the first one to look and decide they want to raise children differently than their dictatorial parents had done it-- with peace, love, respect, equality, etc. And if you look on this board, you'll find a few people who were raised GD and consensual.....perhaps more GD or consensual than you can imagine, and a few will tell you that while they weren't looking to be beat with wire coat hangers, they would have appreciated having a bit more conventional parents because when they were younger it's what they needed _as individuals._
i don't understand why you seem to think that people who practice CL don't treat their children as individuals or respond to their unique needs. my child does need boundaries. i'm clear about mine and he's clear about his. my daughter is becoming clearer about hers now that she can move around more. the difference is that we, as a family, recognize that everybody's boundaries should be respected. it's not about letting my child do whatever he wants. i thuoght we'd all made that pretty clear.

Quote:

But I realy hope more and more parents keep an open mind towards the possibility that what you'd like to provide might not be what is best suited to the child you actually have. Because until people start parenting the child they have, more than parenting to a philosophy-- we willcontinue to have children who feel like square pegs in round holes.
i will never ever ever ever ever ever agree that any child *needs* to NOT be respected, that they *need* to NOT be treated as an equal.

Quote:

I'm just responding to the vibe that "x" ideas and responses will produce a "y" kind of child.
i don't practice CL to create any specific kind of child. i do it because i think it's the right way to treat a fellow human being. i don't feel it's my place to decide what my kind of person my child will be - that's for my children and God to decide.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

I do not think of consensual living as being permissive. When I think of a permissive parent a few things come to mind. A parent who doesn't involve theirselves in what their children do, doesn't guide them through life. A parent who doesn't explain to their children when their behavior is negatively affecting them or someone else. A parent who is not comfortable expressing their own boundaries and often feels walked all over because of it. A parent who alternates between being a doormat and a very resentful, angry person. Any and all of these things come to mind when I think of permissiveness.

Consensual living on the other hand brings to mind a parent who is comfortable expressing their boundaries, limits, feelings, wants, and needs and exploring other individuals' too. A parent who will guide their children through social and community involvment. A parent who will tell their children when their behavior is negatively affecting themselves, someone else, or property. A parent who guides and explores with their children this world, its peoples, animals, plants, etc. discussing interdependence as well as independence. And a parent who is as willing to look at theirselves and their behavior and how it affects others and learn. A parent who is comfortable telling their children when they don't feel respected and comfortable hearing their children express when they don't feel respected too. A parent who trusts and expects their children to care about their feelings, wants, and needs. I know there is quite a bit more that comes to mind for me, but I'll leave it for now.

I just don't get the comparison of consensual and permissive. They wouldn't go hand in hand.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LoveBeads*
Or do you just see it as just a natural part of co-existing - sometimes you get your way, sometimes he gets his.

If I am always following her lead then why is that consensual?

do you see that the first part (sometimes you get your way, sometimes he gets his) completely negates the second part (always following her lead)? maybe i misunderstand your post.

in my family, the first part rings true but not the second. there is no "always" here, as far as someone "always" getting their way or "always" following any one person's lead.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

When my husband "gets his way" about something it isn't because I let him, and it isn't because I benevolently *allowed* him to get his way.

Also, when you say you "consider her position" more carefully and choose to "go with what she wants" it puts it in the context that there is another way, that you also feel okay with not considering her position or going with what she wants.

I always get what I want, my husband always gets what he wants, and our daughter always gets what she wants.... the key is that occasionally we don't always get *exactly* what we want at *exactly* the moment we want it...

but I don't see anything wrong with getting what you want, I really don't. Not for my husband, not for me, not for my daughter -- with special consideration to the belongings/bodies of others, financial considerations, or of serious personal safety.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
I do not think of consensual living as being permissive. When I think of a permissive parent a few things come to mind. A parent who doesn't involve theirselves in what their children do, doesn't guide them through life. A parent who doesn't explain to their children when their behavior is negatively affecting them or someone else. A parent who is not comfortable expressing their own boundaries and often feels walked all over because of it. A parent who alternates between being a doormat and a very resentful, angry person. Any and all of these things come to mind when I think of permissiveness.

Consensual living on the other hand brings to mind a parent who is comfortable expressing their boundaries, limits, feelings, wants, and needs and exploring other individuals' too. A parent who will guide their children through social and community involvment. A parent who will tell their children when their behavior is negatively affecting themselves, someone else, or property. A parent who guides and explores with their children this world, its peoples, animals, plants, etc. discussing interdependence as well as independence. And a parent who is as willing to look at theirselves and their behavior and how it affects others and learn. A parent who is comfortable telling their children when they don't feel respected and comfortable hearing their children express when they don't feel respected too. A parent who trusts and expects their children to care about their feelings, wants, and needs. I know there is quite a bit more that comes to mind for me, but I'll leave it for now.

I just don't get the comparison of consensual and permissive. They wouldn't go hand in hand.

YES!!


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

missrubyandken and IncaMama






























Excellent posts you women hit the nails on their respective heads.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I always get what I want, my husband always gets what he wants, and our daughter always gets what she wants.... the key is that occasionally we don't always get *exactly* what we want at *exactly* the moment we want it...

I know many of us have mentioned this before, but I would bet dollars to donuts that a lot of our households look a lot alike from day to day, and we're all talking about intent and the minutae of daily life here on the boards...but, I think that here-

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
but I don't see anything wrong with getting what you want, I really don't.

- is where we diverge, because while I agree with the above, I also don't see anything wrong with *not* getting what you want. For me, it's not a deal breaker in an interaction to not get "my way" every time (or a permutation of "my way"). I've posted on a couple of the other resurrected threads that discuss consensual living and negotiations, but I'll try to sum it up quickly here: I guess I personally feel like working out mutual solutions to every situation where one person isn't gung ho about it gives too much "power" to the situation, and for me and my life, I simply don't want to give that much thought to the equity and justice of daily life, which is the vibe I get off of a lot of the consensual discussions (but I could be entirely wrong - I think of one particular grocery shopping example where numerous suggestions ranging from not going to going later after a partner was able to watch the child, to calling someone else to watch the child, to something else were suggested, and that just seems like too much power to give to a simple grocery trip, in my personal estimation). I subscribe to the "Life's too short to sweat the small stuff, and it's almost ALL small stuff" philosophy of life, and unless something is going to cause me more than a minor inconvenience, I don't give a thought to any momentary feeling of unhappiness, and wind up enjoying the situation because of the company involved or the end result. If I negotiated about some things I didn't feel like doing at a given point in time, I would likely miss out on fun times and beneficial interactions in the long run.

I guess it's a basic philosophical difference between how we see things, and while I respect the consensual viewpoint in many ways, I don't totally agree with it.

What I *DO* want to mention is that the consensual mamas here, and the consensual living discussions on the GD board have helped me both be more flexible and willing to see alternatives in situations than I used to be (but it's not a deal breaker or imperative to me that I do it in every interaction, which is where I split from CL) , AND, they have helped me solidfy and consolidate how my philosophies and outlooks differ from the CL way of life and how I want to live my life and raise my family, and for that I am thankful to everyone!







:


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
I do not think of consensual living as being permissive. When I think of a permissive parent a few things come to mind. A parent who doesn't involve theirselves in what their children do, doesn't guide them through life. A parent who doesn't explain to their children when their behavior is negatively affecting them or someone else. A parent who is not comfortable expressing their own boundaries and often feels walked all over because of it. A parent who alternates between being a doormat and a very resentful, angry person. Any and all of these things come to mind when I think of permissiveness.

Consensual living on the other hand brings to mind a parent who is comfortable expressing their boundaries, limits, feelings, wants, and needs and exploring other individuals' too. A parent who will guide their children through social and community involvment. A parent who will tell their children when their behavior is negatively affecting themselves, someone else, or property. A parent who guides and explores with their children this world, its peoples, animals, plants, etc. discussing interdependence as well as independence. And a parent who is as willing to look at theirselves and their behavior and how it affects others and learn. A parent who is comfortable telling their children when they don't feel respected and comfortable hearing their children express when they don't feel respected too. A parent who trusts and expects their children to care about their feelings, wants, and needs. I know there is quite a bit more that comes to mind for me, but I'll leave it for now.

I just don't get the comparison of consensual and permissive. They wouldn't go hand in hand.

I really like this, this is very well put.


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom*
Thanks for the reponse to my previous post. Here is what I concluded - at least the people that responded (whether they consider themselves CL or not) -- handle the situation I inquired about (mom has to use the bathroom and kid doesn't want to go) -- the same way I would have. And I would consider myself a postive discipline parent.

In fact - all the examples posed by these PPs having to do with "transitions" - i.e. leaving the park, leaving the house, etc -- all your suggestions on how to handle them are the same way I would have handled them as a PD mom. Exaclty.

Here is the circumstance I've seen posed here many times before - that for me defines the KEY DIFFERENCE between CL and PD -- "If DS does not want leave the park - we don't leave - period - until he wants too" or "If DD does not want to get in his carseat - we don't go until DD wants too". That sort of idea that after you've used the techniques you all discussed above - playful parenting, distraction, etc. (which by the way CL does not have a corner on the market for) -- is DC still says no - we do what DC wants and DC is not forced to leave the park, or get in the carseat, etc. In other words its what DC wants that trumps - always and regardless. I'll note that none of the PPs suggested that in the face of unrelenting resistence despite all parental efforts - DC still won't do X - we go along with DC - so maybe you all don't take it to that exteme - but I have definitely seen that extreme discussed and advocated here.

Otherwise - what you are all saying to me -- sounds a lot like PD?

This is what I see, too.

I also think there is some misconception, that CL = GD and nothing other than CL (which I am still not sure exactly what that is?) can be GD.

In all the previous examples given by the posters describing themselves as CL, I would have exactly the same intent, and the same approach. I, too, regard myself and my children as being "on the same team". I always consider their feelings, needs, and wants, or at least I try to.

I think my previous post on this thread where I stated I sometimes have to "take charge" was taken to mean I am authoritarian minded. That is not the case at all. I do not think of my children as "bratty" or anything of the sort.
Yes I work with my children as best I can (well, my one year old is still a baby and will be for a long time. I would not even be having this discussion about a child who is less than 2 or so years old, the same issues don't even apply).
And my child works with me the very best that he can on any given time.

And I really appreciate the perspective of every one on here, but to be honest, it seems to me that some of you have not had the experience of a completely hysterical 3 or 4 year old who runs the other way and physically and emotionally *cannot* work with you in a given situation? That sometimes, there may not be cooperation within that hour, or even the rest of that day? And that it may not be a matter of a child who just doesn't want to leave somewhere, but a child that not only does not want to leave, but is doing something unsafe, or is acting unacceptably and unsafely in a public place?

For the first 2 years or so of my oldest's life, I, too was the mom who would hold a pee until my baby felt like leaving somewhere, who would sit in the car or stay somewhere for an hour or more until he was ready to get in his carseat, and (for even longer than that) would work just about everything around him, because I really didn't mind. In retrospect, I am not so sure that this was a great thing for him. Having a sibling has been a rude awakening, and I can't be the same parent to two that I was to one. However, I actually think this is a *good* thing, for both kids. I still have the same ideals in theory, and the philosophy that what my children think and want matters just as much as what I want--and for a long time after having my second, I felt guilty because I just couldn't possibly meet those ideals, and now my ideals are tempered by a dose of reality.

To me, saying that the parent is not ultimately responsible and in charge, is just ignoring reality. I don't know that CL is saying this, I just kind of get the feeling, that some here have a real problem with anyone saying that the parent is in charge in any way. In charge doesn't mean "dictator", but the person who is the caretaker and the provider and the adult, when we are talking about very small children and their normal development, is by default, in charge.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I don't think I am not getting it, and I never suggested there would never be "power struggles". The main difference I see though, is that when there is a power struggle, people who reject consensual living always come out "ahead", on top, the "winner" if you will because they always know they can pull the parent card and basically make their children do or not do something. In other words, people who are more on the authoritative side of gd are willing to work with their kids *to a certain degree* but when it comes down to it, the parents are boss and if methods to work it out fail, the parent has the trump card. Why does that offend you?

This doesn't offend me at all. It's true, this is how my family operates, in theory. In practice, we don't have many power struggles, and I'm not really afraid to "lose", but that's just semantics.

What offends me, and apparently other "authoritative", or otherwise, parents as well, is the sideways comments about how we think our children are bratty, we're controlling, and we show our children we love them by punishing them (which I don't do).

So thank you for taking a moment to post more respectfully.

Also, MissRubyandKen, you expressed exactly what I think of when I think of permissive parents. People who refuse to have any boundaries with their children, who knows why? My SIL is kind of like this. I think she's very, very afraid to express anything negative to her children, and it's so hard on their whole family. But she's nothing like a consensual living parent. She's like a walking on eggshells parent.


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slightly crunchy*

And I really appreciate the perspective of every one on here, but to be honest, it seems to me that some of you have not had the experience of a completely hysterical 3 or 4 year old who runs the other way and physically and emotionally *cannot* work with you in a given situation? That sometimes, there may not be cooperation within that hour, or even the rest of that day? And that it may not be a matter of a child who just doesn't want to leave somewhere, but a child that not only does not want to leave, but is doing something unsafe, or is acting unacceptably and unsafely in a public place?


Quoting myself because I have finally read the whole thread and see how some of you are saying it works in practice. I think I kind of get it, and I think in practice, many of us may not be all that different in our approach, in many common situations.

I guess ultimately I do see myself as the leader in the family unit (well, DH and I together when he is around) and that is the subtle difference. I do think a CL type of approach will evolve more naturally in our family as the children grow. I just feel that there are times that my child needs more help in understanding personal boundaries, than the "talking it out to find a mutually acceptable solution" approach can accomplish.


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

RE: Carrying a screaming child out of a restaurant.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I would too. No one in there consented to having a screaming meal...

Here's where you sound like you are contridicting yourself. Because if you are carrying your child out of a restaurant, how is this not exerting your power and authority over his little body and his will???

Faith


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
I do not think of consensual living as being permissive. When I think of a permissive parent a few things come to mind. A parent who doesn't involve theirselves in what their children do, doesn't guide them through life. A parent who doesn't explain to their children when their behavior is negatively affecting them or someone else. A parent who is not comfortable expressing their own boundaries and often feels walked all over because of it. A parent who alternates between being a doormat and a very resentful, angry person. Any and all of these things come to mind when I think of permissiveness.

Consensual living on the other hand brings to mind a parent who is comfortable expressing their boundaries, limits, feelings, wants, and needs and exploring other individuals' too. A parent who will guide their children through social and community involvment. A parent who will tell their children when their behavior is negatively affecting themselves, someone else, or property. A parent who guides and explores with their children this world, its peoples, animals, plants, etc. discussing interdependence as well as independence. And a parent who is as willing to look at theirselves and their behavior and how it affects others and learn. A parent who is comfortable telling their children when they don't feel respected and comfortable hearing their children express when they don't feel respected too. A parent who trusts and expects their children to care about their feelings, wants, and needs. I know there is quite a bit more that comes to mind for me, but I'll leave it for now.

I just don't get the comparison of consensual and permissive. They wouldn't go hand in hand.


Really well said!!


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
RE: Carrying a screaming child out of a restaurant.

Here's where you sound like you are contridicting yourself. Because if you are carrying your child out of a restaurant, how is this not exerting your power and authority over his little body and his will???

Faith

Maybe it helps to make the distiction that if DC is screaming _because_ I'm carrying him out of the restauant, and staying in the restaurant to have the conversation I mentioned in a PP would be preferable, then no, I would not carry him out.

I addressed a quote that said, "I _*would*_ carry and screaming child..." And I would too - but not in every case.

The situation I was refering to before was that he was screaming no matter what - whether he was in or out of the restaurant - then I would take him to a safe place and talk there. The action of carrying him is not causing the screaming.

If my actions are inflicting the scream - I stop. Screaming stops. No reason to leave restaurant. Just regroup there.

It hasn't happened to me, but I suppose that if DS were screaming about leaving and I stopped, but the screaming didn't stop, I would point out that I really want to talk about what's bothering him - but let's go outside where we can focus, and so that everyone in here can eat in quiet...

I have to say, all in all, that DS rarely screams. Of course there is some, but usually he just talks to me and explains what he wants or needs. The vast majority of restarant screaming we've really had has been after a big fall or bump. But in those cases he's relieved to go outside, so I guess they don't really apply to this as well...

I hope that clarifies. I'm still wiping sleep gunk from my eyes and I'm really tired. I hope this makes more sense...


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
Well, the intentionally not getting it seems to be a two way street.

Insinuating that the rest of us are imposing our wills on our children to create an adversarial relationships, intentionally getting into power struggles where you are both frustrated, angry, and upset (glad you'll be able to avoid all power struggles, BTW), and relying solely on "putting our feet down" is either naive or rude, especially after having read a few of the posts on this board.

Thank you for posting this, Natensarah.

I gave examples of _extremes_ on either end, and that's not the same as pinpointing what any one particular person is doing here. In fact, I made it clear that 1) when we describe what we do at home many of us are actually doing the same thing, regardless of what we call ourselves, and 2) I also said I don't know what kind of parents some people actually are at home. So if the shoe doesn't fit, why wear it? Just for the sake of argument? Whatever the case, the people here who aknowledge that they are "permissive or lax parents" have usually come here asking for help, rather than to debate ideas. You have to feel compassion for anyone who feels walked upon at home. Saying you're a door mat is not the same as saying you think your child, and everyone else in your home, should get what they want because it's a part of your philosophy.

All the same NS, you've pretty much said all there has to be said about how some people just want to insunuate that the rest of us who aren't doing CL are "...imposing our wills on our children to create an adversarial relationships, intentionally getting into power struggles..." I no longer think everyone wants to have a genuine discussion about the needs of children, but rather that some just prefer to name-call and lable. *Rather than agree about areas of consensus, they prefer to yuck it up over dissensions that practically don't even exist.* And then the things some people choose to dissent over! It's laughable. If I say I don't buy candy for my house because I want my child to grow up with a taste for healthy and nutritious foods, then some will actually say I'm unfairly exerting my authority, power and will over a toddler! Whatever......

My preference is to do what works for/with my daughter each and every day, not to put myself under some "umbrella" or "tent." And I could not care less about having comaraderie with people I've never seen, or appearing to ascribe to any one person's book or philosophy.

Faith


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IncaMama*
so...i have 2 kids. one is 3.5 and the other is 7.5mos. does that mean that my opinion should have more sway because i have a child older than yours?

I never said anybody's opinion had more sway because they have older children. Some people with no children at all have better insight into parenting than people with a gaggle of kids. What I _did_ say was that many of us find our children easy to work with at 14 months. And the reason I said "many" is because some people find their children to be bears to work with at 14 months. My daughter is only 5 months older than CC's. In some cases, 5 months actually makes very little difference at all. (However, in my case my 19 month old is on par with many 2 year olds.) But if anyone wants to take my comments to mean that CC's point of view on CL has little validity simply because she doesn't have older kids, that's pretty simplistic, but so be it.

As for the rest of your post, I'll just leave it be.

Faith


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
some people just want to insunuate that the rest of us who aren't doing CL are "...imposing our wills on our children to create an adversarial relationships, intentionally getting into power struggles..."

and some people want to insinuate that those of us who practice CL are either a) trying to add a useless label to the kind of parenting more accurately referred to as PD or GD in an attempt to make us feel superior or b) letting our children make every decision for us, including those that would put their safety in jeopardy.

Quote:

My preference is to do what works for/with my daughter each and every day, not to put myself under some "umbrella" or "tent." And I could not care less about having comaraderie with people I've never seen, or appearing to ascribe to any one person's book or philosophy.
that is my preference as well...and i suppose it's pretty clear in life, in general, who doesn't care much about feeling a false sense of camaraderie with others. i'm often in that group myself. i don't do things because someone else told me to, or because someone wrote a book about it. in fact, i've never read a book about consensual living. i'm not even sure what books include that. it's just something that my own personal philosophy shows me is the right path for my family.


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Maybe it helps to make the distiction that if DC is screaming _because_ I'm carrying him out of the restauant, and staying in the restaurant to have the conversation I mentioned in a PP would be preferable, then no, I would not carry him out.

I addressed a quote that said, "I _*would*_ carry and screaming child..." And I would to - but not in every case.

The situation I was refering to before was that he was screaming no matter what - whether he was in or out of the restaurant - then I would take him to a safe place and talk there. The action of carrying him is not causing the screaming.

If my actions are inflicting the scream - I stop. Screaming stops. No reason to leave restaurant. Just regroup there.

It hasn't happened to me, but I suppose that if DS were screaming about leaving and I stopped, but the screaming didn't stop, I would point out that I really want to talk about what's bothering him - but let's go outside where we can focus, and so that everyone in here can eat in quiet...

I have to say, all in all, that DS rarely screams. Of course there is some, but usually he just talks to me and explains what he wants or needs. The vast majority of restarant screaming we've really had has been after a big fall or bump. But in those cases he's relieved to go outside, so I guess they don't really apply to this as well...

I hope that clarifies. I'm still wiping sleep gunk from my eyes and I'm really tired. I hope this makes more sense...

Frankly, I wasn't really referring to what was causing the screaming at all. Children scream in restaurants for a variety of reasons. I'm sure most reasons for screaming are justifiable to the child, but still-- most thoughtful adults carry screaming children out of restaurants so that the _other_ patrons don't have to be disturbed, regardless of what the child is thinking or experiencing at the time.

I think the act of carrying your child out of a restaurant because he's screaming is exerting your will, power, authority-- whatever you'd call it, over your child. I've read your post twice, and I'm not sure what to make of it. But I'll just leave it with the understanding that _you've said you'd carry a screaming child out of a restaurant_, and skip getting tangled up in the minutiae of it all. After all, if I was in a restaurant, and your child was screaming at the next table, I wouldn't really care why you were carrying him out, and how consensual your behavior was or wasn't. I'd just be thankful you'd be sparing me the annoyance. And the fact that you agree you'd carry your screaming child out of a restaurant, is why I say many of us are doing the same thing in practice, regardless of how one wants to label the ideas behind the actions.

Faith


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IncaMama*
and some people want to insinuate that those of us who practice CL are either a) trying to add a useless label to the kind of parenting more accurately referred to as PD or GD in an attempt to make us feel superior or b) letting our children make every decision for us, including those that would put their safety in jeopardy....

Uhhhhh, if the shoe fits, then wear it already. Otherwise, it's for you to debate with somebody else what you want to lable yourself, useless, CL, PD, or GD-- it's not for me to get into what you're more "accurately referred to."







: There are a few others who seem more interested in those lables. I've already said I couldn't care less because I'm fine with being called "mommy."

Please consider youself having had the last word with me, okay?

Faith


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
Frankly, I wasn't really referring to what was causing the screaming at all. Children scream in restaurants for a variety of reasons. I'm sure most reasons for screaming are justifiable to the child, but still-- most thoughtful adults carry screaming children out of restaurants so that the _other_ patrons don't have to be disturbed, regardless of what the child is thinking or experiencing at the time.

I think the act of carrying your child out of a restaurant because he's screaming is exerting your will, power, authority-- whatever you'd call it, over your child. I've read your post twice, and I'm not sure what to make of it. But I'll just leave it with the understanding that _you've said you'd carry a screaming child out of a restaurant_, and skip getting tangled up in the minutiae of it all. After all, if I was in a restaurant, and your child was screaming at the next table, I wouldn't really care why you were carrying him out, and how consensual your behavior was or wasn't. I'd just be thankful you'd be sparing me the annoyance. And the fact that you agree you'd carry your screaming child out of a restaurant, is why I say many of us are doing the same thing in practice, regardless of how one wants to label the ideas behind the actions.

Faith

Uh, wow. Thanks for taking me so seriously.

I won't bother you with all that minutiae again, but let's just say that it's the difference between thinking about all that minutiae and not that is the line for me.

And to imply that I don't consider those around me seems like willfully not understanding to me. I made that one pretty clear.

And BTW, though I used to dine at $400/meal per couple restaurants, I stick to local cafes and Crackel Barrel now (oh, and Ikea!), so that there is fast access to the door, and DS is comfortable. If he screams at a table next to you, it won't last more than 10 seconds - whether I take him out or not.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

It seems that you are saying (in a dismissive way, BTW) that we are all doing the same thing but calling it something else, but then also that you don't understand the point of entire posts.










Could it be that there _is_ a difference in our parenting, but that you arent' seeing it?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Okay for those who completely reject that you see your children as *selfish* or bratty* or whatever (you don't neccessarily have to use those exact words), how do you feel? I mean, when your child is expressing an opinion or preference that you won't budge on, I imagine you have to approach it with a different mindset than people who practice consensual living -- so what is that mindset?

We look at issues that arise like this: there is a need that is unmet. There is a voice that is not being heard, there is something I am not understanding about why something is so important to her, there is a valid reason why she doesn't want to do __ or does want to do ___ .. so we work on it until a solution can be reached.

Are you seriously saying that you feel that way, you think "johnny has a need that I am not meeting but I am not going to explore that"?

That is why I said there has to be a different line of thinking. Okay, perhaps you don't think of your children as *bratty* and that was a bad choice of words, but I just can't imagine thinking "wow, johnny's feelings are as valid as mine and there is a reason he clearly doesn't want to do ___" ... then _still_ imposing my will, and not feeling any guilt for it (as many posters have said they don't feel badly putting their foot down or whatever).

Okay, so you don't see them as bratty, but it leads me to believe _some_ part of you feels their wants or needs in certain situations aren't as valid or important as yours, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:

I used to dine at $400/meal per couple restaurants
Wow. Attempting to establish psychological dominance by dropping completely irrelevant and non-sequitur hints about one's personal wealth sounds really desperate.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel*
Wow. Attempting to establish psychological dominance by dropping completely irrelevant and non-sequiture hints about one's personal wealth sounds really desperate.

Wow. Attributing deeper meaning to a semi-humorous way to make a point (trading 400 a meal for cracker barrel, it's called *stark comparison*) seems to be attempting the same thing.

I got from it that she is not the type to take small children to fancy restaurants and expect them to "behave" the whole time, that she has modified certain things in the spirit of family harmony and to be considerate of others around her (eating).


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel*
Wow. Attempting to establish psychological dominance by dropping completely irrelevant and non-sequitur hints about one's personal wealth sounds really desperate.

Or explaining that I gave up something I like for the sake of those around me...

I believe I was sneakily accused of not caring about fellow restaurant patrons.

Thanks for the snark, though, rude and uncalled for though it was.









.


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamachandi*
I would love to know what books your reading/have read on gd. I have a 12 year old and am dealing with issues that didn't come up when she was younger...and am having trouble dealing with it...suggestions?? thanks! love your posts!

Thanks for the compliment! No I actually haven't read any GD books, like Aja mentioned we had a lot of time to theorize, practice, and deconstruct everything we were going to do once we finally had kids. 5 years (of actively trying) is a long time to do soul searching and "parent planning" so we just started out way "ahead."

The reason why I am so passionate about consentual living and gentle discipline is because a consentual living attitude has allowed me to be very successful in life. Not just in dealing with children specifically, but in dealing with all people.

I really started to realize in high school that my "I don't bother them and they don't bother me attitude was not the best way to get what I wanted out of life." That is when I consciously tried to create a new life strategy (sounds epic right







). I realized that the best way to get what you want is to set things up so that:

1) Your expectations do not exceed the realm of realistic possibility
2) Your desires would not be harmful to others (preferably look for the benefit for others)

Now comes the hard part. If you truly believe a solution to a problem is mutually beneficial then you should be able to convince the other party or parties that it is true. If you can't convince yourself that it is the best thing to do, then you will probably not convince someone else. "It just is", "I said so", etc does not convince toddlers, kids, teenagers or adults.

Age and skill appropriate considerations have to be made. I am a tech geek, so I have had a lot of practice convincing people of things they don't understand and choosing my battles, both in what to argue and in what to try to explain.

When you are able to come to a mutual agreement we all win. People love to win. I don't care if you are meek, giving, and self-sacrificing or a power hungry control freak... If you feel like you "won" you will be happier. So obviously the way to succeed would be to set up situations so that as many people can win as possible. The ones you need the most effort, most consensus, and the most good will from should be the first winners.

Sometimes a hyper focused realization in how to foster good will in people can translate to an inapropriate power level. I have to admit that you can use a CL attitude to manipulate people if you need/want to. In high school I never read a single assigned reading except "Crime and Punnishment" and everything by Shakespear. I also "aced" every class (ended up with very high acedemic marks and a full acedemic college scholorship). I succeed in school through manipulation. I was successful at manipulation because the teachers "won" in every situation. Public school Teachers are generally hungry for a passionate student and I knew that. I made sure they saw passion, and in return they could not (or did not) see past my short cuts. I was able to swim through high school and do what I wanted to do: Learn about computers and learn social skills (not clique skills, but real social skills). I still am on the fence about how wrong this manipulation was. All I know is that we all got what we wanted. Did I cheat myself? Did I cheat them? All I know is this education in communication and human nature was far more valuable than anything they were trying to teach me.

My intense attitude of "Lets make everybody win" has really allowed me to succeed in the workplace with basically the same concept. Skills are great. Communication allows you to use your skills to their greatest potential. I can out talk, out teach, and out "benefit" most of the computer programmers I know, even the ones that are better programmers than I am. With managers, executives, clients, and shareholders the right person for the job is not the one that can do the job the best. It is the one that will give you the most "wins". It may not be fair, it may seem illogical, but it is true.

I know some of the "social engeneering" I have done could be considered unethical manipulation by some. I agree. But I am trying to get better. It is hard to not abuse a power, especially as a disempowered teenager. It is especially easy to use a manipulation tactic that lets everyone feel like they won. It feels good to give people what they want all the time.

Another flaw with my life philosophy is that I get very frustrated when somebody has to lose, and often I will choose myself when someone has to lose. But even then I am fulfiling my own need to let others win so it is not a total loss, but I have a very hard time deciding when it is ok to let someone else lose.

Fortunatly chidren's wants and needs are usually pretty compatible with "everyone wins." They are trying to learn how to deal with life. Show them by example, work with them to let everyone win and they will start to come up with "everybody wins" solutions very soon. We all live by bargaining and children should be no exception.

Here is a very common exchange:
"You need to clean your room"
"Why"

I think this is a valid question. In this situation I definatly have a strong opinion. The child's question is the pinnacle of valid. The parent has made what seems like a reasonable request. I, however, don't feel it is reasonable. In this situation the parent is contradicting themselves in philosophy. "YOUR" room... if you are going to set up a space and assign ownership to a child then you shouldn't make demands based on your own personal preference. If you need to control the "mess" in that room then it is not your child's room. I am a slob. I was allowed (except for some few and far between unreasonable outbursts) to keep my room however I wanted to when I was living with my parents. I actually try to keep the house fairly clean (sometimes it gets out of hand) but I do it because I want MY space clean. Not because I am required to by some higher power. You can educate your child as to why you think a clean room is better. You can make health requirements (like you can't have food or food trash or whatever) in there, but to require a child to keep their space a certain way transforms it from their space to your space. Of course the rules can be a little different for a younger child or if you are willing to do the cleaning (after all you are the one who wants it clean)

I guess from that example I am trying to say don't just pick your battles, but REALLY pick your battles. If you can't think of a way for everyone to win than is the request really reasonable?

Unfortunatly the experience I have with 12 year olds is just observing myself and my brother, and a few weeks here and there being in charge of the most well-adjusted 12 year old to ever live (My SIL who is currently 13). But I have lots of experience with people in the office that act like 12 year olds









Teenagers (you are almost there) have it worse than any other social group in my opinion. They are expected to act like adults, they try to act like adults, they are often treated worse than prisoners by adults, they have no real civil rights, they are expected to have civil responsibility. All of this and they constantly have whacked out hormones coursing through their veins. It SUCKS being a teenager. I think it is important to empathize with their pain. Many adults I have dealt with see a teenager's life as a life of ease and are actually jealous and have animosity for teenagers who hate their lives. Adults see someone who does not appreciate what they have. Teenagers rightfully see someone who does not understand their pain.

--- Sorry for the long post I bet you didn't expect me to write a book rather than listing ones I had read


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

I will ask that we each do our best to maintain a respectful environment, despite any perceived differences









Thanks!


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
After all, if I was in a restaurant, and your child was screaming at the next table, I wouldn't really care why you were carrying him out, and how consensual your behavior was or wasn't. I'd just be thankful you'd be sparing me the annoyance.

Ok. But this is a parenting discussion board not a restaurant go-ers discussion board.

Quote:

And the fact that you agree you'd carry your screaming child out of a restaurant, is why I say many of us are doing the same thing in practice, regardless of how one wants to label the ideas behind the actions.
It is about more than just removing the child from the restaurant. That action could seem _very_ different to the child depending on how you do it and your reasoning behind it.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

ITA, sunnysideup.

This is what I said back in post #73:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Well, it's important to remember that intent goes a long way. Sometimes similar actions or words can be very different in different contexts and with different intentions...

I went on the explain what I meant further (though not as well as others have), but now I'm hearing that some don't care to be bothered with the distictions, and claim that we are just the same...


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
Uhhhhh, if the shoe fits, then wear it already. Otherwise, it's for you to debate with somebody else what you want to lable yourself, useless, CL, PD, or GD-- it's not for me to get into what you're more "accurately referred to."







: There are a few others who seem more interested in those lables. I've already said I couldn't care less because I'm fine with being called "mommy."


what shoe am i not wearing? i've already stated multiple times that i see a difference between consensual living and positive discipline and other similar labels. i'm wearing the shoe that fits me. your contention throughout this entire thread is that there is no difference, and it's all just semantics and minutiae. from what i have read, you are the one most interested in the label thread of the debate, which is why i addressed it to you. and while you say now that you're fine being called "mommy" (as are most of the rest of us, i'd imagine...though some probably prefer "mama"), the rest of your posts in this thread suggest otherwise.

Quote:


Please consider youself having had the last word with me, okay?
having the "last word" is of very little importance to me. i'd rather us understand each other.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Okay for those who completely reject that you see your children as *selfish* or bratty* or whatever (you don't neccessarily have to use those exact words), how do you feel? I mean, when your child is expressing an opinion or preference that you won't budge on, I imagine you have to approach it with a different mindset than people who practice consensual living -- so what is that mindset?

We look at issues that arise like this: there is a need that is unmet. There is a voice that is not being heard, there is something I am not understanding about why something is so important to her, there is a valid reason why she doesn't want to do __ or does want to do ___ .. so we work on it until a solution can be reached.

Are you seriously saying that you feel that way, you think "johnny has a need that I am not meeting but I am not going to explore that"?

That is why I said there has to be a different line of thinking. Okay, perhaps you don't think of your children as *bratty* and that was a bad choice of words, but I just can't imagine thinking "wow, johnny's feelings are as valid as mine and there is a reason he clearly doesn't want to do ___" ... then _still_ imposing my will, and not feeling any guilt for it (as many posters have said they don't feel badly putting their foot down or whatever).

Okay, so you don't see them as bratty, but it leads me to believe _some_ part of you feels their wants or needs in certain situations aren't as valid or important as yours, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

OK, I'll take a shot at this one.

I don't see my child as bratty or selfish or bad or whatever if he doesn't want to do something. He has every right to feel however he wants to about something. I don't see his opinions or feelings as less valid or important than mine.

What I do see (and this is where the great divide between us is, I think...) is that I believe that he doesn't have the intellectual capability, reasoning ability, or ability to see "the big picture" in situations, simply because he is 2-1/2. I live with him every day (and I believe that children grow into reasoning and negotiating and empathy and impulse control and what have you, that is it something that develops and grows with the help of a parent guiding them) and I know he's not able to see that [for example:] The momentary reason for not wanting to go indside when I want to go inside to cook dinner will be completely forgotten 2 minutes later when I have him set up at the kitchen sink playing in soap bubbles. If I try to talk to him about it, he gets upset and has a meltdown - I've learned this the hard way. So, I say it's time to go inside, tell him why, wait a minute for him to follow me, and if he doesn't I go gently take his hand and walk with him into the house, telling him while we walk that I'll get him bubbles and won't that be fun? And by the time we get to the bubbles, he's forgotten that he didn't want to come in in the first place. SO it's not that his desire to stay outside at that moment in time is less valid or important than my desire to go inside, I think they are equal, because they are our feelings. BUT, HE doesn't see it that way. He doesn't have the skills to be able to see the reasons why it's important for me to get dinner started, and how that will affect the rest of the evening...and frankly, at 2-1/2 I don't think he should have to realize this or care about it, either. As I said above, I try from time to time to discuss more with him, but he really doesn't respond well to it, it's too much information for him and he suts down and melts down. I've learned that much about him as a person, and I feel I need to respect that about him.

So, I don't de-value my child's feelings or thoughts or opinions...but I also do not believe that he is able to see "all the information" and use it rationally - as I said, I live with him, and see him do some pretty wacky stuff. And I don't believe that if I would have had him make all his decisions from the very beginning that he'd be different. Again, this is where I think the rub is for dividing us here on the board. I don't see children at birth as being able to make all decisions about their lives - I see them as growing into it - there is no set age for me, it's a process that depends on each individual child, and it's up to the parent to help the child get there as they grow - if you believe that children are born with the inherent ability to always make rational decisions, then that's where the divide is. I'm not saying I think my children are "lesser" because I don't think they are capable of complex reasoning from the get go, I don't think they're dumb or not valuable or unworthy. AND, I also do not believe that respect and coersion (for lack of a better way to put it) are mutually exclusive, with a child, _because_ I believe they grow into their ability to reason. I respect my children for who I know they are and where I beleive they are at intellectually, mentally, emotionally, and socially at any given age/stage...but I do not beleive they have all the intellectual, mental, emotional, and social abilities that I have as an adult.

I love my child(ren) desperately, and firmly believe they deserve to be valued, validated, and accepted for who they are and what they think and feel. But I don't think that necessarily means they are my equal in all ways. They are different than I am; not lesser, not more, not equal, but different.

Does that help? I wonder what kind of reaction the above is going to get me.














:


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs*
OK, I'll take a shot at this one.

I don't see my child as bratty or selfish or bad or whatever if he doesn't want to do something. He has every right to feel however he wants to about something. I don't see his opinions or feelings as less valid or important than mine.

What I do see (and this is where the great divide between us is, I think...) is that I believe that he doesn't have the intellectual capability, reasoning ability, or ability to see "the big picture" in situations, simply because he is 2-1/2. I live with him every day (and I believe that children grow into reasoning and negotiating and empathy and impulse control and what have you, that is it something that develops and grows with the help of a parent guiding them) and I know he's not able to see that [for example:] The momentary reason for not wanting to go indside when I want to go inside to cook dinner will be completely forgotten 2 minutes later when I have him set up at the kitchen sink playing in soap bubbles. If I try to talk to him about it, he gets upset and has a meltdown - I've learned this the hard way. So, I say it's time to go inside, tell him why, wait a minute for him to follow me, and if he doesn't I go gently take his hand and walk with him into the house, telling him while we walk that I'll get him bubbles and won't that be fun? And by the time we get to the bubbles, he's forgotten that he didn't want to come in in the first place. SO it's not that his desire to stay outside at that moment in time is less valid or important than my desire to go inside, I think they are equal, because they are our feelings. BUT, HE doesn't see it that way. He doesn't have the skills to be able to see the reasons why it's important for me to get dinner started, and how that will affect the rest of the evening...and frankly, at 2-1/2 I don't think he should have to realize this or care about it, either. As I said above, I try from time to time to discuss more with him, but he really doesn't respond well to it, it's too much information for him and he suts down and melts down. I've learned that much about him as a person, and I feel I need to respect that about him.

So, I don't de-value my child's feelings or thoughts or opinions...but I also do not believe that he is able to see "all the information" and use it rationally - as I said, I live with him, and see him do some pretty wacky stuff. And I don't believe that if I would have had him make all his decisions from the very beginning that he'd be different. Again, this is where I think the rub is for dividing us here on the board. I don't see children at birth as being able to make all decisions about their lives - I see them as growing into it - there is no set age for me, it's a process that depends on each individual child, and it's up to the parent to help the child get there as they grow - if you believe that children are born with the inherent ability to always make rational decisions, then that's where the divide is. I'm not saying I think my children are "lesser" because I don't think they are capable of complex reasoning from the get go, I don't think they're dumb or not valuable or unworthy. AND, I also do not believe that respect and coersion (for lack of a better way to put it) are mutually exclusive, with a child, _because_ I believe they grow into their ability to reason. I respect my children for who I know they are and where I beleive they are at intellectually, mentally, emotionally, and socially at any given age/stage...but I do not beleive they have all the intellectual, mental, emotional, and social abilities that I have as an adult.

Does that help? I wonder what kind of reaction the above is going to get me.














:

Once again The4OfUs gets it right, IMO. It is respectful of the child to respect his/her level of development. The ability to find consensus and consider others' needs besides one's own develops gradually. I just could not agree more with your post.


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*

We look at issues that arise like this: there is a need that is unmet. There is a voice that is not being heard, there is something I am not understanding about why something is so important to her, there is a valid reason why she doesn't want to do __ or does want to do ___ .. so we work on it until a solution can be reached.


I don't know who "we" is--I am assuming you mean you, yourself, as an individual parent. After all, that is what we are talking about here in the GD forum. I don't ever want to assume that something you say represents _every other single person who calls themselves CL_. And while I have every belief that you intend to parent your child this way throughout her life, at this point, wouldn't you agree, that it is mainly _theory_ at this point in her life? I think that is what some other pp are getting at.

That said, your quote above, is *exactly* like I view things. And I consider that what I do is GD or perhaps closer to what some would call PD or UP. What I am saying is, that sometimes, working on it together til a solution can be reached is *impossible* unless part of the solution can include *in select circumstances, when no other alternative seems viable* bodily imposing a parent's will on the child, in cases of safety, consideration for other's persons and personal property, and other's physical needs.

I know other posters have said that CL is not TCS. But really, what is the difference to those of you who say they are CL? Do you agree with TCS that children at all stages are fully rational and can fully comprehend the consequences of every one of their actions? If not, then how can you say that a mutually agreeable solution can always be reached? I understand that 98% of the time, it can, and I agree with much of what you say there. What I (and I think others) are saying, and believe, is that sometimes, with young children in particular, it can't.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
It is respectful of the child to respect his/her level of development.

Do you think that the rest of us don't respect our children's development?

No sarcasm... I really wonder about this.

.


----------



## melissel (Jun 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs*
So, I say it's time to go inside, tell him why, wait a minute for him to follow me, and if he doesn't I go gently take his hand and walk with him into the house, telling him while we walk that I'll get him bubbles and won't that be fun? And by the time we get to the bubbles, he's forgotten that he didn't want to come in in the first place.

I don't know, I'm really just learning about all this, but to me, this seems a good example of accomplishing CL with a child of this age, no? Had your DS, when you tried to gently lead him inside, pulled away and run to the other side of the yard to pick weeds, and then you went and picked him up bodily to carry him in while he cried and tried to get down, then I would say that was coercion. But I don't feel like you would have exerted your will over him, only that you gently guided him with the promise of a new adventure inside, which he was amenable to because he went with you.

Am I wrong in my understanding? And this is not to say I disagree with you on your assessment of working with a child's age level, only that in many cases I think the debaters here are talking about doing things in the same manner, yet under the guise of different labels.

(going back to my seat now








)


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slightly crunchy*
And while I have every belief that you intend to parent your child this way throughout her life, at this point, wouldn't you agree, that it is mainly theory at this point in her life? I think that is what some other pp are getting at.

I wish I had more time to address this... Maybe I'll revisit my post later to expound.

It's a dedication to the ideals. Would you believe for a second that your non-spanking ideals may fade away at some point when things get more difficult than they are now?

Likewise, those of us who hold CL ideals would not resort to non-consensual interactions either, at any age. So the child's age is irrelevant to this, as much as your child's age is irrelevant to a discussion about spanking.

ETA: OK, just because I know _someone_ is going to go here... No I am *not* equating non-CL and hitting. Please get that right out of your minds...


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Do you think that the rest of us don't?

No sarcasm... I really wonder about this.

Well, no, I wouldn't put it that way, at all. And let me be clear that I respect and have learned from the proponents of consensual living, and I think it is a very useful framework for interactions with people of all ages. However, I do not think it is an *adequate* framework for parenting young children. Until a child is fully communicative, it is up to the parent to discern the child's needs. The immature child (before a certain point that will of course vary from child to child) simply cannot be fully cognizant and empathetic to the parent's need. So, for me, it is more respectful of the child to acknowledge that and work with it rather than working from the assumption that the child can be a full decision-making partner in finding mutually agreeable solutions.

There are times when the only solution agreeable to the child will require the parent to set aside their needs. That is only natural, but I see a real imbalance in "consensual living" with the young child. The parent is the one who is able to bend and reconsider their wants and needs in order to accommodate the child. The child does not choose to alter their desires in order to accommodate the parent, even when doing so will ultimately benefit them. So a totally CL paradigm is very child-directed by necessity, and I don't think that is healthy. However the idea of trying to find mutually agreeable solutions whenever possible is very powerful and has been a real paradigm shift for me. So I am not anti-CL at all. I just think that it is not an adequate framework for parenting and that taken to an extreme it results in a way of life that I do not find...agreeable!









But I have found that I am unable to express myself very precisely on this issue because I am still sorting out my thoughts and, like CC, I have a 14-month-old, so yes, this is all mainly theoretical. I do feel like I need to add that disclaimer. IMO parenting a baby is very different from parenting a toddler is very different from parenting a school-age child, etc. Not to say that I can't have an opinion on parenting a school-age child but my understanding will necessarily be of a different sort than that of someone who is going through the actual parenting at this time. Kind of like how I was sure I knew every contingency that could happen during labor and birth and how to deal with that but when I actually went through it it was much different than I expected and I had different ideas about it afterwards than I did going in. Not that my ideas weren't valid beforehand, but they came from a different place and after giving birth I realized why some people are not really interested in hearing about labor and birth from a woman pregnant for the first time! So that experience humbled me and I do try to give a disclaimer when I discuss my opinion on things that I have not yet had personal BTDT experience with. Although I would hope my opinion is still valued, it may be valued in a different way.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Well, yes, I agree that we all participate in familiy to our capacities.

But I don't see how that is different in any family, CL or not - well, with the exception of parents who neglect and such. I think the above statement applies to the average MDCer.

And furthermore, as children grow and their capacities deepen, they become more invloved in family interchanges. But I don't really foresee that my participation will lessen as DS's grows - I surmise that we will all grow more intimate and connected.

For now, I listen to what he has to tell me, and he carves the niche for himself in our family that he likes...

I guess I just don't see why the nature of families to grow and change over time, means that CL is out of the question. To me, CL is all about embrasing those changes, and _honoring each stage along the way._

Sorry, this is a totally distracted ramble... I'm not sure if it makes sense. I'm doing about 4 things at once...


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*

It's a dedication to the ideals.

This is another problem I have with the consensual living framework. It is very idealistic and I sense a real rigidity in some people's adherence to the ideal of CL and an inability to admit that it may not be the best way to look at every situation. It seems as if some think that admitting this would reduce the power of the consensual living paradigm. I truly believe that no one philosophy or system is adequate to determine our responses to every contingency in life, or a subset of life such as parenting, but that that does not mean that a given philosophy is not valuable or life-changing. I have also found that dedicating myself to ideals, no matter how beautiful, inevitably results in my rejecting out of hand solutions that are unorthodox, even if they could ultimately be reconciled with my ideals. It is the fervor itself, not the ideals, that causes this tunnel vision.

Of course I am only speaking for myself, but I have observed that this is a pretty common phenomenon with people who are very dedicated to a cause or an ideal.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

It's funny to read that perspective!









I actually see CL as infinitely flexible, and not rigid at all...

I have a few guiding principles that I strive to live by - all of which are complementary. CL is one of them.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*

I guess I just don't see why the nature of families to grow and change over time, means that CL is out of the question. To me, CL is all about embrasing those changes.


CL is definitely very much 'in the question' for me, I just don't think it is ENOUGH or that striving for all interactions to be consensual (in the strictest sense of consensual) is always the best way. It depends on the situation. I like CL very much as a way to think about interacting with people but for me it is not the only framework out there that makes sense, and while I might describe much of my parenting as consensus-based, I don't think that is the best way to describe how I parent my very young child. 'Consensus' is an idea that requires a level of maturity that my 14-month-old just does not have.







So...mutually agreeable solutions whenever possible? Yes. Consensual living, at this point? No. Additionally, I see the parent's role somewhat differently from the CL advocates, although that does not mean I think the parent should "dominate" the child.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I don't know if I'm gonna be able to articulate this idea well, so forgive me if it's foggy...

But for me I can't understand a _principle_ as a sometimes thing... Indeed I may fall short or fail, but the principle doesn't really go anywhere. It's not rigidity that makes many of us hold fast to the ideal of treating others in this way, it's that we don't agree that principle fades in and out. It's just always there.

Other principles I strive for (incomplete list) that I _often_ fall short in:

seeking truth... see my senior title and this article
leaving the planet healthier than I found it, aka "treading lightly"
actively choosing peace (I've ranted about pacifism here on occasion)
spiritual evolution
compassion for all life
living in harmony with the ecosystem of which I am a part - natural eating and living


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
It's funny to read that perspective!









I actually see CL as infinitely flexible, and not rigid at all...

Actually, I thought it was, too. But as I have learned more and seen how CL proponents defend CL and describe their interactions with their children, I no longer feel that it is *necessarily* flexible. I mean, it's flexible in a certain way...in that everything is open to reconsideration when it comes to getting everyone's needs met. And this is a very refreshing way to look at life. However, it depends on the goals you have for yourself and also for the individual circumstances of your family, but it is not always best (again just IMO!) to operate with that level of flexibility. The rigidity, to me, is in the idea that it is desirable and possible to negotiate EVERYTHING. I think it is disingenuous not to admit that for all practical purposes, most people have things in their lives that are not at all negotiable or that are not at all easy to negotiate, and that there are limits to the CL paradigm.

Ah, I am not saying exactly what I want to say, I can't seem to find the words, and now I have to go.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *melissel*
Had your DS, when you tried to gently lead him inside, pulled away and run to the other side of the yard to pick weeds, and then you went and picked him up bodily to carry him in while he cried and tried to get down, then I would say that was coercion. But I don't feel like you would have exerted your will over him, only that you gently guided him with the promise of a new adventure inside, which he was amenable to because he went with you.

(going back to my seat now







)

You know what? You're right. The above is what happens about 90% of the time at our house....it's pretty darn consensual at our house when I think about our daily interactions. But OK, on a "bad" day when he starts to pull away from me and tries to run to the other end of the yard:

I go to him, get down on his level, and say again that we need to go inside because it's time for me to start dinner, that daddy will be home soon and we want to have time to play after dinner and before bed when we have so much fun together, and that we'll have fun in the sink inside while I cook dinner. And if he still tries to run away, then...Yes. I do pick him up and go into the house. There. I've admitted it - I'm not always a consensual parent, and that's OK with me.







: But, it's because of all of the reasons in my other post about him not being able to see the big picture, etc. etc. If I try to talk more with him, he absolutely loses it and starts crying. It's happened before.

I don't get a thrill out of thwarting him and imposing my will...and I don't get mad because he's unhappy about having to go inside. But I also don't stay outside for an hour. It just is what it is. DH and I are not OK with dinner being delayed an hour because our family time is limited and precious as it is. And DS is unable to see the big picture, so, I pick him up.

AND.....as I said before, 2 minutes later he's completely forgotten about being outside and is squealing with joy while playing in a sink full of bubbles, making himself a bubble beard and moustache (his favorite thing to do with bubbles right now).







.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I don't know if I'm gonna be able to articulate this idea well, so forgive me if it's foggy...

But for me I can't understand a _principle_ as a sometimes thing... Indeed I may fall short or fail, but the principle doesn't really go anywhere. It's not rigidity that makes many of us hold fast to the ideal of treating others in this way, it's that we don't agree that principle fades in and out. It's just always there.

Other principles I strive for (incomplete list):

seeking truth... see my senior title
leaving the planet healthier than I found it, aka "treading lightly"
actively choosing peace (I've ranted about pacifism here on occasion)
spiritual evolution

Well, I agree with you. I am not disagreeing with the principle of striving for CL but with its application and with the way that its limitations are not acknowledged.

OK I really gotta go!!







Nice chatting with you, aira.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Actually, I thought it was, too. But as I have learned more and seen how CL proponents defend CL and describe their interactions with their children, I no longer feel that it is *necessarily* flexible. I mean, it's flexible in a certain way...in that everything is open to reconsideration when it comes to getting everyone's needs met. And this is a very refreshing way to look at life. However, it depends on the goals you have for yourself and also for the individual circumstances of your family, but it is not always best (again just IMO!) to operate with that level of flexibility. The rigidity, to me, is in the idea that it is desirable and possible to negotiate EVERYTHING. I think it is disingenuous not to admit that for all practical purposes, most people have things in their lives that are not at all negotiable or that are not at all easy to negotiate, and that there are limits to the CL paradigm.

Ah, I am not saying exactly what I want to say, I can't seem to find the words, and now I have to go.









I totally get this, and agree with it, too.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I think I get your point. But to reiterate, I think the times when negotiation fails (and it does) are due to an inability to keep seeking the solution, not that one doesn't exsist.

Now, I'm not saying that it makes us bad or failures. But that principle and human ability are not the same. Many things can prevent us from seeing that CL solution - fatigue, marital disharmony, work stress, lots of stuff. But that's our "stuff" and not a failing of the ideal.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Nice chatting with you, aira.

Back at cha!


----------



## majikfaerie (Jul 24, 2006)

After wading through 145 posts, (sheepishly admitting that I skim-read a bunch after the first few pages), I just wanted to come back to the original question:
_Is some GD philosophy *too* gentle???_
I think the answer is NO, and it seems to me, according to the majority of GD-parent responses here, is that we all agree.
GD philosophy is NOT *too* gentle.
however, I think the question was worded wrongly; perhaps what the OP meant was "is some GD philosophy *too* _permissive_"
And here, I think the answer is "yes".
Some parents take the basic idea of GD and take it over the edge to mean that they never say 'no', put all their needs in third place to their child's first and second place, and basically let their kid 'get away with murder' in order to never let them become upset or frustrated.

I used to have a friend like this. She literally never put her child down unless she asked to go down, never ever left the child out of her sight (even with the father), never let the child cry, always gave in immediately to *every* whim of the child. This woman had the kind of infinite patience with her child that makes Gandhi look like Hitler, however she turned into the opposite if she ever saw another parent who wasn't just as AP and GD as her. I have seen her 'holding it' for over an hour until her eyes were watering rather than go pee when her child didn't want to leave the park. Though my dd is 11 months older than her dd, and a totally different person, she always felt that she knew best what I should be doing with my dd.

One time she came to visit on a day that I was a bit sick and suffering badly from depression (a chronic illness I struggled with my whole life until I discovered a year ago that I'm allergic to chocolate and quitting cocoa brought about a miraculous recovery).
My dd (21 mo at the time) was over-tired, and super-fussy, and I got to a point beyond the end of my rope. there came a moment where I simply couldnt offer my breast any more, it was all I could do to just hold my dd tight and let her cry in my arms, crying myself. My friend was furious with me for not nursing my dd, she just couldnt see that in that moment, I really was unable to give what my child wanted, and I was comforting her as best as I could. She totally overlooked the fact that I was deeply in need myself.

Many times similar incedents happened (usually not as a result of my depression, but just having an over-tired crying dd) where I was okay with letting my dd cry while I hugged her and comforted her (she is like me, and gets totally irrational and hysterical when she's overtired), but this friend would be bending over backwards, offering anything and everything to get her to stop crying. She would often snatch some toy out of the hands of my child

In the end, she insulted me one too many times in this way and we are no longer friends.









children do need boundaries, but these boundaries need to be real ones, with real consequences that they can understand. Children need to have these limits explained to them and discussed with them. When the child finds these boundaries hard to stay within, we need to work with the child so that they can feel comfortable about staying within them.

Washing hands after we go to the toilet is a good example.
We always wash our hands after using the bathroom, and we find it unaceptable that our dd might not do this too. We start with lead by example, and of course washed her hands from the beginning. When she gets to a point that she doesn't want to wash her hands, we explain why we do it, and the reasons why it's not optional or up for negotiation (some other examples are up for negotiation, of course). We discuss with her about germs and disease. We listen to her desire not to wash her hands and reply thoughfully. We try to brainstorm together with her solutions whereby she can be happy about washing her hands (like; what if we buy pink soap?). And we (try to) have the patience to keep the discussion respectful and gentle until dd washes her hands by her own will.

There is always a gentle solution and GD often involves a lot of compromise.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

This may be ot, but it seems relative to me. There are reasons I don't feel comfortable with labeling myself CL. One reason is I am very comfortable labeling a set of ideas for clarification and unity of ideals purposes, yet I have issues with labeling people(myself). It seems to imply more than is there. With an ideal it is what it is, it is 100% what it is. Yet a person could not be that 100%. I realize some people can seperate that and be comfortable with it and some can not. To some the label will imply an all or nothingness. To some the label will imply a striving for. What I see when people are labeled is that it does tend to put up a barrier for some people. Does this make sense? It puts a question in my mind I guess as to how racist, homophobic, consensual, gay, etc(whatever the label is) the person is and how it fits into their individual life. I'm aware it probably lumps them together with an amazingly vast and different bevy of people. It is the individuality that can and does exist within a label that makes it hard for me to apply to a person rather than an idea. I'm not sure if anyone else has this issue with labels or if its just my own quacky thing.

ETA- Btw I'm not saying I don't, won't, can't, or refuse to use labels, just that I have issues with them. I understand their purpose and usefulness, just feel that like everything else in this world labels aren't perfect and definitely aren't perceived the same by everyone.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *majikfaerie*
I think the question was worded wrongly; perhaps what the OP meant was "is some GD philosophy *too* permissive"
And here, I think the answer is "yes".
Some parents take the basic idea of GD and take it over the edge to mean that they never say 'no', put all their needs in third place to their child's first and second place, and basically let their kid 'get away with murder' in order to never let them become upset or frustrated.

Well, yes. But most here would say that it isn't GD that you're descibing, but _No-D._

You have clarified something worth dicsussing, but it is not in any way CL. But this is the pervasive misunderstanding.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slightly crunchy*
I don't know who "we" is--I am assuming you mean you, yourself, as an individual parent. After all, that is what we are talking about here in the GD forum. I don't ever want to assume that something you say represents _every other single person who calls themselves CL_. And while I have every belief that you intend to parent your child this way throughout her life, at this point, wouldn't you agree, that it is mainly _theory_ at this point in her life? I think that is what some other pp are getting at.

just a guess, but mightn't she have been referring to herself and her husband? the parents of her child? the child that she is only raising "in theory" since she's only 14mos old at this point?







like i said to faithnj, there are many people with children older than CC's (like myself) who parent the same way. since i notice you have no signature, might i ask how old your children are that make your views on this infinitely more valid?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slightly crunchy*
That said, your quote above, is *exactly* like I view things. And I consider that what I do is GD or perhaps closer to what some would call PD or UP.

so what's your beef? that she chose a different term for her philosophy than you did? i don't get it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slightly crunchy*
in cases of safety, consideration for other's persons and personal property, and other's physical needs.

is this meaning to suggest that those of us who say we follow a consensual living philosophy don't have contingency plans for issues of safety, other persons, personal property, and physical needs? that these issues don't matter to us?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I am really becoming frustrated at the dismissal of my life philosophy due to the fact that my daughter is only 14 months old. I think it is a clever (or not so actually) way to divert the discussion towards a very "you just wait" attitude that is truthfully, annoying.

Being a proud mama, I would love to believe my child is the most intelligent, enlightened, aware, communicative being and that I am in touch with her every need and want, but honestly, that is not the case (though she is wonderful). I believe ALL children are capable of living in the manner we live, regardless of personality type. I am not suggesting certain things won't be more challenging or at times, frustrating, or that a balance of meeting everyone's needs and wants is always easy --- but to suggest that it must work for us because our daughter is *only* 14 months old or *must* be agreeable all the time, or *must* not express differences to our opinion or agenda is simply not true.

I choose, yes it is an ACTIVE choice, I CHOOSE to believe my daughter has the best of intentions and is a social being who genuinely wants to do the "right" thing. I choose to believe she has her own purpose for being in this world, and though I have been given the special gift of being one of her *guides* or *caretakers* or whatever you like -- that it is not my place to force my agenda on her because I am older and bigger and because I gave birth to her.

Do you honestly believe she never has her own opinion? That her opinion or wants never differ from mine? That she always goes along with my agenda? That we don't have our own unique struggles or situations? Is it a fair assumption to make that because she is *only* 14 months old, that when she reaches a certain arbitrary age, I am simply going to say "fuggit" and throw my whole philosophy out the window? That is a bit offensive.

Certain people seem to think that mutually agreeable solutions means a 4 hour conversation over every single choice. Sometimes the act of simply not protesting is a mutually agreeable solution. For instance if I say to my daughter, "Do you want to go to the park? Okay, let's go honey" and I begin to put her in her carseat, if she goes in happily, I don't need to have a 30 minute conversation "I see you are not protesting, I see you are okay with going, are you sure you want to go, even though you are happily getting in your carseat I want to make sure you are okay with it, are you sure you're okay because if you aren't you know, we can not go". That is ridiculous. She is happy to get in, she knows she can protest if she is not okay with it, and she knows I will honor that.

I guess I will never understand despite trying to be eternally convinced, how people can claim their parenting is exactly like our family's, that it is all semantics, it is all the same at the end of the day -- when there are fundamental differences. The fundamental difference being, it is in your toolbox to force if neccessary (after trying different ways). It is not in our toolbox to force anything --- the only exceptions (and even then it would be an absolute last resort to coerce) would be the damaging of someone else's body or property -- it is my job to protect the boundaries of others if they can't themselves (i.e. if my daughter was hitting another child etc).


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

ShaggyDaddy, once more
















Somehow your style of posting really speaks to me (I am not even mentioning that I completely agree with the spirit of it)

May be because I am a techie as well? May be because I am intimately familiar with the corporate environment you speak of? Or may be it's simply because you make sense?


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CC*
I am really becoming frustrated at the dismissal of my life philosophy due to the fact that my daughter is only 14 months old. I think it is a clever (or not so actually) way to divert the discussion towards a very "you just wait" attitude that is truthfully, annoying.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I am really becoming frustrated at the dismissal of my life philosophy due to the fact that my daughter is only 14 months old. I think it is a clever (or not so actually) way to divert the discussion towards a very "you just wait" attitude that is truthfully, annoying. .

Will it make you fell better if I say - I completely agree with your philisophy and I think I've done all the "waiting" there is - my olders DS is about to turn 19 (years that is) in a few weeks?









I just can't post "yeah dat's" after each one of your posts, LOL, and everytime I come to those discussions like this - you or Aira or Pat or IncaMama already said what I wanted to say


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

Captain crunchy:

You just wait till your child is older

(then people will say you don't remember what it is like with a babe, or that you only have 1 or only 2 etc etc)









The point I keep trying to make is that CL is how I deal with everybody in my life. I think it is terribly non-productive to try to deal with one person one way and another a different way. Of course there are considerations based on love, skill level, etc.

The fact that my child is 13 months has nothing to do with the philosophy that I have used for years to deal with people of ALL ages.









I understand where you are comming from, but you will ALWAYS run in to that opposition.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

yeah I hear ya shaggydaddy....and thanks for the kind words irinam...


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Again, I am requesting respectful conversation. There is no reason for sarcasm, snark, etc.

Please let's try to assume positive intent...that each poster to post in an effort to learn from one another and not to criticize or claim one way is "right" or "wrong" or "better" or "worse." And please let's not make this personal.

Let's remember that each of us is own family's expert. We participate on this forum to learn about Gentle Discipline and to support each other in this endeavor.

Thanks and please feel free to PM me w/any concerns.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

ShaggyDaddy makes a strong point.

In general , I hear that if I think about life and people and respect and ideals... that I can't possibly have ever experienced problems, difficulties, pain, loss, or ornery people. It feels really dismissive.

On the contrary, it's precisely _*because*_ I have dealt with so much difficulty that I've reached the conclusions about human respect that I have...

People have a tendency to make it be some reason why I just don't understand how hard life can be that I could have such naive thinking. And I must have the luxury of my ideals because I have such an easy child and life...









Oh well...


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Is no one else label deficient?







Man oh man, now I _really_ need to think about my label issues.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Hey CC, my post has been buried by a couple pages, but I did try to answer your question re: my midset....just in case you missed it.

AND, FWIW, I don't think your point of view is invalid because you have a younger child. I've never bought into the "just you wait and see" thing either.

Even though I'm not a consensual parent all the time, I still respect what you ladies (and gent, ShaggyDaddy







) are doing; we just have a differing view on certain life philosophies. BUT, I thoroughly enjoy reading all of your posts (CC, aira, MR&K, irinam, and other consensual mamas not mentioned here!) even if I don't completely agree with you.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
ShaggyDaddy makes a strong point.

In general , I hear that if I think about life and people and respect and ideals... that I can't possibly have ever experienced problems, difficulties, pain, loss, or ornery people.

On the contrary, it's precisely _*because*_ I have dealt with so much difficulty that I've reached the conclusions about human respect that I have...

People have a tendency to make it be some reason why I just don't understand how hard life can be that I could have such naive thinking.

Oh well...

So true aira.

I also wanted to touch on that in other areas of life. What if I approached other areas of life the way it has been suggested that I am able to parent like this because of my daughter's age, or personality type etc. What a life I would have if I didn't seek mutually agreeable solutions in daily interactions.

Example -- I am a strict vegetarian, nearly vegan, but uh oh, the family reuinion is a bar-b-cue! Oh no! There is meat everywhere, they have even used ham stock in the baked beans, and they are using the same grill for the steak and the corn and the potato salad has ham chunks in it and the rolls may even have been made with lard! Fuggit, I guess I should just start eating meat. No, instead, I seek a solution. I eat the things I am sure are vegan - the salad... the fruit plate... and ask about the other things. I may even go so far (if the choices are really limited) as to leave momentarily and purchase something I can eat -- or in the case of people I have close relationships with, thank them for the wonderful spread but explain I am a vegetarian (they would probably already know but for the sake of the example) and ask if they wouldn't mind me having a poke around to see if there is something I could eat. You get the picture, loads of choices.

It may seem simplified, but that is how I approach things. I approach it like there is always some solution that can be reached which will be agreeable to all involved.

Imagine a world where everyone was willing to seek mutually agreeable solutions to situations and wouldn't give up until everyone involved was satisfied with the outcome. Utopia? Probably, and I know I can't change the world, but I can be an active part of changing _my_ world, and help my daughter see there is a different way.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The4OfUs*
Hey CC, my post has been buried by a couple pages, but I did try to answer your question re: my midset....just in case you missed it.

AND, FWIW, I don't think your point of view is invalid because you have a younger child. I've never bought into the "just you wait and see" thing either.

Even though I'm not a consensual parent all the time, I still respect what you ladies (and gent, ShaggyDaddy







) are doing; we just have a differing view on certain life philosophies. BUT, I thoroughly enjoy reading all of your posts (CC, aira, MR&K, irinam, and other consensual mamas not mentioned here!) even if I don't completely agree with you.









I did see it, and I wanted you to know that even though I may not agree with everything you said, I do thank you and appreciate you being honest and very respectful in your posts.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
Is no one else label deficient?







Man oh man, now I _really_ need to think about my label issues.









You know, I am not too big on labels either and in general I try not to label myself or others but sometimes I think it is an easier/quicker/ way to describe a philosophy, although I agree that explaining an individual point of view is much more preferred.

For instance, telling people I am *nearly vegan* and letting them ask what exactly that is (if they care) is quicker or easier sometimes than saying "well, I eat no meat of any kind and haven't for over 10 years and I am vegan in my daily life except for rare occasions where I suspect something may have egg in it but I don't really investigate too deeply, but that is only when I am out, at home I am a vegan 99% of the time but we do order pizza in a blue moon which of course has cheese and I have been known to eat the occasional ice cream that isn't vegan but I can't call myself a vegan but I think vegetarian is too broad a term because I think I am stricter than most vegetarians though I totally respect their choice to eat dairy products and on and on"







kwim?

So I just say "nearly vegan" and let people ask. Or I will say "my philosophy most closely resembles that of consensual living" and explain further if people ask.


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Utopia? Probably, and I know I can't change the world, but I can be an active part of changing _my_ world, and help my daughter see there is a different way.











Peace has to start somewhere! I think our homes is a great place to do it.


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
......I believe I was sneakily accused of not caring about fellow restaurant patrons....

WHAT???? Okay, if you think you were "sneakily" accused of not caring about fellow restaurant patrons, then I don't really know what to say. The concern for other patrons is what motivates _most_ people to carry a child out. But that doesn't mean that you personally don't care about other patrons. However, you are in this conversation, so why whould I say what your reasons are? The door is open for you to explain your reasons yourself, whatever they may be.

All the same, for the third time, I'm _still_ wondering how you can can carry a screaming child out of a restaurant and not consider that exerting your will, power or authority over him.

And since this is the third time I've had to ask, frankly I'm beginning to wonder what's up. Because if everytime I write something-- you guys want to interpret the least relevant and most general part of the post as some "sneaky" attack on you specifically, *while the parts that pertain to your CL ideology and how you personally and specifically live it go unaddressed again and again,* then it's starting to seem like you don't intend to answer questions; just snipe, and then pretend you were sniped at







: . If that's not the truth, then 1) surprise me with an answer. And 2) Stop acting as if everybody is trying to attack you just because they either don't understand your point or don't agree with your point.

Faith


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

You know, I am not too big on labels either and in general I try not to label myself or others but sometimes I think it is an easier/quicker/ way to describe a philosophy, although I agree that explaining an individual point of view is much more preferred.
Phew! I feel better now.







Yeah and this pretty much summed up what I meant in a much easier way to understand I think.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
Phew! I feel better now.







Yeah and your post pretty much summed up what I meant in a much easier way to understand I think.

Glad to be of service LOL


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Okay for those who completely reject that you see your children as *selfish* or bratty* or whatever (you don't neccessarily have to use those exact words), how do you feel? I mean, when your child is expressing an opinion or preference that you won't budge on, I imagine you have to approach it with a different mindset than people who practice consensual living -- so what is that mindset? .

Frankly, I don't imagine that my mindset is different than yours. _I just dont' really always know what your mindset is,_because everytime somebody has a question, it's responded to with sarcasm rather than with an explaination. But here goes it: I won't budge on letting my DD touch electrical outlets. I tell her "no, or no touch, dangerous." I turn her around and find something else to for her to play with. I can't imagine that you are doing any differently. But if you are, enlighten me.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Are you seriously saying that you feel that way, you think "johnny has a need that I am not meeting but I am not going to explore that"?

Me personally? No. My day is filled with fufilling my daughter's needs and curiosity.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
That is why I said there has to be a different line of thinking. Okay, perhaps you don't think of your children as *bratty* and that was a bad choice of words, but I just can't imagine thinking "wow, johnny's feelings are as valid as mine and there is a reason he clearly doesn't want to do ___" ... then _still_ imposing my will, and not feeling any guilt for it (as many posters have said they don't feel badly putting their foot down or whatever).

Well, as I've said, I've yet to really see a different line of thinking with regards to many subjects. But I guess some of you interpret that as my being unwilling to see the difference. Whatever. If you can tell me what you are doing different with electrical outlets, then maybe I'll understand the difference. Otherwise, sometimes I do feel badly that I have to stop my daughter from doing what she wants to do. But the fact that I feel badly is my problem, and it should never get in the way of what I see as my responsibility to her as a parent, adult and protector of those smaller and lacking in experience.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Okay, so you don't see them as bratty, but it leads me to believe _some_ part of you feels their wants or needs in certain situations aren't as valid or important as yours, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Here it seems that you are addressing someone in particular, and not "those who completely reject that you see your children as *selfish* or bratty* or whatever .." But I'll answer anyway. Frankly, I don't know how to put a label on how I see my daughter's desire to touch things that can hurt her. I wouldn't call them "not valid." Based on her age, her curiosity IS valid and important because it's a part of her nature-- it's just not tempered with wisdom or experience. If you think the only reason to have this discussion is because you see yourself as the champion of children's wants and needs, and others on this board don't think the wants and needs of their children are important, I don't know what to tell you.

Faith


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy*
...--- Sorry for the long post I bet you didn't expect me to write a book rather than listing ones I had read









I think there's already a book written that covers this post (though not in such a personal way. ) It's called "Getting to Yes." And it's really not an unrealistic way of doing business, or living one's day to day life.

Faith


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

*faithnj*
If you think the only reason to have this discussion is because you see yourself as the champion of children's wants and needs, and others on this board don't think the wants and needs of their children are important, I don't know what to tell you
Yes, yes, I am the champion of children's wants and needs everywhere. I pee myself when my daughter doesn't want me to go to the bathroom too. Right there, on the floor.

Oh, and our outlets are covered. The times our daughter has expressed interest in taking out the covers, we have, and supervised her exploration of the outlets. She hasn't become electrocuted, realized outlets are pretty darn boring, and lost interest.

It is nothing less than I would expect though, having a mother who is a champion of the needs and wants of children everywhere after all


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aira

It's a dedication to the ideals.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
This is another problem I have with the consensual living framework. It is very idealistic and I sense a real rigidity in some people's adherence to the ideal of CL and an inability to admit that it may not be the best way to look at every situation. It seems as if some think that admitting this would reduce the power of the consensual living paradigm. I truly believe that no one philosophy or system is adequate to determine our responses to every contingency in life, or a subset of life such as parenting, but that that does not mean that a given philosophy is not valuable or life-changing. I have also found that dedicating myself to ideals, no matter how beautiful, inevitably results in my rejecting out of hand solutions that are unorthodox, even if they could ultimately be reconciled with my ideals. It is the fervor itself, not the ideals, that causes this tunnel vision.

Of course I am only speaking for myself, but I have observed that this is a pretty common phenomenon with people who are very dedicated to a cause or an ideal.


Well said Nora'sMom. And I've said similar things time and time again. I've lived around too many people who were more dedicated to ideas than to the people who were living right under them. But nobody seems to want to answer what they will do when their ideas butt up against their child's best interests. Sorry, but when it comes to my DD, she's more important than my ideas. I've already been willing to go back on a promise rather than allow DD's welfare to be compromised. Not everybody would do that, but differences make the world go round, eh?

And just like you, I found my birth plans and my birthing reality went in two different directions. It was really easy for me to be anti c-section until I had to make four trips to the emergency room during my pregnancy, and then spend 8 days in the antinatal ICU while my daughter struggled in the NICU. Few things have made me say "never say never" like childbirth and child rearing. Funny how life has a way of serving up challenges to one's ideas when you least expect it.

Faith


----------



## faithnj (Dec 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Yes, yes, I am the champion of children's wants and needs everywhere. I pee myself when my daughter doesn't want me to go to the bathroom too. Right there, on the floor.


See.....here we go again: Sarcasm rather than answers. I never accused you of peeing on yourself, but if you'd prefer to discuss that and play the victim rather then make yourself and your lifestyle clear, then I guess I see where you're going with all of this: Nowhere. And I'm beginning to suspect you have to bring in arguments (like peeing on yourself) that I never suggested about you, and that you already said you aren't doing to yourself-- because frankly, you really aren't doing anything much different than most of the other mothers at MDC....you just want to argue about it.

Quote:

Oh, and our outlets are covered. The times our daughter has expressed interest in taking out the covers, we have, and supervised her exploration of the outlets. She hasn't become electrocuted, realized outlets are pretty darn boring, and lost interest. It is nothing less than I would expect though, having a mother who is a champion of the needs and wants of children everywhere after all








Well thanks for at least answering this one question. But once again, covering the outlets with safety covers in one's own home still doesn't fall under the category of uniquely CL. Even allowing your child to safely explore the outlets until they get bored with them isn't an odd concept around here, but rather a stategy that some people use simply to extinguish an interest.

Whatever the case, it's pretty clear at this point that if anyone is looking for answers about how people live CL, rather than sarcasm and defensivness, there have to be better sources elsewhere.

C'Ya.

Faith


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
Well thanks for at least answering this one question. But once again, covering the outlets with safety covers in one's own home still doesn't fall under the category of uniquely CL. Even allowing your child to safely explore the outlets until they get bored with them isn't an odd concept around here, but rather a stategy that some people use simply to extinguish an interest.


did you ask her to provide an answer that was uniquely CL? i thought you just asked her what she'd do. you expect her to reinvent the wheel? sometimes CL looks a lot like PD or GD. sometimes it doesn't. don't you see that?

here's what you said:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
But here goes it: I won't budge on letting my DD touch electrical outlets. I tell her "no, or no touch, dangerous." I turn her around and find something else to for her to play with. I can't imagine that you are doing any differently. But if you are, enlighten me.

she responded, with something entirely different than what you do. meaning, she doesn't say "no" or "no touch, dangerous". she doesn't find something else for her to play with. that's entirely different than what you do. yet it still is not good enough because her strategy is not UNIQUELY CL. completely differen than what you do, yes...but UNIQUELY CL? no. therefore, not good enough.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Well Faith, it was sneaky in that you seemed to paint a false dichotomy about screaming kids in restaurants.

Either:

1. Kid screams, annoys everyone in earshot, parents don't forcibly remove child = parents don't care about other patrons,

_*or*_

2. Kid screams, parents take him away, happy fellow customers = parents care about others' feelings.

I got this idea from several things that you said, but this one stands out:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
most thoughtful adults carry screaming children out of restaurants so that the other patrons don't have to be disturbed, regardless of what the child is thinking or experiencing at the time. (snip)
After all, if I was in a restaurant, and your child was screaming at the next table, I wouldn't really care why you were carrying him out, and how consensual your behavior was or wasn't. I'd just be thankful you'd be sparing me the annoyance.

I laid out somewhat extensively why there are many other possibilities. And also why it is that my son's screams likely won't annoy you any longer if he stays in the restaurant, than they would if I force him out. Remember that? Or was it that pesky minutiae?

Well, don't worry if you missed it - it's coming up again just below when I quote post #118...

---

In fact, I took the time and effort to explain what I see as the critical difference in handling a restaurant screaming crisis with CL. You said you didn't like all that minutiae. I found it _dismissive_ of my efforts at conveying what you seem to be asking about, when you first stated that you didn't understand it, _but then went further to say that all that doesn't matter anyway_, I presume since you don't understand it.

---

Since you are claiming that you keep asking (for the third time?!?!) and I'm not producing, well, here ya go... This is from post #118, the one you dismissed as either unintelligable or irrelevant:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Maybe it helps to make the distiction that if DC is screaming because I'm carrying him out of the restauant, and staying in the restaurant to have the conversation I mentioned in a PP would be preferable, then no, I would not carry him out.

I addressed a quote that said, "I would carry and screaming child..." And I would to - but not in every case.

The situation I was refering to before was that he was screaming no matter what - whether he was in or out of the restaurant - then I would take him to a safe place and talk there. The action of carrying him is not causing the screaming.

If my actions are inflicting the scream - I stop. Screaming stops. No reason to leave restaurant. Just regroup there.

It hasn't happened to me, but I suppose that if DS were screaming about leaving and I stopped, but the screaming didn't stop, I would point out that I really want to talk about what's bothering him - but let's go outside where we can focus, and so that everyone in here can eat in quiet...

I have to say, all in all, that DS rarely screams. Of course there is some, but usually he just talks to me and explains what he wants or needs. The vast majority of restarant screaming we've really had has been after a big fall or bump. But in those cases he's relieved to go outside, so I guess they don't really apply to this as well...

I hope that clarifies. I'm still wiping sleep gunk from my eyes and I'm really tired. I hope this makes more sense...


Everything was right in there, so this is uncalled for:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
All the same, for the third time, I'm still wondering how you can can carry a screaming child out of a restaurant and not consider that exerting your will, power or authority over him.
And since this is the third time I've had to ask, frankly I'm beginning to wonder what's up.
(snip)
while the parts that pertain to your CL ideology and how you personally and specifically live it go unaddressed again and again, then it's starting to seem like you don't intend to answer questions; just snipe, and then pretend you were sniped at.

I even said that I wrote that out while still tired, and offered to try again. You made it pretty clear that any further efforts on my part would be met with annoyance over too much minutiae, so I didn't bother. Don't put that on me. I gave it a decent effort.

---

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
Stop acting as if everybody is trying to attack you just because they either don't understand your point or don't agree with your point.

Whoa! There's a fine assumtion. Do you really believe that I feel attacked out of the blue, and because others disagree with my opinion or misunderstand me? I guess I'd better start living way more mainstream if I can't handle misunderstanding and disagreement. Off to get DS vaxed and enrolled in preschool... Just can't handle anyone disagreeing with me.









Do you tell your kids "Stop acting like..."? 'Cause that phrase isn't even in my vocabulary. And the fact that it isn't there is a prime reason why I can talk to DS when he's losing it in a restaurant and he generally calms down within 10 seconds. He knows I won't say dismissive things like that.

Maybe looking to the rude and very dismissive comments like that will clarify for you why I feel disrespected by your posts.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
But nobody seems to want to answer what they will do when their ideas butt up against their child's best interests.

My ideals _are_ to continually seek my child's best interest - even when I don't see it immediately. How can they butt up against each other?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *faithnj*
I've lived around too many people who were more dedicated to ideas than to the people who were living right under them. (snip) Sorry, but when it comes to my DD, she's more important than my ideas. I've already been willing to go back on a promise rather than allow DD's welfare to be compromised. Not everybody would do that, but differences make the world go round, eh?

Are you, by contrast, asserting that those you disagree with you here _do_ allow our child's welfare to be compromised, or that we would sacrifice it for ideals?







Why are you saying this?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Faith, you seem to have a lot of anger.

Anyway, extinguishing my child's interest in the outlets wasn't my goal, but rather, became her CHOICE when she saw they really don't do much and that they weren't forbidden had she wanted to play with them (or continue exploring them).

You on the other hand, take the whole choice out of the mix, what with your refusal to "budge" and all.

See, "budging" isn't in our dynamic around here. No one really budges or doesn't budge. We choose to set PERSONAL boundaries (for our bodies and personal belongings, a light socket isn't a personal boundary in my book)... and we choose to work towards mutually agreeable solutions. Why is that so offensive to you?

Oh, and the *we* you asked about before refers to my husband, myself, and our daughter -- all equal "we's" around here, I wasn't speaking for others who practice a CL approach.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

CC, I'm surprised you'd let your daughter explore an electrical outlet, but obviously that's within your comfort zone. Is there anything she's not free to explore? If she picks up a cigarette butt on the ground, what do you do? I'm asking completely seriously, because this comes up a lot with Nora (who is the same age as your DD). With the cigarette butts I say "that's dirty, here's a leaf/stick/whatever to look at" - I simply redirect and when she is older I can explain to her more in detail why we leave cigarette butts on the ground. I understand her interest but I am not comfortable with her exploring them.

With the sockets (which I must confess completely freak me out) we have all of ours covered and she doesn't care about them but if she sees an uncovered socket at someone else's house she often goes right towards it and attempts to stick her finger in. I say "NO, DANGER." and this is the only thing I have ever had to do that with. I also will remove her from the area around the socket and direct her interest elsewhere.

She now has lost interest in the sockets FTMP (we were around some this morning and she did not attempt to stick her finger in and she does seem to get it now that these are not things to play with) so apparently my danger warning, while I won't say it "worked" 'cause you never know what she'll do tomorrow, has not made her MORE interested in the sockets. Do you let your daughter explore everything? If not, what is she not permitted to explore? How could I have let her explore the sockets in a safe way? The cigarette butts?

Looking for ideas here. I am always looking for a different way to approach things.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

We allow our kids to use the sockets. I'd rather teach them to do it safely than to just assume they aren't able and have them explore while I'm not around


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
With the sockets (which I must confess completely freak me out) we have all of ours covered and she doesn't care about them but if she sees an uncovered socket at someone else's house she often goes right towards it and attempts to stick her finger in. I say "NO, DANGER." and this is the only thing I have ever had to do that with. I also will remove her from the area around the socket and direct her interest elsewhere.

Outlets used to make me very nervous, too, but when my dd was about the same age as Nora, my dh took a screwdriver and stuck it into one of the slots to show me that they're not as dangerous as them seem. You have to complete the circuit, and especially in newer homes (after about 1980, I seem to remember), the circuit breakers would blow before anyone got hurt.

Just an aside to alleviate a little of your nervousness!


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Okay for those who completely reject that you see your children as *selfish* or bratty* or whatever (you don't neccessarily have to use those exact words), how do you feel? I mean, when your child is expressing an opinion or preference that you won't budge on, I imagine you have to approach it with a different mindset than people who practice consensual living -- so what is that mindset?

Even though The4ofUs responded so eloquently to this, I wanted to reply as well.

I have a son who is also 14 months old. He is a very persistent, stubborn child. I admire him for that, and he has a great memory, it seems, for his age. This makes life interesting, but most things I'm able to work around. However, there are times I can't, and at those times, my mindset is this:

He has a need that is unmet. His need is very important to him. However, his need (to be swung in the hamper over and over, to bang his sister on the head with the serving spoon, to stay outside and play his whole life) will pass pretty easily. His health and overall happiness will not be impacted by the fact that his need can't be met at this time. He is too young to be drawn into the decision making process, and I am going to make the decision for him. I have empathy for him, I'm sorry he may have brief negative feelings while I redirect and distract him, but I know that he's capable of weathering this small disappointment, and that in time, he will learn that too.

I don't think his reasons aren't valid, but his experience and reasoning ability is too limited. Therefore, I will help him by making most of the major decisions for him now. As he grows, and his brain develops, I will be less and less in charge, until he is eventually able to care for himself.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Okay, so you don't see them as bratty, but it leads me to believe _some_ part of you feels their wants or needs in certain situations aren't as valid or important as yours, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So I guess, in summary, it doesn't have that much to do with my wants and needs being more important. Almost all of my wants and needs involve my children, their future and their happiness, anyway. I don't make him leave the park before he's ready so I can come home and watch soap operas and eat bonbons, but because I can tell he's getting sleepy and I think that getting enough sleep is crucial to healthy brain development. I don't make him stay with my sister so I can work occasionally because I love to remodel old houses, but because I want to be able to give him the opportunity to go to college.

One last thing, I previously said I don't think of my children as selfish, but in retrospect, I have to admit that I do. I don't fault them for that, I think it's developmentally appropriate. I think children have evolved to be selfish so that they can ensure their needs at met until the time when they have matured enough to be altruistic.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I didn't say that other methods didn't "work" but we can all agree I think that just because something seems to "work" doesn't mean it is the way we do things (think spanking and children who *behave). I am not comparing your actions to spanking AT ALL, just simply saying that it wasn't even an issue of what "works". We don't choose to live consensually because we think it "works", that is simply one of the fringe benefits.

As far as the cigarette butt issue, we haven't encountered that yet and I suppose I will cross that bridge when I come to it. I certainly won't encourage it by any means, I suppose I would try to prevent it all together. If I saw cigarette butts on the ground that she may want to grab, I would probably focus on other fun things going on around us. If it were really important to her to pick it up though, like to the point of either pick it up for a second or have a full on power struggle, well that is why I carry purex until we find a bathroom to wash hands. Remember, consensual living is NOT about children just doing everything and anything no hold's barred without our input, information, and personal feelings on the subject. I truly believe my daughter has the best of intentions, wants to do the socially acceptable thing, and truly believe she trusts my judgement. It doesn't mean she will always listen to my input or even want it.

I prefer though, to live in the "what is" instead of the "what if". We could what if all day long, I could answer the cigarette butt question completely to everyone's satisfaction, then it would be "well, what if it were a drug addict's used needle????" or something.

There is always a "what if" to everything, and it will always be my ultimate goal (and hopefully outcome) to find a mutually agreeable solution to those issues that may arise.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I wrote out a post (while nak too) about the butts outlets that vanished into another cyber-dimension.

I'll come back when I have time to address it again...


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I've only caught the last two pages of this heated thread. It seems that there is some interest in understanding how CL differs from GD or PD. Anyone is welcome to join the CL list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Consen...guid=140240070 for clarification of specific questions or situations from a consensual manner.

The main issue is if there is dissent, it isn't consensual. Having an "expectation" that a child must adhere to my desire, or be made to comply, regardless of his objection, is not consensual in any way that I can conceive of the word being used. We have had some discussion of the term "collaborative" on the CL site to convey the parent considering the child's desire, but the parent still determining the outcome of the child's actions or exploration based upon *her* judgement. When each individual is acting upon his own judgement, ie. CHOICE, then their action is consensual. When *made to* act in a pre-defined manner, that is imposing one's will on another.

Does that help to clarify? Of course, the parent can choose his or her own actions, just as the child can. One goal of living consensually is that a positive consent or mutually agreeable solution is determined. Sometimes, our Fears preclude us from being open to the possibilities of our child's desires. I find that when I trust our child by providing my experience and information AND supporting his exploration, he makes sound choices. Sometimes those choices are different than *I*, as a separate individual, would choose for myself. Sometimes, we both learn from his autonomous choice. Never has he made a life threatening choice, nor acted with danger toward another being.

Pat


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I let my dd play with cigarette butts when she was at the age that she found them interesting







I also helped her explore outlets and taught her how to use them properly. She did not get electrocuted, learn to smoke, or get any nasty diseases. I admit that the butt issue freaked me out but then dh pointed out that when we were kids, we used to sneak butts off the ground when no one was looking and play with them and even put them in our mouths! We would much rather she feel free to explore them while being supervised so we can wisk in and clean her hands afterwards than not know and have her getting all sorts of ickies while we have no idea. Also, most of the time the butts are so sunbleached from being on the ground that any ickies that were there got cooked. She quickly found them quite boring and only explored them a couple of times. At those times we had a lively discussion about germs, how gross smoking is, how littering is irresponsible, etc......

But, I almost wish I had not answered because someone is going to swoop in with a "yeah, but what about......?". We take it one thing at a time, one day at a time, one activity at a time...... And you know what? It really is not that hard. It is not a constant struggle. It is not hours of discussion every day. I have never had to pee and not been able to. Because we always consider dd's opinions and do what we can to help her get what she wants/needs, she usually trusts us when we make a suggestion. So we do not spend our days catering to her every whim.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

The main issue is if there is dissent, it isn't consensual.
I agree with you on almost every point Pat, but I wonder if you can clarify this for me (and everyone else). Do you mean any dissent at all? I ask because I think that is where mutually agreeable solutions come in (imo), when someone is not agreeing with whatever. If everyone agreed all the time on everything there would be no need to find mutually agreeable solutions. In other words, the dissent, by either party (me or my child's, or husband's or whoever) leads to finding a mutually agreeable solution. That is the way I understand it at least. Meaning, suppose my daughter poops (we don't practice ec). She doesn't like the feel of the poopy diaper, I want to meet her need to get out of it, but there is immediate dissent on her part to be changed. Now, I would never make her change her diaper, but when I leave it be (at the first sign of dissent), there is upsetment on her part to get out of it. That is where the mutually agreeable solution begins. Does she want to continue playing? Does she just want me to get the diaper off, wipe really quick and let her go naked? Does she want a bath (sometimes this is the case)? ...and so on (which are all fine with me). So there is no force or coercion and the ultimate *result* is something we both want (she doesn't want to sit in poopy diaper, I want to meet that need and prevent diaper rash) ... but in the whole thing, there is the first protest of not wanting it off, then coming to me when I let it be and fussing because she is poopy... know what I mean?


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I truly believe my daughter has the best of intentions, wants to do the socially acceptable thing, and truly believe she trusts my judgement. It doesn't mean she will always listen to my input or even want it.


At 14 months you think she wants to do the socially acceptable thing? My DD doesn't even know what that is!









I appreciate the explanations re the sockets (good to know they're not as dangerous as I thought!) and the cigarette butts.

I think the "what ifs" are really the only way to establish the parameters of an idea, so I'm sorry if they are tiring, but how else are we supposed to discuss the issues?

gotta go!


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IncaMama*
just a guess, but mightn't she have been referring to herself and her husband? the parents of her child? the child that she is only raising "in theory" since she's only 14mos old at this point?







like i said to faithnj, there are many people with children older than CC's (like myself) who parent the same way. since i notice you have no signature, might i ask how old your children are that make your views on this infinitely more valid?

Yes, that was clarified, thanks. I just didn't understand. I detect a lot of snark here, and I can only think that you must have read my post in a way that I did not intend, to respond so. Tone is difficult over the internet. My kids are 4 and 1. I never said my viewpoints were more valid because of that. I do think mamas who have already been through particular stages and are committed to gentle parenting can sometimes be more helpful in offering support or advice for a particular issue (I don't feel I have much insight and would probably not respond to a thread asking about particular issues that a 7 yo is going through, for example).

Quote:

so what's your beef? that she chose a different term for her philosophy than you did? i don't get it.
No, I do think that captaincrunchy and I differ in philosophy, as she last defined it. What I quoted of her that I agreed with was that I do consider my childs needs and wants as a person, as valid as my own. However, she believes in complete noncoercion of her child. I see that as the adult, there are times when that is not desirable or even possible, in my own family.

Quote:

is this meaning to suggest that those of us who say we follow a consensual living philosophy don't have contingency plans for issues of safety, other persons, personal property, and physical needs? that these issues don't matter to us?
I don't know?







: I think for me, the core issue is that I am having difficulty understanding exactly what CL is. I really do want to understand. I don't understand how one could always avoid coercion to the point that when it comes down to it, the child's needs will ultimately trump the parent's (as captaincrunchy described it), and still ensure these concerns are addressed.

As I said, in every example cited so far, there is nothing specific to CL that I can detect, that would be different from what many mamas here at MDC would do. BTDT with the outlets and cigarette butts, too.







And I don't intend to set up a straw man and say "what about xyz scenario, what then?" because I don't find it productive. But the particular instances I am imagining, where noncoercion is not an option for me, are more extreme issues of safety for an older child who cannot be redirected or thwarted by simple babyproofing. Or, in particular, where the needs and wants of a tired mama (who constantly has to pee! LOL), a baby, and a preschooler conflict.

IMo that is the issue with this whole thread--that some of us are not understanding where the other is coming from.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
I let my dd play with cigarette butts when she was at the age that she found them interesting







I also helped her explore outlets and taught her how to use them properly. She did not get electrocuted, learn to smoke, or get any nasty diseases. I admit that the butt issue freaked me out but then dh pointed out that when we were kids, we used to sneak butts off the ground when no one was looking and play with them and even put them in our mouths! We would much rather she feel free to explore them while being supervised so we can wisk in and clean her hands afterwards than not know and have her getting all sorts of ickies while we have no idea. Also, most of the time the butts are so sunbleached from being on the ground that any ickies that were there got cooked. She quickly found them quite boring and only explored them a couple of times. At those times we had a lively discussion about germs, how gross smoking is, how littering is irresponsible, etc......

But, I almost wish I had not answered because someone is going to swoop in with a "yeah, but what about......?". We take it one thing at a time, one day at a time, one activity at a time...... And you know what? It really is not that hard. It is not a constant struggle. It is not hours of discussion every day. I have never had to pee and not been able to. Because we always consider dd's opinions and do what we can to help her get what she wants/needs, she usually trusts us when we make a suggestion. So we do not spend our days catering to her every whim.

Ahh, thank you, Yooper!

This is almost exactly what I had typed that got lost... with the exception that we didn't pick up the butts, but looked at them and poked them with sticks, and talked about germs, smoking, littering, and all. It was a great opportunity for discussion. The fascination faded fast.

About the outlets. I sorta had little choice in the matter as DS started around 5-6 months defeating every safety device I could find. (He's extremely mechanically adept.) So it was inevitable that I faced the reality that he felt a tremendous need (starting before 1 year) to use the outlets like adults. (He had a serious vaccuum cleaner obsession going on then...







) He felt very excluded from the group and seemingly untrusted by us if he was told he couldn't participate in plugging the vaccuum cleaner in. So I bit the bullet and we practiced together until it was quite easy for him.

He has always shown fantastic judgement, control, and used the plugs with great care. For that matter, it's a consistent trait of his to use care when he does everything. For example, I have never made him sit in a shopping cart, and he has never caused any raucus or damage ever, though he loves to explore everything on the store shelves. Even the tea service section at Homegoods!







: He investigates it all with great care, and I don't have to worry about it.

Perhaps it's the personality, but DS has never accepted anything less that being treated like a competent human who can use tools correctly, and who moves about the world like other humans. He's very sensitive to it and lets me know fast if I ever condescend to him. It's been this way from birth, I swear.

Anyway, Nora'sMama, I hope this explains a little further about tots wanting to do socially acceptable things...


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I don't understand how one could always avoid coercion to the point that when it comes down to it, the child's needs will ultimately trump the parent's (as captaincrunchy described it)
Hold the phone lol .. This reads to me that when a mutually solution can't be reached, we always err on the side of the child and *give in* to her. I hope I didn't imply that. I basically meant in my posts that since I am older, more mature, more experienced, and more *wordly*, hopefully more patient than that of a one year old, that at times instead of even looking for a mutually agreeable solution, I am at peace with going with what she wants for time time being --- which actually, is mutually agreeable when you get down to it because I don't feel angry or mean spirited like I just "gave in at my expense" but rather feel at peace with knowing that I am modeling for her compassion and a healthy amount of selflessness.

This doesn't mean this happens all the time, or even a lot. We find solutions which are mutually agreeable to everyone involved almost all the time. In fact I can't really think of something that was not mutually agreeable except when it related to my personal boundaries and right to be safe in my body -- we had a biting phase which is on its way out and one of my personal boundaries is that I have a right to not be bitten to the point of pain. She can bite anything else, or even give me *love nibbles* (think soft, non painful bites) but my personal boundary is that I deserve not to be hurt. We even found a mutually agreeable solution in that case too, because I felt that there was a need not being addressed (the biting usually happened when she wanted my attention immediately, or when she was tired/hungry/angry --


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

CC, what was the solution you hit on for the biting thing? When Nora bites me (usually a playful bite when she is done nursing) I tell her I don't like to be bit, that it's an "owie" (I do the sign for pain) on my breast, and then if she does it again I put her down to play or pick her up and go do something else. I try not to make a big deal out of it but, like you, I'm not OK with being bitten (I can't imagine who is!







). What I do seems to work fine (i.e. she does it less and less and has never gotten upset in the least when I do it) so to me that is a mutually agreeable solution.

Regarding the word "work" as in "what works or doesn't"...you said you are not primarily concerned with what works but with finding mutually agreeable solutions. But that is pretty muich what I mean when I say something "works"...I mean I have found a solution to an issue that has arisen.


----------



## GearBear (Jul 28, 2006)

I suppose some may tell me that because this is my first post ever on MDC, I am prying. For that I am sorry. I have been lurking (reading and learning and applying what I've learned) on MDC for years now, but I never did feel comfortable posting. I have been slightly mainstreem (gently though), but mostly AP with GD. CL does interest me a lot and this thread has perked my curiosity and I have lots of questions.

What scares me about CL is the the problems I may face in future with my children if I decide to parent that way. I have many questions about how sucessful CL is for preteens and teenagers. I understand what CL is. But, may I ask you CL'ers how you would deal (uh? cant think of a good word) with the following situations? I am not trying to debate or say your way is wrong, I am just trying to educate myself so I can make the best decisions for myself and my son. These questions keep popping up in my head, and I'm curious how a CL parent would handle it.

What if you have a 15 year old and they wanted to hang out with kids at school that are known drug addicts? What if you could see the path they were heading towards, and it seemed very dark and dangerous? What if they disagreed with you and insisted on maintaing the friendship and hanging out unsupervised? If what I understand about CL is true, then it would NOT be consensual to stop your child from that path. Or am I wrong?

What if your 16 yr old decided to marry? What if you knew she/he was not at all ready for marriage, and perhaps had picked someone that was not healthy for her (ex: abusive, alcoholic, ect). Would you try to stop her/him? In most states he/she would need a parent signature...

What if your child at 14 started smoking and refused to listen to reason? What does a CL parent do then?

PLEASE don't think I'm trying to start a big debate. I admire all the mothers on MDC. I am just wanting to learn more about the differenting parenting styles. Thanks in advance.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pat*
The main issue is if there is dissent, it isn't consensual.

Captain Crunchy,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I meant dissent about the decision that is implemented, not the initial dissent that leads to creating a mutually agreeable solution.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
I do not think of consensual living as being permissive. When I think of a permissive parent a few things come to mind. A parent who doesn't involve theirselves in what their children do, doesn't guide them through life. A parent who doesn't explain to their children when their behavior is negatively affecting them or someone else. A parent who is not comfortable expressing their own boundaries and often feels walked all over because of it. A parent who alternates between being a doormat and a very resentful, angry person. Any and all of these things come to mind when I think of permissiveness.

Consensual living on the other hand brings to mind a parent who is comfortable expressing their boundaries, limits, feelings, wants, and needs and exploring other individuals' too. A parent who will guide their children through social and community involvment. A parent who will tell their children when their behavior is negatively affecting themselves, someone else, or property. A parent who guides and explores with their children this world, its peoples, animals, plants, etc. discussing interdependence as well as independence. And a parent who is as willing to look at theirselves and their behavior and how it affects others and learn. A parent who is comfortable telling their children when they don't feel respected and comfortable hearing their children express when they don't feel respected too. A parent who trusts and expects their children to care about their feelings, wants, and needs. I know there is quite a bit more that comes to mind for me, but I'll leave it for now.

I just don't get the comparison of consensual and permissive. They wouldn't go hand in hand.


















Pat


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

GearBear...









I'll dig up a couple of old threads that may address what you are thinking about. I'm on borrowed time right now...

It may be tomorrow AM...


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Captain Crunchy,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I meant dissent about the decision that is implemented, not the initial dissent that leads to creating a mutually agreeable solution.

Pat

No problem Pat, I wasn't at all trying to be difficult







That sentence threw me for a loop for a minute and also I was afraid others may have had the same initial reaction.

I am going to sleep now though...so....very...tired....but I am sure this discussion will continue tomorrow. I wanted to address the other question about teens and living consensually.


----------



## Emmom (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
At 14 months you think she wants to do the socially acceptable thing? My DD doesn't even know what that is!









I appreciate the explanations re the sockets (good to know they're not as dangerous as I thought!) and the cigarette butts.

I think the "what ifs" are really the only way to establish the parameters of an idea, so I'm sorry if they are tiring, but how else are we supposed to discuss the issues?

gotta go!

The cigarette butt situation is a perfect example of why this assumption works for my family. My DS became fascinated with cigarette butts, and all trash, around that age. Yooper and Aira already discussed this, but I wanted to spell out the philosophical differences I see with this example.
When my DS spotted a cigarette butt and was interested, I would squat down and get interested with him. Say something along the lines of, "Oh, a cigarette butt. That should be in the trash. But if we touch it we might get sick. Let's use this paper to pick it up." (scrap paper=whatever old receipt I have in my pocket







)
I'd pick the butt up with the paper, put it in the trash. Next time we saw one and he'd get interested, I'd hand him a paper. (He'd pick it up as best he could. I'd pick him up so he could reach the trash can.) If I didn't have a piece of scrap paper at the time, I'd tell him that I didn't and pick it up and then wash my hands, or pick it up with a stick, or something that would not only *allow for* but actively *facilitate* his interest in that.

Here's the philosophical difference: I don't need to prevent him from doing things that would get him hurt [e.g., "no, don't touch"]. I need to show him how to do the things he wants to do safely. We're on the same team. So far, he accepts this. He may not always (he's only 18 months.) I get that.

He always seems interested in doing the socially acceptable thing. When it comes to something like sharing with other toddlers, sometimes that desire gets trumped by a need for a toy, of course. But even then the results are *always* better if I come from the assumption that he actually wants a solution that helps everyone. Just tonight, he was playing with two other toddlers and I saw this happen. I don't want to blather on too much, though, so I'll leave that story to another time.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Perhaps it's the personality, but DS has never accepted anything less that being treated like a competent human who can use tools correctly, and who moves about the world like other humans. He's very sensitive to it and lets me know fast if I ever condescend to him. It's been this way from birth, I swear.

Ditto.

ETA: quote correction!


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GearBear*
I suppose some may tell me that because this is my first post ever on MDC, I am prying. For that I am sorry. I have been lurking (reading and learning and applying what I've learned) on MDC for years now, but I never did feel comfortable posting. I have been slightly mainstreem (gently though), but mostly AP with GD. CL does interest me a lot and this thread has perked my curiosity and I have lots of questions.

What scares me about CL is the the problems I may face in future with my children if I decide to parent that way. I have many questions about how sucessful CL is for preteens and teenagers. I understand what CL is. But, may I ask you CL'ers how you would deal (uh? cant think of a good word) with the following situations? I am not trying to debate or say your way is wrong, I am just trying to educate myself so I can make the best decisions for myself and my son. These questions keep popping up in my head, and I'm curious how a CL parent would handle it.

What if you have a 15 year old and they wanted to hang out with kids at school that are known drug addicts? What if you could see the path they were heading towards, and it seemed very dark and dangerous? What if they disagreed with you and insisted on maintaing the friendship and hanging out unsupervised? If what I understand about CL is true, then it would NOT be consensual to stop your child from that path. Or am I wrong?

What if your 16 yr old decided to marry? What if you knew she/he was not at all ready for marriage, and perhaps had picked someone that was not healthy for her (ex: abusive, alcoholic, ect). Would you try to stop her/him? In most states he/she would need a parent signature...

What if your child at 14 started smoking and refused to listen to reason? What does a CL parent do then?

PLEASE don't think I'm trying to start a big debate. I admire all the mothers on MDC. I am just wanting to learn more about the differenting parenting styles. Thanks in advance.









The main thing that comes to my mind is that there ae few situations that are really as "cut and dry" as the hypotheticals you mentioned.

CL is not about directly controling your child's actions. "Why" is the most important evaluation in our lives. Why is the 14 year old smoking, why is the 15 year old hanging out with these people? Why do you believe that they are drug addicts? Why don't you think the 14 year old should smoke? Why don't you want the 16 year old to get married? Why would you give your consent for them to get married if it was not agreeable to you.

I had the usual run of drugs when I was young and with my own parents they definatly could not tell who were the druggies and who were clean. They generally followed the guidelines of "Long hair and messy clothes = Druggie" This is particularly frustrating to a teen trying to stay sober, who is not allowed to hang out with any of his strait friends because of how they are percieved, but is encouraged to hang out with the real drug users because they are polite.

Here would be my actions on this matter:
Invite the "druggie" friends into my house. Make them pizza rolls. Let the have run of the playstation.

Offer a deal with the 14 year old that you will do something else of her choice (reasonable) to make her "cool" to her "friends" An $80 pair of designer jeans may cost a week's worth of groceries, but they will fulfil the childs need to be "cool" and they will fulfil your need to protect the child. I know you can't bribe forever, but I feel that early teens are so desperate to fit in and stand out that all you can do is foster the most healthy ways to do that. And if you smoke and your child begins to smoke, you should know who should be the first to quit









The 16 year old marriage thing would be the toughest to deal with and I do not have a great answer for that one except you have to get to the bottom of what the child is after. Love? Lust? Independance? Rebellion?

You cannot address the problem if you only work on the symptoms.

14 year old smoking, 15 year old with the "bad crowd", 16 year old wanting Marriage consent. --- These are not problems. These are symptoms.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emmom*
Here's the philosophical difference: I don't need to prevent him from doing things that would get him hurt [e.g., "no, don't touch"]. *I need to show him how to do the things he wants to do safely.* We're on the same team. So far, he accepts this. He may not always (he's only 18 months.) I get that.









ITA.

Just to point out... That second quote was me, not yooper.









---

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy*
14 year old smoking, 15 year old with the "bad crowd", 16 year old wanting Marriage consent. --- These are not problems. These are symptoms.

This really is the crux of the matter.

And communication. What do the kids _really_ need? And the answer is never more control, punishment or authority - or those things disguised with the euphamism "discipline". It always requires more listening and kind probing into their feelings.

More when I have a chance...


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

great posts, shaggydaddy, aira, and emmom.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

And communication. What do the kids really need? And the answer is never more control, punishment or authority - or those things disguised with the euphamism "discipline". It always requires more listening and kind probing into their feelings.
ITA. I have issues with the theory that some children _BEG_ for someone else's idea of control to be exerted over them, or punishment. Not even the child of a permissive parent would need these things. What they would need would be an invovled parent who cares, guides, and expresses a healthy amount of emotions, wants, needs, and boundaries for the child to learn how to do those things themself with normalcy and feel loved and safe.

I obviously have never parented a teenager, but similar questions have definitely come to mind. I do not feel that being controlling and disallowing their freedom of choice would solve any of the situations brought up. It seems the same things would apply as when they were younger. Educate them about their choices, talk about your feelings and listen to their's, etc.
I too would have the child invite the friends over if I suspected drug use, regularly even. Appearances and rumors can be deceiving. And to me the most important thing to find out would be what drug are they using if they are using. Then I could proceed to gather info about that drug for my child if it was seriously something to be concerned about.
For the teen who wanted to marry again educating them on their choices and finding out what the feel they could gain by being married right now this minute that they could not wait a couple years for.
And if someone was 'abusive' (I'm imagining a man's fists on my daughter's face and body) I would intervene. This would be life threatening. I don't imagine dissent could stop my momma rage from boiling over, but who knows, I hope to never have btdt on this one. I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario without me 'abusing' the young man, and I am not violent, so wouldn't that be a pickle?
And the 14 yr old smoking? What are you going to do? I'm sure by this age you have already educated them on this choice. And as ShaggyDad said if you smoke you should be the first to quit. I was that 14 yr old by the way and all of my parental role models smoked. They never DID anything about it. What could they have done that wouldn't have driven a wedge between us? And you know what? I quit smoking when I turned 18 and they are ALL still smoking. BY CHOICE and on my own time. I knew when I started it was a habit that stunk and had health risks. I also knew that I enjoyed the feel of it and I would quit the habit, I had no intention to smoke for the rest of my life. Now I'm pleased to say my kids live in a smokefree home.

ETA- the abuse was a pretty wicked 'what if' I'd rather NOT have thought about this morning


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

I am not a CL parent, but I think the answer that I have come up with for myself for your questions, Gearbear, for any parent---it is not so much a question of WWYD with a teenager doing those things if you were xyz type of parent.

I think the key is, that by the time they are that age, even if you are an authoritarian parent, there is not a whole lot you can do if a kid really wants to go down those types of paths--meaning, if you are a stricter parent, you are not going to totally be able to prevent a 14 or 15 year old from doing these things. I worry about those things, too, and I think the key is that I need to have a strong and connected relationship with my kids, that I work hard to maintain as they grow. I don't think you need to be CL to have that. I think you can be much more toward the authoritative end of things even than I am, and have that. If you have the relationship, hopefully the kids will be more open to your POV and guidance. I could be wrong, but I don't think CL would be saying they would just go ahead and buy the 14 yo the cigarettes and let them smoke in the house. But a 14 yo that wants to smoke--unless you keep them in a cave, I imagine they can find a way to smoke behind your back, if they want to.

As far as the 16 year old getting married, I wouldn't sign for that. I am not "CL", but it seems to me that the word "consensual" is key, there. If it is is not agreeable to the parent, it wouldn't be consensual.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Regarding the teen issue, I agree that some of those things are symptoms of bigger *problems* but not always. For instance if my 16 year old wanted to marry, maybe she is really in love? I don't know as I would be jumping for joy but I don't think love is impossible at 16. Secondly, if it were illegal in our state to marry at 16 without parental consent, well, that is where consent comes in. I wouldn't outright refuse not knowing the whole story, but if we are seeking *mutually agreeable solutions* it is not mutually agreeable to me to sign a paper allowing my 16 year old to marry and it bears repeating that one is actually allowed to have personal boundaries while practicing consensual living.

However, if my daughter wanted to marry at 16, while some parents may be dismissive (that's ridiculous, no way!) or punitive (you can't see that boy again, he's crazy!), or coercive (you really don't want to marry him, you are too young/immature etc) --- I would approach it like I approach my 14 month old now, in terms of there being a need that isn't being met. Does she feel she can see the boy whenever she wants if they marry? Does she want to solidify their commitment? Maybe we could have a commitment ceremony? Does she just feel so strongly about this boy that she feels the only way to show it is through marriage? Do I know the boy? Does he treat her well? What kind of parents does he have? Do they respect my boundaries and comfort zone as much as I attempt to respect theirs (the boy and my daughter I mean)? Is my daughter pregnant and scared that we won't support her and feels marriage is the only way? (I hope we don't raise her to ever feel like that)... I mean there are a million things. I would try to get to the bottom of why. I wouldn't so much explore why she wanted to marry him (though I would do that too) but why it has to be NOW, at 16.

As far as drugs and the like, hanging out with people who do drugs isn't exactly a 100% that a person will do drugs. I smoked a lot of pot in my day....man, a lot.. but I was around people who smoked pot way before I ever smoked it, and even when I did smoke, I was around people who were doing *harder* drugs and I never got into it. I never recall being pressured or feeling pressured, it was more like "it's here if you want to try it" type thing -- but no afterschool special type situation of "'cmon...don't you wanna be COOOOOOOL cooool coool ooool ooool" (that's a 70's echo effect for those wondering).

Raising our daughter the way we have chosen goes a long way towards prevention. I am not suggesting that people who raise their children in this manner will NEVER have children who do drugs/get into *bad* crowds/have issues etc .... you can never say never....

However, I feel that some of the most prevelant reasons for becoming involved with drugs/abusive relationships (whatever else) stems from needs that aren't met. Feelings of loss of control, feelings of isolation, feelings of wanting so desperately to fit in somewhere, so desperately to be heard, to be loved, to be taken seriously, to be accepted, that one seeks situations where they can feel all those things -- even if it is temporary and not genuine.

If one grows up in a home (imo) where their opinion is always valid, their voice always heard, their body, spirit, desires, needs and wants always addressed, honored, respected ---in a home where they are trusted, comfortable in voicing dissent and that dissent is taken seriously, where they are not punished or shamed or berated or hit or yelled at or timed-out....not manipulated, dumbed down or talked down, where they know they can feel free to discuss anything without sanctions imposed.... while it may not entirely erase the possibility of the above scenarios completely, goes a long way to preventing them.


----------



## SneakyPie (Jan 13, 2002)

I have been thinking and feeling about all this stuff for a couple days now, and have so appreciated all the careful and articulate posts. I have not posted about this topic (CL) before -- our family is also committed to CL behavior, is composed of 3 people, 1 of whom is still a toddler. GearBear's post prompts me to respond.

"What if you have a 15 year old and they wanted to hang out with kids at school that are known drug addicts? What if you could see the path they were heading towards, and it seemed very dark and dangerous? What if they disagreed with you and insisted on maintaing the friendship and hanging out unsupervised? If what I understand about CL is true, then it would NOT be consensual to stop your child from that path. Or am I wrong?

What if your 16 yr old decided to marry? What if you knew she/he was not at all ready for marriage, and perhaps had picked someone that was not healthy for her (ex: abusive, alcoholic, ect). Would you try to stop her/him? In most states he/she would need a parent signature...

What if your child at 14 started smoking and refused to listen to reason? What does a CL parent do then?"

The main things that I see in these examples are these: worry that we won't be able to cope with the situations our children are faced with (a normal human worry), and the insidious fallacy that CL/GD parents end up having to accept a slippery slope of horrible destructive choices by our children. (This fallacy is ingrained in our culture, and I slip into this thinking myself, so I am NOT pointing fingers!)

I think all the examples above involve *safety* of children (assuming we really have the correct info -- the friends really are using, the fiance really is abusive, etc). The easiest one is the marrying example -- we can refuse to sign a paper, but not so much to withhold authoritative consent as to say, "I cannot comfortably participate in a situation that feels dangerous to me." I am not sure what I would do in the other 2 situations, but I try to remain confident that I will find a way to communicate with my kid and keep him safe.

I also might totally act imperfectly and try to put my foot down! "No, you will NOT see those kids; no, I'm flushing those smokes and I'd better not ever see them again!" But I am pretty sure that if I *did* slip up in these ways, I'd go back and work on things according to established family patterns of CL.

I have a lot of sympathy for those feeling they might not be able to really carry out CL over time. I myself was actually raised in a mainly consensual household, but the larger culture also has an impact, and the cumulative effect of decades of schooling and employment makes itself felt. Not most days, but some days, I find that my first reaction to my son's behavior is to impose my will, discount his motives, "put my foot down" for "his own good," etc -- and then as a philosophical bonus, beat myself up about it later! And there is an occasional fear about unforseeable events too, just as in GearBear's post . . .

So in addition to all the philosophical underpinnings of creating the respectful reality I want to live in etc, one thing I remind myself of on difficult days is: CL IS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY I HAVE TRIED. I am often a grumpy, shy, easily triggered person, and I spent a lot of years indulging in ways of interacting that just always left some part of me unsatisfied. Once I committed to trying mutual consent and assumption of good motives, all of my relationships improved immensely. Maybe I get my first idea of "my way" less often, but I am calmer, I feel emotionally fuller, I am safer and gentler, and I am a good mother and partner. So it is both a moral issue and a practical life strategy for me, and I do have to work at it sometimes. I admire those to whom it seems to come more naturally, and am even secretly a little jealous!

Well I am rambling, partly because my son just learned to say f*** when I dropped something on my foot, and says it delightedly and begs for ME to repeat it, all of which is totally fine with me, but we are going to the inlaws' this weekend and I worry that my sister-in-law will think a little less of me for it. (She's lovely and we like each other, but she's more authority-based in her discipline of our nephew, etc . . . you all know the temporary feelings of insecurity, right?


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CC*
I never recall being pressured or feeling pressured, it was more like "it's here if you want to try it" type thing -- but no afterschool special type situation of "'cmon...don't you wanna be COOOOOOOL cooool coool ooool ooool" (that's a 70's echo effect for those wondering).









:

Yeah, me too. I never got into it, but I hung out with lots of pot smokers and users of harder stuff. I never got pressured - in fact, to the contrary every one of my friends and acquaintences respected that I wasn't interested and tried to shield me from it. I thought it was sweet, though I was never offended by their habits or anything. I always knew that they were looking for an escape too. I just used other things to escape like music and sports.

Well, I never knew anyone who was stealing or hurting people to get the drugs... I have no experience with that. But I would imagine that it still applies that one must protect their boundaries with those kids too, just like in every other case.

Getting tough with kids dosn't help IMO.


----------



## GearBear (Jul 28, 2006)

Thank you everyone for your responses to my questions. You really gave me a lot to think about and made a lot of sense. I appreciate you taking the time to tell me your point of view.


----------



## Emmom (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Just to point out... That second quote was me, not yooper.









oops, sorry!


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nora'sMama
At 14 months you think she wants to do the socially acceptable thing? My DD doesn't even know what that is!
I believe even a child this young does have a sense of what the socially acceptable thing is. It is certainly not as broad as an adults, but you and the people she interacts with daily are her social experience. Children do want to do what is acceptable to others around them. They are born innately 'good'. Barring hunger, tiredness, etc or someone wanting something that would infringe on them, they do want to do what is acceptable. And when something infringes on them this is where they dissent and working towards something mutually agreeable comes into play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Nora'sMom*
There are times when the only solution agreeable to the child will require the parent to set aside their needs. That is only natural, but I see a real imbalance in "consensual living" with the young child. The parent is the one who is able to bend and reconsider their wants and needs in order to accommodate the child. The child does not choose to alter their desires in order to accommodate the parent, even when doing so will ultimately benefit them. So a totally CL paradigm is very child-directed by necessity, and I don't think that is healthy. However the idea of trying to find mutually agreeable solutions whenever possible is very powerful and has been a real paradigm shift for me. So I am not anti-CL at all. I just think that it is not an adequate framework for parenting and that taken to an extreme it results in a way of life that I do not find...agreeable!
At 4 and 6 my children do choose to alter their desires to accommodate me and each other often enough. Its more of a flowing with each other and the situation around here than someone being mostly directed by someone else. Sometimes something is more important to me, sometimes one of them. We actually spend very little time in conflict with each other in the whole scheme of things. They follow my lead alot, and I follow their lead alot too.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emmom*
oops, sorry!









Ain't no thang!


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MissRubyandKen*
Children do want to do what is acceptable to others around them. They are born innately 'good'. Barring hunger, tiredness, etc or someone wanting something that would infringe on them, they do want to do what is acceptable. And when something infringes on them this is where they dissent and working towards something mutually agreeable comes into play.


Children are far too egocentric at 14 months to have any concept of socially acceptable behavior. Is this a consensual living concept or somebody's opinion?

ETA: my definition of "socially acceptable" is the ability to understand what society (peers, parents, caregivers, etc.) thinks is "proper behavior"


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LoveBeads*
Children are far too egocentric at 14 months to have any concept of socially acceptable behavior. Is this a consensual living concept or somebody's opinion?

ETA: my definition of "socially acceptable" is the ability to understand what society (peers, parents, caregivers, etc.) thinks is "proper behavior"

Well, having an almost 14 month old, I can say from experience that my daughter definately does have a concept of socially acceptable behavior and is always observing and trying (of her own choice) to do the socially acceptable thing. Tonight for instance, we were all eating and I have never once forced or even encouraged her to eat with a fork, except for actually providing the fork and having it available. I have never put a fork in her hand, have never even said "we eat with forks" or anything of the like. She has just seen us eating with a fork. Most times she eats with her hands but lately she has been watching us eat and picking up her fork and eating with it. We don't praise her for it, but we do acknowledge it when she seems to be looking at us to show us what she is doing "I see you are trying out that fork, you seem happy that you know how to use it" things like that.

That is only one example of many, many. It was the same with toothbrushing. Never have we put a toothbrush in her mouth, told her "we brush teeth", coerced or even made a point of encouraging it. She has seen us brushing our teeth and expressed desire to brush her teeth --

I most definately believe that children are social beings who genuinely want to do the socially acceptable thing. The desire to please is present in every child I have ever met in my entire life...ever. It is the exploitation of the child's desire to do the socially acceptable thing, or the expectation on the parent's part that they always will choose to do the socially acceptable thing, or sanctions imposed when they don't, is what I take huge issue with.


----------



## cfiddlinmama (May 9, 2006)

I just wanted to thank all the posters on this very interesting thread! I am new to GD and I have read this whole thread with a great deal of interest and fascination. Thank you for the clarifications of the misconceptions.







You all have a great night! Ciao! Clara


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

LoveBeads- I was offering up my opinion









I think CC's reply answers what I meant very well. A 14 mo old social experience would include those they are around on a daily basis, their caregivers, not an adult's well formed notion of society as it functions on a community, city, state, country, world basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I most definately believe that children are social beings who genuinely want to do the socially acceptable thing. The desire to please is present in every child I have ever met in my entire life...ever. It is the exploitation of the child's desire to do the socially acceptable thing, or the expectation on the parent's part that they always will choose to do the socially acceptable thing, or sanctions imposed when they don't, is what I take huge issue with.








My children do want to do the socially acceptable thing and they are quite capable of it, that doesn't mean they will ALWAYS choose to do so or even be capable to do so, or even ALWAYS in every instance want to. They are like their momma in that way


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

ITA with CC and MissRubyandKen.
*plays her human development scholar card*
Lovebeads: you are right that 14mo are egocentric. they have no theory of mind, meaning that they can't put themselves in the shoes of others to determine how they would react. and they don't have an intellectual sense of "society" beyond the scope of their immediate actions. but to imply that they don't have a sense of social acceptance is really inaccurate. in fact, that's almost ALL they have a sense of. they are our mirrors. they are largely reflective of our actions, and remain so for several years. they watch us, they watch our behavior, they watch our emotions, they listen to our tone, they listen to our words. they are sponges and the information that they are learning is ALL SOCIAL. do they understand that screaming in a restaurant annoys other patrons? no, of course not. but they DO understand that doing so makes mommy tense up, makes daddy use his mean voice, and makes big brother laugh (just examples). they get it. most babies are VERY in tune with emotion (barring any spectrum disorders). they cry when others cry, they laugh when others laugh, they smile when others smile. as social creatures, they long to feel smiles and laughters and elicit them in others. it's an evolutionary adaptation for babies to be so "cute" and elicit smiles from others - it helps them survive to be so emotionally in tune with their immediate social circle.

so...yes, on the surface you are correct about their cognitive abilities...but if you look even a shade deeper, it's really NOT the case that they are unable to determine social acceptance and strive for it in every interaction.

*puts human development scholar card back in pocket*


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IncaMama*
in fact, that's almost ALL they have a sense of. they are our mirrors. they are largely reflective of our actions, and remain so for several years. they watch us, they watch our behavior, they watch our emotions, they listen to our tone, they listen to our words. they are sponges and the information that they are learning is ALL SOCIAL. do they understand that screaming in a restaurant annoys other patrons? no, of course not. but they DO understand that doing so makes mommy tense up, makes daddy use his mean voice, and makes big brother laugh (just examples). they get it. most babies are VERY in tune with emotion (barring any spectrum disorders). they cry when others cry, they laugh when others laugh, they smile when others smile. as social creatures, they long to feel smiles and laughters and elicit them in others. it's an evolutionary adaptation for babies to be so "cute" and elicit smiles from others - it helps them survive to be so emotionally in tune with their immediate social circle.

so...yes, on the surface you are correct about their cognitive abilities...but if you look even a shade deeper, it's really NOT the case that they are unable to determine social acceptance and strive for it in every interaction.

*puts human development scholar card back in pocket*

Thank you and now I will take out my human development scholar card. It's interesting to "debate" these things with other HD people and I appreciate the answers from all of you. This is an area that is quite near and dear to my heart.

You think that I am inaccurate, and I think you are. Unless there is some definition of "socially acceptable" behavior that differs from the one I stated that you are using, you are assuming an intent and a cognitive ability in a baby that is absolutely not there.

You talk about them being our mirrors, yes, they are our mirrors but if you mirrored "socially *un*acceptable" behavior (such as throwing a rock at your DH's head), they wouldn't reason "hey, that's socially unacceptable so I don't think I'll do that". They would do the imitative thing and throw a rock. Being able to imitate is hardly an ability to distinguish something that is "socially acceptable." That capability can only come from an understanding of the world around you and years of experience.

What we are discussing is not an ability to imitate, not an ability to socialize and elicit reactions from people - we are talking about a cognitive ability to participate in a behavior. I disagree with you that a 14 month old baby is capable of that. The things that CC was describing in her response, of her baby watching her eat with a fork, is imitative behavior. There is no intent to "do the right thing" in that.

When a baby screams in a restaurant, it is your contention that they understand that doing so makes daddy use his angry voice and makes mommy tense up. I contend that are screaming because they have an unmet need and have no thought whatsoever about any adult reaction. That would take a level of cognitive ability that is not there at 14 months.

I also disagree with the notion that babies are in tune with their social circle because it helps them survive. At that age they are simply creatures of reflex and instinct. It is not that they don't have a will to survive - they do. But we differ on the notion of the cognitive ability - the purposefulness. You feel it is there, I feel it is not.

My reason for picking up on this is not to argue or be difficult. I am watching this discussion with interest. My reason for picking up on this is because I would hope that child-rearing techniques are formulated around child development theories. It alarms me to read about how babies are "manipulative" and you can "spoil" them (needless to say, I am talking NOT about CL but about something like Babywise) because it attributes cognitive abilities to children that are not there. It would be my dream come true if people understood the cognitive abilities of children so that they can understand proper discipline techniques for their child's age and stage.

If there is a false understanding of a child's cognitive ability then the discipline which follows will be completely different from what it would be if we didn't attribute that cognitive capacity. For example, if we know that a child understands what it means to lie, we will handle the lying in one way. If we know that a child is not capable then we SHOULD handle it a different way.

I'm enjoying the respectful discussion. Thanks for responding (all of you, I don't mean to single out one).


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
At 14 months you think she wants to do the socially acceptable thing? My DD doesn't even know what that is!










This was addressed to CC, but I wanted to say that I do think my ds wanted to do the socially acceptable thing at 14 mos, and much more so as he gets older (he's 2yo now). I think they understand what's acceptable based on their parent's reactions. They want to do what makes their parents happy. I do imagine that different children mature at different rates, so one 14 month old would visibly want to do and understand the acceptable thing, where another would show no such signs. But I think one would see a progression toward that understanding of what was the acceptable thing, kwim?
(I can only speak as a parent who *expects* that ds wants to do the acceptable thing. Expectations can mean a lot. So I suppose if one were to *expect* that dc had not interest in doing the acceptable thing, and be totally self centered, then dc would obediently follow through on that expectation.)
Even though he wanted to, it doesn't mean he always did- there are tons of things that can get in the way of doing the acceptable thing- lack of info, lack of impulse control, unmet needs, not knowing an acceptable alternative for unacceptable behavior, etc.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LoveBeads*
You think that I am inaccurate, and I think you are. Unless there is some definition of "socially acceptable" behavior that differs from the one I stated that you are using, you are assuming an intent and a cognitive ability in a baby that is absolutely not there.

i think that in the context of this thread, yes "socially acceptable" has taken on a meaning different from what you're talking about. many have suggested that consensual living is an inappropriate way to parent because children will not gravitate toward the "right" way to behave. that given the opportunity, they will choose the "wrong" way, despite parents' best intentions...that modeling is not enough and that coercion is sometimes (or often?) necessary. i take issue with that interpretation, and in THAT context assert that egocentrism is not sufficient to dismiss the goal and strategies behind consensual living.

Quote:

You talk about them being our mirrors, yes, they are our mirrors but if you mirrored "socially *un*acceptable" behavior (such as throwing a rock at your DH's head), they wouldn't reason "hey, that's socially unacceptable so I don't think I'll do that". They would do the imitative thing and throw a rock. Being able to imitate is hardly an ability to distinguish something that is "socially acceptable." That capability can only come from an understanding of the world around you and years of experience.
again, i think you're relying on a slightly different (an imo irrelevant fir this debate) definition of socially acceptable. if i demonstrate and model bad behavior, of course my child will be learning that behavior and mirroring that behavior. but in that context, i have shown him or her that it IS socially acceptable to do so. in his or her immediate social circle, it is acceptable to act in such a manner and my child has learned that.

Quote:

What we are discussing is not an ability to imitate, not an ability to socialize and elicit reactions from people - we are talking about a cognitive ability to participate in a behavior.
actually, i think that we were talking about why consensual living isn't appropriate for young children. and i took issue with your use of egocentrism as a contra-indication for consensual living.

Quote:

I disagree with you that a 14 month old baby is capable of that. The things that CC was describing in her response, of her baby watching her eat with a fork, is imitative behavior. There is no intent to "do the right thing" in that.
again, it depends on how you define it. "do the right thing" in her context? absolutely. she has learned that the thing you do with forks is xyz. does she know that in many parts of the world this is considered appropriate behavior? but that in some parts of the world it is equally acceptable (or moreso) to eat with one's hands or chopsticks? and that placed in that context it is no longer acceptable to ask for a fork? no, of course not. but in HER SOCIAL CONTEXT she has ABSOLUTELY learned that it is the "right thing" to do. it is THE thing to do.

Quote:

When a baby screams in a restaurant, it is your contention that they understand that doing so makes daddy use his angry voice and makes mommy tense up.
it is my contention that once mommy tenses up and daddy uses his angry voice she is THEN able to interpret verbal and non-verbal communication and feel the importance of her actions.

Quote:

I contend that are screaming because they have an unmet need and have no thought whatsoever about any adult reaction.
of course they are screaming because of an unmet need...those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. it is possible for a 14mo to have an unmet need (resulting in screaming) while at the same time understanding that once she screams, she has caused a negative reaction in her family.

Quote:

I also disagree with the notion that babies are in tune with their social circle because it helps them survive. At that age they are simply creatures of reflex and instinct. It is not that they don't have a will to survive - they do. But we differ on the notion of the cognitive ability - the purposefulness. You feel it is there, I feel it is not.
i think that it is a mistake to underestimate reflex and instinct or to place it as less important than cognitive milestones. i think that waiting for cognitive development to reach the levels that you're suggesting are required to make "social acceptability" teachable/learnable is a mistake. my research in developmental psychology and attachment theory have convinced me of that.

Quote:

My reason for picking up on this is because I would hope that child-rearing techniques are formulated around child development theories.
that is my hope as well, as a fellow HD scholar.

Quote:

It would be my dream come true if people understood the cognitive abilities of children so that they can understand proper discipline techniques for their child's age and stage.
that is my dream as well, i think we just differ about the importance of those instinctual and reflexive behaviors in young children and about the role that we as parents can take on in cultivating those innate social features that most children are born with.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Well said IncaMama


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

I also disagree with the notion that babies are in tune with their social circle because it helps them survive. At that age they are simply creatures of reflex and instinct. It is not that they don't have a will to survive - they do. But we differ on the notion of the cognitive ability - the purposefulness. You feel it is there, I feel it is not.
Again, only browsing the last couple of posts.







But, how does one rationalize a 6 month old requesting to nurse by using sign language to convey a specific desired action with purposefulness? Or a 7 month old who EC's that requests the toilet with a specific sign with purpose and holds the stool until the toilet is provided?

Pat


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
This was addressed to CC, but I wanted to say that I do think my ds wanted to do the socially acceptable thing at 14 mos, and much more so as he gets older (he's 2yo now). I think they understand what's acceptable based on their parent's reactions. They want to do what makes their parents happy. I do imagine that different children mature at different rates, so one 14 month old would visibly want to do and understand the acceptable thing, where another would show no such signs. But I think one would see a progression toward that understanding of what was the acceptable thing, kwim?
(I can only speak as a parent who *expects* that ds wants to do the acceptable thing. Expectations can mean a lot. So I suppose if one were to *expect* that dc had not interest in doing the acceptable thing, and be totally self centered, then dc would obediently follow through on that expectation.)
Even though he wanted to, it doesn't mean he always did- there are tons of things that can get in the way of doing the acceptable thing- lack of info, lack of impulse control, unmet needs, not knowing an acceptable alternative for unacceptable behavior, etc.

I think my post questioning whether 14-month-olds know what is "socially acceptable" was a little bit tongue-in-cheek...certainly, they tune into parents' expectations of their behavior, although I think they test those expectations as much as anything, but the phrase "socially acceptable" just sounded kind of funny to me.

DD definitely aims to please me and her daddy much of the time but she also wants to see what we will do when she does something that doesn't make us happy. Example: she bites my nipple when nursing. I say "owie! That hurts mommy." She grins and bites down again, immediately, harder. Certainly she is starting, at 14 months old, to learn what is acceptable behavior and what isn't, but that doesn't mean she will go directly to curtailing behavior that hurts others. This is why I can't negotiate with her in that instance but must remove her from my breast if she continues to bite. I don't think she is biting because I somehow don't have the right expectations of her...I think she's biting because she's a little scientist, and is experimenting with what results are produced by what actions. I see it as normal, healthy behavior but I can't allow it, so I break the latch and put her down if she continues to bite.

So yeah, DD is starting to get what is socially acceptable and what isn't, but I wholeheartedly disagree that if I just have the right expectations for her, she will always do the socially acceptable thing.

FWIW I don't care if 99% of what she does is NOT socially acceptable, at this point...







As long as it doesn't hurt people or property. (Well, I actually let her hurt my 'property' sometimes, but not other peoples' whose property I might have to pay for if she hurts it!)


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Again, only browsing the last couple of posts.







But, how does one rationalize a 6 month old requesting to nurse by using sign language to convey a specific desired action with purposefulness? Or a 7 month old who EC's that requests the toilet with a specific sign with purpose and holds the stool until the toilet is provided?

Pat

Great points Pat. I find it a highly dangerous assumption to believe that babies (even 14 month olds!) are simply creatures of instinct and reflex. How insulting! I don't have to be a scholar of human development to have seen the exact opposite in action. Our daughter (who is wonderful, but I don't believe is any more enlightened that most babies) showed amazing communicative and social behavior very early on. Sure, she didn't strike up a conversation about the weather







but I don't believe for a second she was only behaving in instinct and reflex.

When one assumes, or is led to believe that children are intrisically egocentric and creatures only of instinct and reflex, it refuses acknowledgement of a whole other world of their emotions, abilities, understanding, and communication. It is also a convenient way to dismiss their opinions, desires, and dissent under the guise of "knowing better" so that they can be controlled and the person doing the controlling can feel justified.

Oh, as long as we are throwing around our scholastic achievements, my field of study is Sociology









I just saw Nora'smama's post and I wanted to quote her:

Quote:

So yeah, DD is starting to get what is socially acceptable and what isn't, but I wholeheartedly disagree that if I just have the right expectations for her, she will always do the socially acceptable thing.
I personally never said that I always expect our daughter will do the socially acceptable thing every time....heck, I don't do the socially acceptable thing every time. I said that I approach every situation in the spirit of feeling that she has an innate desire to do the socially acceptable or *right* thing, and it changes our interactions into positive ones from the start.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
So yeah, DD is starting to get what is socially acceptable and what isn't, but I wholeheartedly disagree that if I just have the right expectations for her, she will always do the socially acceptable thing.

FWIW I don't care if 99% of what she does is NOT socially acceptable, at this point...







As long as it doesn't hurt people or property. (Well, I actually let her hurt my 'property' sometimes, but not other peoples' whose property I might have to pay for if she hurts it!)

Yeah, I'm right there with you, Nora'sMama. In fact, I think that's one of the joyful things about childhood, and what we love about children. I do have the expectation that my children will EVENTUALLY learn how to behave in socially acceptable ways, but there are definitely stages where they just don't care.

And I agree that most of what CC describes as "socially acceptable" behavior is instinctual imitation. I was just reading about the part of the brain that starts developing at right about 18 months that allows children to have more control over their behavior, not just do what is modeled for them. It was in "What's Going On In There?", a great book on development, IMO. I'll look it up.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Ah, I see. I took your post out of context. So easy to do online.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
So yeah, DD is starting to get what is socially acceptable and what isn't, but I wholeheartedly disagree that if I just have the right expectations for her, she will always do the socially acceptable thing.

Yeah, I don't expect that ds will always do the socially acceptable thing. But I do believe that he *wants* to do it, and that I need to help him do it (and he wants my help).
If he's not doing the socially acceptable thing (that is, what is considered acceptable to his society ie: our household), there is a reason. Lack of info, lack of acceptable alternatives to unacceptable behavior, exploration, lack of impulse control, etc. See my siggy


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I was just reading about the part of the brain that starts developing at right about 18 months that allows children to have more control over their behavior, not just do what is modeled for them. It was in "What's Going On In There?", a great book on development, IMO. I'll look it up.

I love that book!! I need to reread it, although my copy fell apart before I could even finish the first chapter.







: I had to glue it back together - a $25 book and they couldn't bother to glue it to the binding sufficiently! (sorry for the OT comment)


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Wow! Look at what I missed in just a day!! Great discussion!

I suppose that I can't say any better what I think about this than others have done. But one thing I would add at this point in the topic, is that to me it's less important (thought I do think that babies are socially aware) whether the interactions in question are relfexive, instinctual, or consious. The results of non-coersion speak for themselves, regardless of what we believe about babies' abilities.

---

Now, just for some intellectual fun. I define a couple of terms used here a bit differently.

My understanding is that:

Relfexes are purely physical. As in, if I'm falling I have a reflex (3 actually) that jump in and correct my position to upright. This is true of all healthy humans, regardless of culture or ethnicity.

Instincts are similar, but can be emotional, intellectual and interpersonal. They can encompass complex ideas. I believe that some insticts are innate, and some are learned, and so also differ from reflexes.
---

I'll also add to the frey that I've never failed to be completely amazed at the level of thought DS is constantly exercising - but that I never see it until I decide to dig and ask and listen and learn.

I'll add a woowoo story for you all. Recently DH has started to help DS learn to find me if he doesn't know where I am. He fundamentally believes that creatures have an _instict_ to find their mothers (or other closely connected individuals), and that we all are aware of it if we quiet our minds enough. Now I'm not talking about if I actively tried to hide and deceive him, or that he can "bloodhound" me out. Not going there.

But so far, 8 out of 8 times, DS has walked right to me in crowded stores, and on different floors. DH has shown DS how to relax himself when he's getting nervous not knowing where I am, and just sense it. Just feel where to go. It hasn't failed yet.

I do it too.

No one expects that humans can do this, much less a 2 yo. But just because many people refuse to think it's a real instict, doesn't mean they are right. It means they don't believe it.

I think there are many such insticts and abilities present in 14 mo olds and younger that the consensus doesn't acknolwedge. Doesn't mean they are not there. One just has to look in the places where those trait show.

OK, 'nuff babbling for now... I'm neglecting DH at this point.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Aira, I think you're right. I read somewhere (in Becoming the Parent You Want to Be, maybe?) that it is important to spend time observing your kids as they play, not interacting with them, just observing. I try to find time to do this every day and it is absolutely fascinating to watch her systematically testing and exploring her environment. She has much more sophisticated reasoning at 14 months than she did at 12 months, and it's as if I can see her neurons connecting, sometimes, as she manipulates blocks or whatever!


----------



## Emmom (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
DD definitely aims to please me and her daddy much of the time but she also wants to see what we will do when she does something that doesn't make us happy. Example: she bites my nipple when nursing. I say "owie! That hurts mommy." She grins and bites down again, immediately, harder. Certainly she is starting, at 14 months old, to learn what is acceptable behavior and what isn't, but that doesn't mean she will go directly to curtailing behavior that hurts others. This is why I can't negotiate with her in that instance but must remove her from my breast if she continues to bite. I don't think she is biting because I somehow don't have the right expectations of her...I think she's biting because she's a little scientist, and is experimenting with what results are produced by what actions. I see it as normal, healthy behavior but I can't allow it, so I break the latch and put her down if she continues to bite.

I see this behavior, the "experimenting with what results are produced by what actions" as the *perfect examples* of how children are constantly seeking to discover social boundaries. That's what that testing is, isn't it? She bites, you say no, she bites again to see if that's what you were talking about.

I don't mean to sound obnoxious, here, Nora'sMama, but when my ds periodically bites while nursing, we go through this same dance, but without me putting him down. I found that just cheerfully saying, "please don't bite, that hurts me," one more repetition of biting and saying, "please don't" always stops the behavior*... until a couple months later when he needs to try again. At this point (18 months), last week he bit, I said "please don't bite me, that hurts" (calmly, not mad), then he giggled and went to bite my arm, I said, "please don't" and he nodded at me very seriously and went back to nursing.

My point in all this over-detailed description is to say that if I believe that ds *wants* to do the socially acceptable (e.g. to his small society of family and friends) thing, then I don't need to emphasize it by putting him down. He tests, I tell him, that's it.

Of course, I have no idea if other kids would react the same way. This is just how I practice positive assumption in my home, and how it works for me. As far as biting goes, once every few months ain't bad.

*I feel really creepy saying "stops the behavior"


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I see this behavior, the "experimenting with what results are produced by what actions" as the perfect examples of how children are constantly *cognitive beings*!

I also believe that the desire for belongingness on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is what induces seeking "socially acceptable" behaviors when judgement of the behaviors is occuring. Personally, "socially acceptable" isn't something that we attempt to induce our child to learn. I believe he inherently desires connecting, acceptance and social harmony. Whether a behavior is "acceptable" isn't something that I feel that I can define for another person, I can only define it for myself. Therefore, I don't try to *teach* ds what "everyone" thinks is "socially acceptable". I give feedback about how his behavior specifically affects me. And I help him to see the significant social cues of which he may not be aware by pointing them out, rather than defining a behavior as acceptable or unacceptable to repeat. I believe that ds can discern "acceptable" through his own observations of an individual's reactions.

Additionally, we try to meet ds's needs for belongingness without condition of behaving "acceptably". This judgement of his behavior doesn't enter our interactions. Instead we authentically communicate our experience of an action which affects us positively or negatively. I perceive that ds seeks this information and I share it without deeming the specific behavior "acceptable" or "unacceptable".

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I see this behavior, the "experimenting with what results are produced by what actions" as the perfect examples of how children are constantly *cognitive beings*!

I also believe that the desire for belongingness on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is what induces seeking "socially acceptable" behaviors when judgement of the behaviors is occuring. Personally, "socially acceptable" isn't something that we attempt to induce our child to learn. I believe he inherently desires connecting, acceptance and social harmony. Whether a behavior is "acceptable" isn't something that I feel that I can define for another person, I can only define it for myself. Therefore, I don't try to *teach* ds what "everyone" thinks is "socially acceptable". I give feedback about how his behavior specifically affects me. And I help him to see the significant social cues of which he may not be aware by pointing them out, rather than defining a behavior as acceptable or unacceptable to repeat. I believe that ds can discern "acceptable" through his own observations of an individual's reactions.

Additionally, we try to meet ds's needs for belongingness without condition of behaving "acceptably". This judgement of his behavior doesn't enter our interactions. Instead we authentically communicate our experience of an action which affects us positively or negatively. I perceive that ds seeks this information and I share it without deeming the specific behavior "acceptable" or "unacceptable".

Pat

We do the same thing, I just didn't know how to word it as well.







I would never ever think to say to my daughter that her behavior was "socially unacceptable" or even that it was. I would however, if she looked to me for guidance, tell her her my opinions, in *I* statements, and not present them as everyone's views, while also providing her information about social situations to the best of my experience and observation of what *most* people I have personally encountered are or aren't comfortable with (i.e. "most people probably won't want you to show them a mouthful of your chewed food"







) ... but I will share with her that there is a wide range of what people consider to be socially acceptable based on culture/situation/personality/familiarity/place/time/state of mind etc... there really aren't any hard and fast rules....because as we are all too familiar with, there is always a "what if"


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emmom*

I don't mean to sound obnoxious, here, Nora'sMama, but when my ds periodically bites while nursing, we go through this same dance, but without me putting him down. I found that just cheerfully saying, "please don't bite, that hurts me," one more repetition of biting and saying, "please don't" always stops the behavior*... until a couple months later when he needs to try again. At this point (18 months), last week he bit, I said "please don't bite me, that hurts" (calmly, not mad), then he giggled and went to bite my arm, I said, "please don't" and he nodded at me very seriously and went back to nursing.

My point in all this over-detailed description is to say that if I believe that ds *wants* to do the socially acceptable (e.g. to his small society of family and friends) thing, then I don't need to emphasize it by putting him down. He tests, I tell him, that's it.

Of course, I have no idea if other kids would react the same way.

Emmom, well, I've tried just telling her, but in this particular circumstance, she thinks it is hilarious to bite repeatedly (not always, but enough times that I'm not willing to risk my nipples any more). I am not being punitive by putting her down off my lap when she bites repeatedly. I am protecting my nipples! If she stopped biting when I told her that biting hurts, there would obviously be no need to put her down. But, she doesn't!

I'm sure you're not suggesting that I just wait until she decides of her own accord to stop biting...? That would definitely not meet any definition I can think of of a mutually agreeable solution, since I most definitely do not feel agreeable when my poor nipples are being chomped!


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

I just thought of a related point. When we tell our children that something hurts us, but we don't act like people normally act when they are being hurt - i.e. if we say "owie! that hurts mama" but we leave our nipple exposed and in the child's mouth who has just bit us - isn't that a bit of a mixed message? That is not authentic at all, to me. If something really hurts me (which nipple biting does), I flee the source of the pain. If the source of the pain is another person, I tell them that they caused me pain, while simultaneously protecting myself. Why would I act differently with my child?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I just thought of a related point. When we tell our children that something hurts us, but we don't act like people normally act when they are being hurt - i.e. if we say "owie! that hurts mama" but we leave our nipple exposed and in the child's mouth who has just bit us - isn't that a bit of a mixed message? That is not authentic at all, to me. If something really hurts me (which nipple biting does), I flee the source of the pain. If the source of the pain is another person, I tell them that they caused me pain, while simultaneously protecting myself. Why would I act differently with my child?

I agree on that point Nora'sMama, I authentically act hurt when my daughter hurts me --- we went through a biting phase recently, and while I don't act emotionally hurt (I think that is manipulative personally, because she is in no way trying to hurt me emotionally ...and I don't even think she is trying to hurt me physically) -- I do tell her "biting hurts my body, please don't bite me" -- I still though, choose to believe that she has a need in that moment -- a need for my attention, a need to connect, a need to see that I still love her even when she acts in a way that I clearly don't like -- or it may be a physical need to bite something, teething, or just the feel of biting something like flesh which is warm and squishy... I do make every reasonable attempt to meet the need to bite something, or in the case of a suspected emotional need (the ones listed above), make every attempt to meet that need --- but I do have a personal (imo) reasonable boundary and need to feel safe in my person (the child bites hard!!!) and I let her know that. I make every attempt to avoid her feeling like my action of not allowing her to bite me is a punitive one, while also modeling for her that people have a right not to be bitten. It is a delicate balance, but no, I don't think it is consensual that your daughter cause you physical pain, even if it is unknowingly and without *malice*. ( I don't feel my daughter bites out of any kind of malicious intent either).


----------



## Emmom (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Emmom, well, I've tried just telling her, but in this particular circumstance, she thinks it is hilarious to bite repeatedly (not always, but enough times that I'm not willing to risk my nipples any more). I am not being punitive by putting her down off my lap when she bites repeatedly. I am protecting my nipples! If she stopped biting when I told her that biting hurts, there would obviously be no need to put her down. But, she doesn't!

I'm sure you're not suggesting that I just wait until she decides of her own accord to stop biting...? That would definitely not meet any definition I can think of of a mutually agreeable solution, since I most definitely do not feel agreeable when my poor nipples are being chomped!

You're right about all of this, of course. If it really was hurting and she wasn't stopping, of course you'd stop her from hurting you more. My reaction would have been the same if my ds kept going.

My point in responding in the first place was that

1) The nipple-biting thing made me think of the loads of advice I heard given to a mother in that situation at a meeting I attended, all of which advised something necessary for *emphasis* to make the dc *understand* that it hurt. In that case, the suggestion of putting the dc down seemed punitive. I shouldn't have assumed that in your case.

2) Your language about your dd being a little scientist testing your reaction made me think about how that *supports* the notion of a socially aware young child.

I knew that post would come off wrong but I couldn't figure out how better to write it. Should've thought longer!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I just thought of a related point. When we tell our children that something hurts us, but we don't act like people normally act when they are being hurt - i.e. if we say "owie! that hurts mama" but we leave our nipple exposed and in the child's mouth who has just bit us - isn't that a bit of a mixed message? That is not authentic at all, to me. If something really hurts me (which nipple biting does), I flee the source of the pain. If the source of the pain is another person, I tell them that they caused me pain, while simultaneously protecting myself. Why would I act differently with my child?

By reacting "calmly" I guess I was thinking of some very dramatic "ouches" I've heard moms scream. I'm not saying that you did that, of course!


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
One mama suggested she stays at the park even when she really has to pee, if her children are not ready to go yet.


When I'm in a situation where I have to leave I tell my son he can either have 5 minutes (then I count down each minute for him) or X number of trips down the slide, and then we are leaving. I get down to his level, hold his hands, and make sure he hears me. Most of the time he is okay after I give him notice, but sometimes he isn't. When he isn't I'll get back down, hold his hands again and give a short explanation of why we must leave. I do not allow him to continue playing because I think that sends confusing messages. If, on the very rare occaison he still refuses to leave, I simply pick him up and carry him to the car. He might fuss and squirm a bit, but he's only 23 months. I can't expect him to understand my reasons for everything. At the same time, I'm not going to go hungry/wet my pants/stay out past dark/get chased by bears because he doesn't want to stop playing.

~Nay


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

CC, Emmom, we're all on the same page with the nipple-biting, I think.







(What a strange sentence!)

I would never attempt to curb DD's biting by yelping OUCH!! unless that is what I really felt, and I don't. I just say calmly, "owie - that hurts mama. Biting hurts." And I make the sign for owie and look serious, not mad, not overwrought with pain, not smiling, just sort of serious. And if I need to put her down it is very matter-of-fact, "biting hurts, why don't you get a book and I'll read to you?" or "here, play with the bear." In my case it's obvious that she doesn't need to chew on something, she's biting me and looking at me to see my reaction. So I act with that in mind. If I felt she needed to teethe I would of course provide something appropriate for her to teethe on.

I do find that thinking from a consensual living standpoint really helps in my interactions with DD. I stand by my opinion that it has its limitations, but it provides options to everyday issues that I probably would not have considered without putting the situation through the filter of trying to find a mutually agreeable solution.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I believe that ds can discern "acceptable" through his own observations of an individual's reactions.

Additionally, we try to meet ds's needs for belongingness without condition of behaving "acceptably". This judgement of his behavior doesn't enter our interactions. Instead we authentically communicate our experience of an action which affects us positively or negatively. I perceive that ds seeks this information and I share it without deeming the specific behavior "acceptable" or "unacceptable".











And I will add to this that when DS chooses to do something that doesn't make sense to me on the surface, I still trust that he has a valid reason for not making the same choice I would. I don't assume that it means he doesn't understand or care about social acceptance. Just that something else might have been more important to him at that time.

So we talk about it. And he always has a lot to say about his thought processes and feelings. He understands an awful lot.


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

LoveBeads- I was offering up my opinion
Quoting myself here because I wanted to correct myself. I should have said I was offering up an opinion I believe is true and share with others. Deva is the momma I actually heard the phrase 'children want to do the socially acceptable thing' from and ITA with it and her. Btw Deva







thanks for being such a wonderful influence!

I also wanted to say that I really look up to *ALL* the wonderful mommas here. Any mom who is trying not to include hitting, punishment, shaming, yelling, love withdrawal, etc in her family's daily life is doing a wonderful, beautiful thing! Its amazing how much more stressful the couple mommas' lives seem that I know irl who aren't gd mommas. I feel so blessed to have all you wonderful women to listen to, even if we don't all always agree, we all still have much in common.

ETA- the gentle dads and nannies and other care providers are great too!







Didn't mean to exclude anyone!


----------



## mama2jackie (Jul 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*

That is only one example of many, many. It was the same with toothbrushing. Never have we put a toothbrush in her mouth, told her "we brush teeth", coerced or even made a point of encouraging it. She has seen us brushing our teeth and expressed desire to brush her teeth --

I've read the forum here often, but never replied. I find a lot of good techniques here, but don't consider myself a GD or CLer. I try to diffuse simple situations in this manner first, but I think I'm pretty authoritarian in the end.

My example would be the counterpoint to yours, CC. I know I'm late on this, but this is the perfect example of what I don't get about CL/GD- the extent it can go to.

First of all, what age was your daughter when she started seeming interested in brushing her teeth just like you were? Because I doubt it was at 8 or 9 months old, when most babies get their teeth.

And second, what IF she had never imitated this behavior? What if she never seemed to notice you were brushing? Would you then *coerce* her at all?
I ask because my son loves to brush his teeth and always has. But my daughter came along and hates it. But it's a dealbreaker for me, she's going to do it. We've tried doing it a million different ways, and some days it's not a fight, but most days it is. She doesn't care if she has stinky breath or gunk on her teeth. But this is where I feel like parents SHOULD be authoratative- it's simple bad hygiene, not to mention she doesn't understand the negative effects (gingivitis, gum disease, tooth decay) from not brushing. And she doesn't care- we've tried this common sense angle before.
So what would you do if you had another child who didn't imitate this behavior? Is there ever a line to draw?


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama2jackie*
But this is where I feel like parents SHOULD be authoratative- it's simple bad hygiene, not to mention she doesn't understand the negative effects (gingivitis, gum disease, tooth decay) from not brushing. And she doesn't care- we've tried this common sense angle before.

I knew a mama who practiced TCS with her 3 y.o. I have tried to understand TCS because I believe most parenting theories (not involving yelling, hitting, etc.) have something to offer and TCS is no exception (I still believe this). This very topic came up with her . . .she said she never forced her DS to brush his teeth. Sometimes she tried creative ways to do it, but never used "coercion." A year later she reported back that her DS would have to undergo surgery due to several cavities. Obviously it would have been insensitive of me to ask if she was going to start drawing the line at that point, so I don't know what happened.

I'm very curious about this, too . . .what do CL parents do?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Oh the toothbrushing arguement. This comes up so many times.

In short, no, I would not force my daughter to brush her teeth. I would provide information, model what I believe to be good dental habits, find creative ways to make it more interesting for her, let her pick out her own fun toothbrush/toothpaste whatever, let her brush standing on her head if she wanted --- I would not force though.

Yes, we have all heard the dreaded "I knew someone who didn't make their kid brush and all their teeth fell out by the age of 16" ... but the simple fact is, and almost every dental professional will tell you that the health of teeth depends largely on family history, diet, overall health, and straight up luck of the draw. I am not saying dental hygiene is not important, it is -- but not important enough imo to forcibly hold my daughter down against her will fighting and kicking and screaming and forcing a foreign object into her mouth against her will. That is SO completely degrading in my opinion. Less so, but still offensive, is forcing her to do it under the threat of punishment if she doesn't.

Fortunately we haven't had that particular issue but if we did or ever do, I still won't force it.


----------



## SneakyPie (Jan 13, 2002)

And keeping in mind, mama2jackie and Miz -- **sometimes we don't live up to our own ideals.**

I feel a need to repeat this because I am in this very position with our son. He loathes toothbrushing, and we do plenty of modeling and encouragement but still end up with a little bit of me overriding his choice in this matter, sometimes a lot. I do still consider myself a CL parent. A CL parent who has not figured out the way around this issue.

Yes, I do fall back on the "we do consent and sometimes I have responsibilities as the parent" argument. But in my heart I believe that one of my chief responsibilities as his mother is to be really really creative in situations like this -- so I keep looking for a way to make tooth cleaning acceptable to him.

I guess what I am saying is that I myself have choices here. I can abandon the label "consensual" and say Well, since I can't live up to my ideals I don't deserve to call myself a mutual-consent parent. OR -- I can admit that I, like my child, have plenty of learning still to do, and keep trying, and not be scared off my ideals by tales of rotten teeth and married 16-year-olds. For me, rather than saying to myself, "I fear that I will fail at mutual consent, or that it will harm my child," I tend to say (in my stronger moments!), "I'm pretty sure we can do this. And if I'm stumped or mess up, I'm pretty sure we can all still try again."


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

A note regarding toothbrushing. My DD happens to LOVE brushing her teeth but I fully expect she will go through a stage of not loving it so much, and I"ll have to get creative.

One thing I found that is an alternative to toothbrushing: www.spiffies.com - Spiffies toothwipes. They can be used for babies and they have fruit flavors. They are made with xylitol, which is a naturally-occurring sugar alcohol that is harmless and kills cavity-causing bacteria. I try to chew xylitol-containing gum often to help prevent cavities for myself.

I think there are lots and lots of different strategies that could be used, including downright bribing, before I'd jam a toothbrush into an unwilling child's mouth. But I totally agree that some things sort of HAVE to be done. I wouldn't let toothbrushing go undone, but I can't imagine having to resort to force. But maybe I'm just naive.









Anyway, I know a lot of parents would think that bribing was just as bad as forcing. But for a "deal-breaker" I would probably outright promise DD something she wanted if it meant she would (consistently) brush her teeth. One night, obviously, would not be something to worry about. I'd only pull out the big guns if she refused to do it habitually and the normal "make it fun" techniques were not doing it for her.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
almost every dental professional will tell you that the health of teeth depends largely on family history, diet, overall health, and straight up luck of the draw.

Do you have anything to back this up? Not trying to be snippy-- just confused here . . .it goes against everything I've heard from my dentists. For example, I assumed that losing one's teeth (eventually) was inevitable. My dentist said NO-- (spoken like Smokey the Bear here)-- only YOU can prevent gum disease. I know that my own teeth/gums are remarkably better now that I floss every day and brush . . .I had bad bleeding and the beginning of gum disease before I changed my habits (I brushed but did not floss often/rarely went to the dentist). Now my gum disease is improving a lot. I know that some people are predisposed to better or worse teeth (and that habits like smoking are just bad), but I believe we have a LOT of control over our dental hygiene . . .and dental hygiene is such an important part of one's overall health.

Quote:

I am not saying dental hygiene is not important, it is -- but not important enough imo to forcibly hold my daughter down against her will fighting and kicking and screaming and forcing a foreign object into her mouth against her will. That is SO completely degrading in my opinion. Less so, but still offensive, is forcing her to do it under the threat of punishment if she doesn't.
I hear what you are saying, but at the same time, I personally worried about this woman's son when he went into surgery. As a result of not brushing, he had to undergo an operation . . .why would I want to risk that for my child? I'd rather just find a way to get my DC to brush. At the age of 3 (IMO) the boy could not have understood the consequences of his choices . . .heck, it is hard for adults!


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
I feel like there is a time and place to say, "no." ITA that there are lots of other/often better strategies, and I see lots of good suggestions here for those.

But sometimes it seems like there is this prohibition here on ever exerting authority, ever telling a child "no, that is not okay."

I had a thread here awhile back that was super extra amazingly helpful and made all the difference in me changing a dynamic that had developed with my dd where I was power struggling with her.

But I keep thinking about an example I wrote about where we were at the beach, and it was time to go. We climbed the hill to the car and dd turned around and ran back down the hill to the water, despite me telling her no and urging her to come back. It was suggested that she must not have been ready to leave, and I should just resign myself to waiting, to helping her want to leave, time is not a big deal, sometimes part of parenting is being somewhere and wishing like crazy you were somewhere else, etc. One mama suggested she stays at the park even when she really has to pee, if her children are not ready to go yet.

Another time I was trying to get my daughter dressed, as we had to be somewhere. She refused to get dressed and was physically struggling. I tried to distract, convince, etc. Didn't work. Finally I picked her up, put her in my bedroom, told her I was putting her for a time out because she wasn't getting dressed, and walked away. She started to cry, followed me out of the room, and I got her dressed. But I'm sure many here would be horrified by that.

So my question is... is this constant giving, following children's agendas at the expense of our own, not saying "no," never giving a parent-driven consequence to a behaviour... is that mandatory for GD?

And is that necessarily good for children? What is that teaching them? Is it good for kids to get the message that their own needs and desires always come before their mama's/other people's? Is it good for them to never be told "no," or to give up their own desires because someone else's agenda (like mama's agenda to go pee) takes precedence?

I'm totally late for the party and have only read the OP yet, but I'll chime in: i do NOT want my kid to think the world revolves around her! i am super flexible with her, but sometimes I insist on my needs being taken into account. I think that this is where GD ccan be taken in a wrong direction, where it all becomes about playing up to your child. I think part of my job is to prepare dk for the world, which will not treat her as it's center, even if she is a cute l'il white kid.

Our family is a group, and in our group, every person's needs are considered. Dk is not very good at that yet, I'll admit, but I think learning to consider other people's needs and to sometimes not get your way (when there's a good reason not to) is a crucial survival skill and is important for the kids to grow into people anone wants to be around.

ok, off to read the thread and I'm sure all of my points were already made!!


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I want to chime in about toothbrushing...

...but DS is calling.

I'll be back.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I do not force dd to brush her teeth.

She does allow me to do so most of the time but some days she does not want her teeth brushed and I do not force it. I do offer water to swish with and/or carrots to munch on to help clean them right before bed. She almost always allows this.

I have no cited research to back up the pp's claim about genetics/diet but that is what our dentist said when I asked what I should do if dd will not allow tooth brushing. He said that most small children in our un-florinated water area do not brush their teeth and most have no dental problems. The ones that do have little correlation to frequency of tooth brushing. Yes, it is a good measure for prevention but not the most significant factor. And he has to be right because I did not brush my teeth until I was a teen and I have no cavities. Never have.

I will not force my child to brush her teeth. We model, discuss, read about, etc.... but I will not bribe or force a toothbrush into her mouth.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mizelenius*
Do you have anything to back this up? Not trying to be snippy-- just confused here . . .it goes against everything I've heard from my dentists. For example, I assumed that losing one's teeth (eventually) was inevitable. My dentist said NO-- (spoken like Smokey the Bear here)-- only YOU can prevent gum disease. I know that my own teeth/gums are remarkably better now that I floss every day and brush . . .I had bad bleeding and the beginning of gum disease before I changed my habits (I brushed but did not floss often/rarely went to the dentist). Now my gum disease is improving a lot. I know that some people are predisposed to better or worse teeth (and that habits like smoking are just bad), but I believe we have a LOT of control over our dental hygiene . . .and dental hygiene is such an important part of one's overall health.

I hear what you are saying, but at the same time, I personally worried about this woman's son when he went into surgery. As a result of not brushing, he had to undergo an operation . . .why would I want to risk that for my child? I'd rather just find a way to get my DC to brush. At the age of 3 (IMO) the boy could not have understood the consequences of his choices . . .heck, it is hard for adults!

I think the person who stated there were a variety of contributors to good dental health and that some of them we have no control over is correct. I also think (yes I realize this is blasphemy) that toothbrushing can actually contribute to teeth decay. For unknown reasons I was blessed with extraordinarily healthy teeth and never had an issue until I was in my thirties, where all of a sudden my teeth began sprouting decay like weeds in a garden. I'm convinced its due to brushing, which slowly wore the enamel down over time. I rarely floss, and none of my cavities were between the teeth where only floss could reach. All my cavities were only on brushing surfaces.

My DH has terrible teeth and has had trouble with them since he was a child. He has always brushed his teeth and flossed a minimum of twice a day, plus used special mouthwash. He's looking at a full mouth extraction soon.

I don't trust the medical profession to know what is good for us. I'm convinced in a couple decades they will realize that the toothbrushes we've been using have caused more problems than they have prevented, and a new method for keeping teeth clean will be developed. Anyways, for what its worth, I think tooth decay has more to do with diet than anything else, since (I have been told by my dentist) animals that don't have any access to processed food and who are in the wild have little to no decay (although they can have injuries which result in infection and disease to their teeth).


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm not CL, but pretty close I think. I'm consensual over most things- diapers, bedtime, baths, picking up (or not) toys lol. Most everything, really.
I guess the difference is that my criteria for being ok with coersion is different. I am comfortable coercing (as a last resort) in situations that are likely to involve harm to someone or something. Like hitting the dogs. But, honestly, I can't remember a time that I coerced for those reasons anyways. Other stuff (explaining, giving alternatives, etc) works wonderfully.
That, and toothbrushing. I coerce (used to) for toothbrushing. But, to be fair, it might not have ever come to that if we hadn't made a *big deal* out of toothbrushing in the first place. (Ds had 2 cavities at 18 mos)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I think there are lots and lots of different strategies that could be used, including downright bribing, before I'd jam a toothbrush into an unwilling child's mouth.

I tried bribery (which I am opposed to) before I actually held him down to brush. The bribery was WAY worse for him. It was REALLY upsetting to him. He refused to allow a toothbrush near his mouth for 3 days after I tried bribing once or twice. Not even with HIM brushing (no one else touching it). It affected him the rest of the day too.
Holding him down didn't affect him like that at all. We'd get done, and he'd want to take a turn brushing his own teeth, or go look in the mirror at his teeth. It didn't upset him outside of the 1 minute it took to do it (and then most of the time he was ok with that part anyways). I watched really closely, and it didn't ever affect the rest of his day. (it actually was less upsetting than us trying to get him to agree to let us brush his teeth- that was really stressful on all of us)
He has been willingly letting us brush his teeth well for the last month, since he's been able to understand the WHY's about teethbrushing. (He knows he has cavities, and he doesn't want more- he just got them filled)


----------



## SneakyPie (Jan 13, 2002)

"That is what our dentist said when I asked what I should do if dd will not allow tooth brushing. He said that most small children in our un-florinated water area do not brush their teeth and most have no dental problems. The ones that do have little correlation to frequency of tooth brushing. Yes, it is a good measure for prevention but not the most significant factor."

Our dentist has told us the same thing.

For the record, I'm happy to report that we are not holding our son down or forcing a toothbrush into a closed nonconsenting mouth. He does love his toothbrushes (yes he has picked out several and chooses which one we will start with). He consistently agrees to START the process (most of the time it is his idea) and happily chews away on the brush, "helps" us brush our teeth, even tries on some days to move the brush inside his mouth. His objection comes when I try to do a little more refined work in there, and I guess my reaction has almost 100% been suggesting and trying to help guide the brush, stopping when he resists. And up until the age of 13 months (he got his first teeth at 6 mo) he wouldn't let a brush in at all, and I never once did force it, though I suggested it daily.

Maybe I don't need to be so hard on myself about this. Now that I write it out I see that our strategy really has been consensual -- I'm just hyperaware of this situation because I know I really DO have an agenda about it!

PS: there is a German study, I'll find the link, showing that the most effective tooth-decay preventor for babies 6-18 months is the *mother* chewing xylitol gum daily. Trumped every other factor -- fluoride, brushing, heredity, etc. So I chew the gum still, figuring the protective effects will continue for at least a little while.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SneakyPie*
"That is what our dentist said when I asked what I should do if dd will not allow tooth brushing. He said that most small children in our un-florinated water area do not brush their teeth and most have no dental problems. The ones that do have little correlation to frequency of tooth brushing. Yes, it is a good measure for prevention but not the most significant factor."

Our dentist has told us the same thing.


I read stuff like that
The Invisible Toothbrush
"Therefore, within the limits of these data, there appears to be a very real correlation between vitamin C state (as a possible nonmechanical contributor) and debris, irrespective of tooth cleansing habits."

http://www.drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=...detail&ref=412
"Toddlers who drank lots of juice or who ate candy more than once a week were nearly twice as likely as their peers to have a mouthful of cavities by kindergarten, according to a 2001 study published in Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. Interestingly, toddler tooth brushing habits were no different in the group that had cavities than in the group that was cavity-free."

I'll admit that I let my fear take over. But I couldn't shake it.


----------



## lilylove (Apr 10, 2003)

Please try to keep this thread on topic. Feel free to discuss toothbrushing as it pertains to GD. But, dental hygiene and the virtues of toothbrushing are better debated in the Dental sub-forum.
Thank You


----------



## mamatoliam (Oct 31, 2005)

Hi,
I have been following this thread with great interest. I haven't posted on GD before but have learned tons here since I have started reading about a year ago. So thanks to everyone who posts for that.
I am wondering how you CL moms decide what behaviours you ask your child to do and will 'help' them with if they consent and which behaviours you don't ask and let your child decide on their own to start doing?
For example several CL moms have said tooth brushing was only modeled and when your dc showed an interest, great.
Scubamom said a similar thing in regards to cleaning and putting things in the garbage.
I am wondering because although I consider our family as living very close as to how I see CL described on MDC, most things I just ask(ed) my son and if he didn't disagree (and yes he shared his disagreement strongly from a very young age) I would go ahead. Now he can verbally consent. But from his first teeth I would ask to brush and if he opened and 'agreed' I would go ahead. Mouth closed, turning away, no brushing. Now he asks to brush and we ususally brush at the same time. Also we talk about what is garbage and if he is holding something in his hand that could be throw away and he is ready to drop it on the floor, I sometimes ask him to throw it away or just tell him it is garbage and he will sometimes put it in the garbage can. If he just drops it and walks away, fine I go throw it away.
I am curious because for things like changing a diaper, getting into his car seat and getting dressed I used the same format, ie. Can we change your diaper now? and I am assuming you CL moms must too. So in the interest of learning more about CL what paramaters guide what behaviours you choose to ask about and which ones you just let happen if and when the child is interested?

Thanks!


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*

I tried bribery (which I am opposed to) before I actually held him down to brush. The bribery was WAY worse for him. It was REALLY upsetting to him. He refused to allow a toothbrush near his mouth for 3 days after I tried bribing once or twice. Not even with HIM brushing (no one else touching it). It affected him the rest of the day too.
Holding him down didn't affect him like that at all. We'd get done, and he'd want to take a turn brushing his own teeth, or go look in the mirror at his teeth. It didn't upset him outside of the 1 minute it took to do it (and then most of the time he was ok with that part anyways). I watched really closely, and it didn't ever affect the rest of his day. (it actually was less upsetting than us trying to get him to agree to let us brush his teeth- that was really stressful on all of us)

That's interesting! Every kid is different! I hope I didn't come across as judging how you are handling the situation. Just offering my (completely theoretical) thoughts. I'm glad your ds is old enough now to understand why we brush. I think it's a hard stage when they are old enough to understand WHAT is going on but too young to understand WHY.

As far as the mom chewing xylitol gum, yeah, I read about that, and that's what I do too! As well as not giving juice except on rare occasions. My DD is obviously way too young to have to worry about candy.

Hopefully DD will inherit my genes; I didn't get any cavities in my baby teeth although I had bottles until age 3 and drank a ton of juice.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamatoliam*
Hi,
I have been following this thread with great interest. I haven't posted on GD before but have learned tons here since I have started reading about a year ago. So thanks to everyone who posts for that.
I am wondering how you CL moms decide what behaviours you ask your child to do and will 'help' them with if they consent and which behaviours you don't ask and let your child decide on their own to start doing?
For example several CL moms have said tooth brushing was only modeled and when your dc showed an interest, great.
Scubamom said a similar thing in regards to cleaning and putting things in the garbage.
I am wondering because although I consider our family as living very close as to how I see CL described on MDC, most things I just ask(ed) my son and if he didn't disagree (and yes he shared his disagreement strongly from a very young age) I would go ahead. Now he can verbally consent. But from his first teeth I would ask to brush and if he opened and 'agreed' I would go ahead. Mouth closed, turning away, no brushing. Now he asks to brush and we ususally brush at the same time. Also we talk about what is garbage and if he is holding something in his hand that could be throw away and he is ready to drop it on the floor, I sometimes ask him to throw it away or just tell him it is garbage and he will sometimes put it in the garbage can. If he just drops it and walks away, fine I go throw it away.
I am curious because for things like changing a diaper, getting into his car seat and getting dressed I used the same format, ie. Can we change your diaper now? and I am assuming you CL moms must too. So in the interest of learning more about CL what paramaters guide what behaviours you choose to ask about and which ones you just let happen if and when the child is interested?

Thanks!

mamatoliam, I'm not CL but have taken a lot of ideas from CL. I do what you describe. DD loves to "help" me. If I ask, "can you throw this in the trash?" she thinks it is fun to do so. Of course she is only 14 months old.

As far as diaper changes, sometimes she doesn't want to do them. If you do a search you'll find that there are a number of opinions on this issue, but for me, I change a poopy diaper whether DD wants me to or not. I sing, give a paci, let her hold the cell phone, do whatever to make her happy during a change, but even if she runs away from me and protests the diaper change I am not comfortable with letting her make that decision.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
He has a need that is unmet. His need is very important to him. However, his need (to be swung in the hamper over and over, to bang his sister on the head with the serving spoon, to stay outside and play his whole life) will pass pretty easily. His health and overall happiness will not be impacted by the fact that his need can't be met at this time. He is too young to be drawn into the decision making process, and I am going to make the decision for him. I have empathy for him, I'm sorry he may have brief negative feelings while I redirect and distract him, but I know that he's capable of weathering this small disappointment, and that in time, he will learn that too..

I wanted to respond to this example. I would actually, in my better moments, not think of the wanting to be swung in the hamper or the banging sister on the head with a spoon or the staying outside to play as the needs. I would see those things more as the strategies to meet the needs. I guess I'd see being swung in the hamper as meeting a need for play or physical stimulation. I'd see the banging of sister on the head as a strategy for meeting another need-for learning, or any number of other "things" depending on circumstances. I'd see requesting to stay outside/refusing to come in as a strategy for meeting some more basic need-for physical activity that can't continue inside, for autonomy (to choose for oneself whether/when to go inside), for physical stimulation for example.

I once read this really interesting article (can't remember the author) that was (I think) about living consensually with kids. The author gave this example of a child wanting to play in the toilet bowl and the parent wanting to stop the child for health reasons (this was awhile ago, so I don't remember exactly what was written). Simply saying "no you can't play in the toilet" and moving the child physically doesn't meet that need or even acknowledge it. So a parent can instead observe to understand what is appealing to the child about playing in the toilet bowl, in order to understand which need(s) of the child is(are) met by this activity. The author said that this child's need might be to learn about the water or playing in the toilet bowl may in some way meet the sensory-stimulation needs of the child. A parent can work to meet the child's need(s), along with the parent's own need to protect the child's health/safety, by providing another opportunity to play with water. I wish I could remember better, because I'm sure I'm doing a terrible job explaining it. It sounds like simple redirection, but there's this added quality of becoming aware of what everyone's needs are vs. the strategies used to meet those needs.

When I think of my child's need as "she needs to play in the toilet" then we end up struggling more often. When I see my child wanting to play in the toilet, I can pause to consider what other need that action might be meeting and work to meet that need-so when I look at it as "my child wants to play in the toilet, she's satisfying her need for sensory stimulation" (or whatever) then other solutions become apparent. When my child hits a sibling, the need isn't to hit-hitting is the strategy. When I can understand, or work toward understanding, the difference between the needs and the strategies the possibilities for resolving a situation become numerous and apparent. Is it sometimes impossible to meet a particular need temporarily? Sure. Sometimes it's truly impossible (maybe), and sometimes I'm just not willing to try the other solutions of which I'm aware, and sometimes I'm having difficulty coming up with other solutions (probably because of my own fixed ideas, assumptions, perceptions, needs, feelings).

I think all this (seeing needs vs. strategies and working toward meeting the needs) is a small piece of the consensual living philosophy. I definitely would not label myself as a consensual liver, but I find this philosophy very interesting. As I understand it at this point, consensual living doesn't mean allowing the parents' needs to continue to go unmet in order to meet their children's needs and follow their child's every whim-the consensual living mothers here aren't martyrs. However they do recognize the greater ability of the parent to be flexible and to defer (for a time) the meeting of their own needs when necessary and possible. And likewise, meeting their child's needs and working toward mutually agreeable solutions is in no way in conflict with their child's best interests. I think part of the consensual living philosophy is that it _is_ in children's best interest to be respected, to have autonomy, to have their needs met.

I think part of the problem with discussions like this is that we come to them with our own perceptions (which is all we have) and those perceptions color how we understand what others are saying. One mother is comfortable waiting a few more minutes at the park even though she has to pee, because it simply isn't all that uncomfortable for her and she'd prefer to wait while her kids play a few more minutes rather than enter into a struggle (and she knows they need that activity, and she knows that staying that few more minutes satisfies both their need for activity and their need for autonomy while it doesn't negatively affect her needs at all). Another mother is very physically uncomfortable when she has to wait that extra few minutes to pee, and her needs are such that ignoring them and waiting is not in any way agreeable so she finds a way to round up the kids and leave. Maybe the first mother has just noticed her full bladder and knows she can wait because she hasn't yet reached the point of urgency, or maybe she knows her body well enough to know she won't ever become very uncomfortable. Mabye the second mother noticed her full bladder awhile ago and waited and is now too uncomfortable to wait longer, or maybe her body is such that her need is always urgent. Who knows? Yet when we come here and read these things, we come here with our own knowledge of our own bladders and our own past experiences. And then those of us with small, impatient bladders see the mothers who are willing to wait as martyrs who deny themselves in order to follow all their children's whims. Those of us who think exploring outlets is extremely dangerous are shocked by those of us who think exploring outlets can be done safely with supervision-and rather than reconsider our ideas about what is safe we tend to leap to the conclusion that the mother who lets her child explore an outlet doesn't actually provides no guidance whatsoever. I think it's hard to understand the consensual living philosophy because it differs so much from what most of us have learned/absorbed from the culture around us.

I'm guessing it's a mistake to think that consensual living means a long process of negotiating every little minute thing in daily life, even at the expense of the child's safety/health. I'm sure if any of the consensual living mothers believed their child was in imminent danger of serious harm, they'd jump in and intervene immediately and talk later (scooping up the proverbial toddler running out into traffic). I'm guessing it's also a mistake to assume that because a parent is willing to be flexible, and willing at times to defer the meeting of their own needs, that they are doing so at the expense of their own needs. I'm thinking that perhaps it's more accurate to understand this way of life as striving always to meet the needs of everyone involved to the best of everyone's ability-and that this is a joyful process, and a process that helps kids learn a lot about thinking and problem-solving and relationships/social skills. I'm guessing it does take a lot of effort and involvement from parents-which is a good thing, no?

I want to add that I, too, believe that children do want to do the "right" thing. Children, and even babies, want to connect with others. Children, and babies, want to belong-even if they can't articulate it or conceive of it the way we do. We are social animals, and as such we strive to belong and connect. Thus, children do want to do what pleases those around them and to do what they observe those around them doing. Children also have their own needs and drives that must be met as well, and this is why (along with lack of skill) children (all people, really) sometimes do things others don't like. I think when people, all people regardless of age, do things that are not approved of by those around them they have a valid reason for doing so (not an excuse or justification, a reason). Children and babies are fully human, fully feeling human beings. They're just smaller and differ in their developmental abilities. They haven't yet learned all the skills they need to get their needs met and negotiate conflict and relationships (many of us adults are still learning these skills too).


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Re: teeth health . . .cavities are the least of my worries. Example: DH has NO cavities. Never goes to the dentist, does not floss, only brushes once a day at most (used to brush only sometimes). However, he has terrible gum disease. I expect that he'll lose his teeth eventually.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
That's interesting! Every kid is different! I hope I didn't come across as judging how you are handling the situation. Just offering my (completely theoretical) thoughts.

Nope. I meant to say something about just recounting our particular experience, too. Just that in our experience, the bribing was taken by ds as a type of punishment (because no matter how much he wanted "x" it wasn't enough to choose teethbrushing. So then he didn't get "x". I hated that) and he responded as I'd guess kids do to all types of punishment. I guess if it had "worked" and ds HAD decided that "x" was indeed worth teethbrushing (so no punishment by way of not getting "x"), then I'd be all for it. kwim?
I guess I do feel a bit defensive about the whole thing. lol. But that's my issue, not yours







.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Becky, that totally makes sense. I hadn't thought about that particular consequence of "bribing", that the child might not be able to be bribed into doing something and then would additionally feel the loss of the treat they would have received.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
I wanted to respond to this example. I would actually, in my better moments, not think of the wanting to be swung in the hamper or the banging sister on the head with a spoon or the staying outside to play as the needs. I would see those things more as the strategies to meet the needs. I guess I'd see being swung in the hamper as meeting a need for play or physical stimulation. I'd see the banging of sister on the head as a strategy for meeting another need-for learning, or any number of other "things" depending on circumstances. I'd see requesting to stay outside/refusing to come in as a strategy for meeting some more basic need-for physical activity that can't continue inside, for autonomy (to choose for oneself whether/when to go inside), for physical stimulation for example.

I once read this really interesting article (can't remember the author) that was (I think) about living consensually with kids. The author gave this example of a child wanting to play in the toilet bowl and the parent wanting to stop the child for health reasons (this was awhile ago, so I don't remember exactly what was written). Simply saying "no you can't play in the toilet" and moving the child physically doesn't meet that need or even acknowledge it. So a parent can instead observe to understand what is appealing to the child about playing in the toilet bowl, in order to understand which need(s) of the child is(are) met by this activity. The author said that this child's need might be to learn about the water or playing in the toilet bowl may in some way meet the sensory-stimulation needs of the child. A parent can work to meet the child's need(s), along with the parent's own need to protect the child's health/safety, by providing another opportunity to play with water. I wish I could remember better, because I'm sure I'm doing a terrible job explaining it. It sounds like simple redirection, but there's this added quality of becoming aware of what everyone's needs are vs. the strategies used to meet those needs.

When I think of my child's need as "she needs to play in the toilet" then we end up struggling more often. When I see my child wanting to play in the toilet, I can pause to consider what other need that action might be meeting and work to meet that need-so when I look at it as "my child wants to play in the toilet, she's satisfying her need for sensory stimulation" (or whatever) then other solutions become apparent. When my child hits a sibling, the need isn't to hit-hitting is the strategy. When I can understand, or work toward understanding, the difference between the needs and the strategies the possibilities for resolving a situation become numerous and apparent. Is it sometimes impossible to meet a particular need temporarily? Sure. Sometimes it's truly impossible (maybe), and sometimes I'm just not willing to try the other solutions of which I'm aware, and sometimes I'm having difficulty coming up with other solutions (probably because of my own fixed ideas, assumptions, perceptions, needs, feelings).

I think all this (seeing needs vs. strategies and working toward meeting the needs) is a small piece of the consensual living philosophy. I definitely would not label myself as a consensual liver, but I find this philosophy very interesting. As I understand it at this point, consensual living doesn't mean allowing the parents' needs to continue to go unmet in order to meet their children's needs and follow their child's every whim-the consensual living mothers here aren't martyrs. However they do recognize the greater ability of the parent to be flexible and to defer (for a time) the meeting of their own needs when necessary and possible. And likewise, meeting their child's needs and working toward mutually agreeable solutions is in no way in conflict with their child's best interests. I think part of the consensual living philosophy is that it _is_ in children's best interest to be respected, to have autonomy, to have their needs met.

I think part of the problem with discussions like this is that we come to them with our own perceptions (which is all we have) and those perceptions color how we understand what others are saying. One mother is comfortable waiting a few more minutes at the park even though she has to pee, because it simply isn't all that uncomfortable for her and she'd prefer to wait while her kids play a few more minutes rather than enter into a struggle (and she knows they need that activity, and she knows that staying that few more minutes satisfies both their need for activity and their need for autonomy while it doesn't negatively affect her needs at all). Another mother is very physically uncomfortable when she has to wait that extra few minutes to pee, and her needs are such that ignoring them and waiting is not in any way agreeable so she finds a way to round up the kids and leave. Maybe the first mother has just noticed her full bladder and knows she can wait because she hasn't yet reached the point of urgency, or maybe she knows her body well enough to know she won't ever become very uncomfortable. Mabye the second mother noticed her full bladder awhile ago and waited and is now too uncomfortable to wait longer, or maybe her body is such that her need is always urgent. Who knows? Yet when we come here and read these things, we come here with our own knowledge of our own bladders and our own past experiences. And then those of us with small, impatient bladders see the mothers who are willing to wait as martyrs who deny themselves in order to follow all their children's whims. Those of us who think exploring outlets is extremely dangerous are shocked by those of us who think exploring outlets can be done safely with supervision-and rather than reconsider our ideas about what is safe we tend to leap to the conclusion that the mother who lets her child explore an outlet doesn't actually provides no guidance whatsoever. I think it's hard to understand the consensual living philosophy because it differs so much from what most of us have learned/absorbed from the culture around us.

I'm guessing it's a mistake to think that consensual living means a long process of negotiating every little minute thing in daily life, even at the expense of the child's safety/health. I'm sure if any of the consensual living mothers believed their child was in imminent danger of serious harm, they'd jump in and intervene immediately and talk later (scooping up the proverbial toddler running out into traffic). I'm guessing it's also a mistake to assume that because a parent is willing to be flexible, and willing at times to defer the meeting of their own needs, that they are doing so at the expense of their own needs. I'm thinking that perhaps it's more accurate to understand this way of life as striving always to meet the needs of everyone involved to the best of everyone's ability-and that this is a joyful process, and a process that helps kids learn a lot about thinking and problem-solving and relationships/social skills. I'm guessing it does take a lot of effort and involvement from parents-which is a good thing, no?

I want to add that I, too, believe that children do want to do the "right" thing. Children, and even babies, want to connect with others. Children, and babies, want to belong-even if they can't articulate it or conceive of it the way we do. We are social animals, and as such we strive to belong and connect. Thus, children do want to do what pleases those around them and to do what they observe those around them doing. Children also have their own needs and drives that must be met as well, and this is why (along with lack of skill) children (all people, really) sometimes do things others don't like. I think when people, all people regardless of age, do things that are not approved of by those around them they have a valid reason for doing so (not an excuse or justification, a reason). Children and babies are fully human, fully feeling human beings. They're just smaller and differ in their developmental abilities. They haven't yet learned all the skills they need to get their needs met and negotiate conflict and relationships (many of us adults are still learning these skills too).

sledg, I really love your posts! They are so articulate and well thought out and I agree with your sentiments above. Well said









On the dental issue (again), of course I am concerned about cavities, gum disease, all that -- it doesn't keep me up at night by any means, but of course as a loving mama, I want my daughter to have the personal/social/monetary/pain free benefit of healthy teeth and I will certainly encourage it through modeling, providing information, attempting to make it an enjoyable experience and so on and so forth.

At the end of the day though, our relationship is more important that a trip to the dentist. I am not saying it is ruining the child/parent relationship to force your kids to brush your teeth, but the thought makes me personally, feel icky.

*warning personal opinion ahead* I think it is a violation of someone's body to hold them down, while verbally and physically protesting, sometimes crying and begging (according to some posts in the past), and forcing a foreign object in their mouth. I refuse to do it. I refuse to threaten punishment or bribe or manipulate. I just don't see how forcing someone physically to accept a foreign object in their mouth while they spit and cry and fight and beg you to stop is in any way shape or form gentle.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
I wanted to respond to this example. I would actually, in my better moments, not think of the wanting to be swung in the hamper or the banging sister on the head with a spoon or the staying outside to play as the needs. I would see those things more as the strategies to meet the needs. I guess I'd see being swung in the hamper as meeting a need for play or physical stimulation. I'd see the banging of sister on the head as a strategy for meeting another need-for learning, or any number of other "things" depending on circumstances. I'd see requesting to stay outside/refusing to come in as a strategy for meeting some more basic need-for physical activity that can't continue inside, for autonomy (to choose for oneself whether/when to go inside), for physical stimulation for example.

I once read this really interesting article (can't remember the author) that was (I think) about living consensually with kids. The author gave this example of a child wanting to play in the toilet bowl and the parent wanting to stop the child for health reasons (this was awhile ago, so I don't remember exactly what was written). Simply saying "no you can't play in the toilet" and moving the child physically doesn't meet that need or even acknowledge it. So a parent can instead observe to understand what is appealing to the child about playing in the toilet bowl, in order to understand which need(s) of the child is(are) met by this activity. The author said that this child's need might be to learn about the water or playing in the toilet bowl may in some way meet the sensory-stimulation needs of the child. A parent can work to meet the child's need(s), along with the parent's own need to protect the child's health/safety, by providing another opportunity to play with water. I wish I could remember better, because I'm sure I'm doing a terrible job explaining it. It sounds like simple redirection, but there's this added quality of becoming aware of what everyone's needs are vs. the strategies used to meet those needs.

When I think of my child's need as "she needs to play in the toilet" then we end up struggling more often. When I see my child wanting to play in the toilet, I can pause to consider what other need that action might be meeting and work to meet that need-so when I look at it as "my child wants to play in the toilet, she's satisfying her need for sensory stimulation" (or whatever) then other solutions become apparent. When my child hits a sibling, the need isn't to hit-hitting is the strategy. When I can understand, or work toward understanding, the difference between the needs and the strategies the possibilities for resolving a situation become numerous and apparent. Is it sometimes impossible to meet a particular need temporarily? Sure. Sometimes it's truly impossible (maybe), and sometimes I'm just not willing to try the other solutions of which I'm aware, and sometimes I'm having difficulty coming up with other solutions (probably because of my own fixed ideas, assumptions, perceptions, needs, feelings).

Sledg, thanks for this. Your posts often clarify things for me, and this one did again.

I think I was understanding the POV of CLers to be that it was a violation to redirect your child to the sink from the toilet. And I'm still not sure that technically, with my child, it wouldn't be. Because I know he would protest and cry and go all noodly on me until I got him set up at the sink. This happens quite frequently, unfortunately, because my dd always leaves the bathroom door open. I'm usually quick enough that he hasn't put his hand in the toilet, but I am not willing to let him play in the toilet until I talked him into playing at the sink.

I guess that's what I was trying to say in my original post. I do feel that I know what is best for him. I know what lurks in toilets, and I know that he will shortly be satisfied at the sink, and while I explain that to him, I'm not going to let him splash toilet water up on his face. Voila, the difference, I suppose.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
*warning personal opinion ahead* I think it is a violation of someone's body to hold them down, while verbally and physically protesting, sometimes crying and begging (according to some posts in the past), and forcing a foreign object in their mouth. I refuse to do it. I refuse to threaten punishment or bribe or manipulate. I just don't see how forcing someone physically to accept a foreign object in their mouth while they spit and cry and fight and beg you to stop is in any way shape or form gentle.

ITA with this personal opinion. I think that would be very frightening. Furthermore, I think it would be very difficult. My ds had a terrible ear infection this winter, and it was the most traumatic thing I've ever done making him take the yucky antibiotics. I can't imagine if I was trying to brush his teeth, too. I don't think it would be possible.

That said, I am all for insisting that my dd brush her teeth and waiting with her until she does. Works pretty much every time with us. But she is 3, too.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I think I was understanding the POV of CLers to be that it was a violation to redirect your child to the sink from the toilet. And I'm still not sure that technically, with my child, it wouldn't be. Because I know he would protest and cry and go all noodly on me until I got him set up at the sink. This happens quite frequently, unfortunately, because my dd always leaves the bathroom door open. I'm usually quick enough that he hasn't put his hand in the toilet, but I am not willing to let him play in the toilet until I talked him into playing at the sink.

ahem...never actually having had this particular problem myself, I'm going to comment. Which may be unwise, but here goes. I'm thinking of the fact that there have been so many things which I have deemed to dangerous or unhealthy, and swooped in to save my child from only to find myself becoming way more relaxed about those same things now that my third child is 2.5 years old. So I'm thinking that for a CLer, there may be a huge piece of this process that involves really thinking about our assumptions as parents-is this really all that unsafe? Is dipping a hand in the toilet really so bad? (I'm thinking right now, probably for me it's not. With my firstborn I had a toilet lock.) And if it is something I can't tolerate because it really does not meet my very real need to protect my child/contribute to his well-being/keep him safe, what are the options for addressing it other than scooping up and carrying a screaming child against his will to the sink? I think you're right that while redirection may not go against CL, picking up a crying child and carrying him somewhere else (in a situation where serious harm is not imminent) probably does.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I guess that's what I was trying to say in my original post. I do feel that I know what is best for him. I know what lurks in toilets, and I know that he will shortly be satisfied at the sink, and while I explain that to him, I'm not going to let him splash toilet water up on his face. Voila, the difference, I suppose.

I think you've hit upon the difference, in a nutshell-or at least a big part of it. I'm still quite fuzzy about CL in many ways myself. I certainly have more experience than my kids, and I think I know more about what's best for them. OTOH, my kids have on many occasions questioned me until I realized that I could be or am wrong. And I like that, it's good to think and question. I want to help my kids learn to do that. But for them to learn that, I have to get out of their way a little, trust them a lot, remain calm myself and be open.

gotta run.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I find myself questioning my ideas of what is "unacceptable". Before having a child, I would think the toilet was definately not something I would ever allow a child to play with. Luckily, it has never come up. But had it, I would have to question what my ideas were about that specific issue. Could dd stick her hand in if enclosed in a bread bag? A glove? What about right after I cleaned it? Maybe she would be happy to help me clean it with a brush? Then I read that most toilet bowls when swabbed have less concentrations of e coli than your average kitchen sink!!!!!! Maybe it is better to let her play in there then the kitchen sink which is where she spent a great deal of time playing while I cooked. Not that I am advocating toilet snorkeling...but you get my drift. Kids are washable. I would much rather spend 5 minutes cleaning up yuckies on my child then spend 30 minutes dealing with a frustrated tantrum.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
I find myself questioning my ideas of what is "unacceptable". Before having a child, I would think the toilet was definately not something I would ever allow a child to play with. Luckily, it has never come up. But had it, I would have to question what my ideas were about that specific issue. Could dd stick her hand in if enclosed in a bread bag? A glove? What about right after I cleaned it? Maybe she would be happy to help me clean it with a brush? Then I read that most toilet bowls when swabbed have less concentrations of e coli than your average kitchen sink!!!!!! Maybe it is better to let her play in there then the kitchen sink which is where she spent a great deal of time playing while I cooked. Not that I am advocating toilet snorkeling...but you get my drift. Kids are washable. I would much rather spend 5 minutes cleaning up yuckies on my child then spend 30 minutes dealing with a frustrated tantrum.

These are good ideas, but again, let me reiterate that this is how I deal with this with a 14 month old. He's going to be no more happy if I ask him to wait to get a glove, bag, clean the toilet, etc., as if I just tell him, "Do you want to splash? Let's splash in the sink! Come on, let me pull the stool out!" Probably happier, actually, since it's about one foot to the sink, and he figures out what I'm doing in about 5 seconds, and he's just not really old enough for a prolonged frustrated tantrum. He's still at that angelic age where all his troubles melt away at the site of car keys or a sippy cup.

And, I do question a lot of what I thought was a requirement, in fact, I sometimes think, "Wow, I really let my kids run wild!" Not in a bad way, but just that they get to do all kinds of things that my more cautious friends won't allow, for example. But when the toilet hasn't been scrubbed in two days and I know how much poop has been flushed down there since it was, and he's splashing water on his face and putting his hands in his mouth, I just can't let that happen. I think there's a real chance of getting sick.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I'll try to say what I wanted to before about the toothbrushing thing. I'm living this problem right now, and I have some other thoughts about it. I don't know if I'll have the time or focus, but here goes...

1. As a counter example to the horror stories, my GF didn't have a toothbrush until he was 23 years old. He never had a cavity or gum disease in his long life. His teeth - every one he was borh with in his head - were pearly-white (even with years of pipe smoking and chewing tobacco) when he died.

2. I'm very concerned about my son's teeth and gums. (I'll get to the whys later.) But as a point of attention, I'm more focused on the sugar and refined junk that DS gets from the GMs and what those non-foods do to his mouth. Toothbrushing (or it's lack) is a close second, but I believe that the diet is more important to dental health even than brushing.

3. Ahh, the question of what works... Well, so far, it's been an interesting journey. Pleading, explaining, and other colors of the like backfire. Forcing sets us back months. Telling about what will happen with dirty teeth results in confrontation. Why?

Well, in the numerous discussion we and DS have had about this, it seems clear that his inordinately strong aversion to toothbrushing stems from some serious pain he experienced for the first several months of his life. (I kid you not, my son forgets _nothing_.) He had an injured jaw from a car accident in utero, when his head was already engaged in my pelvis. He took a big hit to the jaw when I was injured in the hip. We strugged with BFing forever.

He hurt. He's scared. Would I serve his needs better to blast through that fear and pain and force a brushing, "for his good"? Or try to convince him that it's not really the big deal to him that it is? Will he really think that stickers are so important to have that he'll intentionally go through fear of pain to get them? I don't know. But personally, I'd be pi$$ed at the offer.

So what I'm left with is trying to help him cope with his fear. It's daunting. It takes a very long time, and lots of patience and commitment. I really lose it sometimes (inside) because I know it would be so much easier (for me, anyway) if DS would just brush his damn teeth. I mean, it's not gonna kill him, right? And I'm tired of worrying about his dental health.

Well, he doesn't feel that way. He remembers the pain he used to feel and is very afraid of it coming back. So it really is a big deal. Pushing him is the opposite of helping. It sets him back in discovering _for himself_ that he really can handle having a brush clean his teeth everyday, and that the old pain won't just come back.

Now, I have an appointment to get his first dental cleaning. God(dess) help us. I don't know what will happen. Either DS will decide it's really cool to see all those mechanical things, or he'll freak and we'll find ourselves at square one, and it will take another couple of years to calm him down. But I just have to try. I will not allow a dentist to force anything on him, though. But I will try every respectful thing I can think of to help DS agree to a cleaning. _And to feel safe about it._

OK, I'm falling over from a headache, so I can't imagine this turned out understandable. But I hope it offers a little more perspective...


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Toothbrushing aside (thankfully, it's been a non-issue here so far; both girls enjoy brushing their teeth) is it the belief, generally, that EVERY situation can be followed in terms of CL . . .that there are no absolutes, no time where a parent says "I draw the line at . . ." Are there ever instances where there isn't room for compromise? If there are times, *what are those times for you (if you practice CL)?*


----------



## SneakyPie (Jan 13, 2002)

I know this might be a frustrating or annoying answer, Miz, but I really don't mean it to be, and this gets to the heart of CL:

CL is not, for me, about wondering if I will ever compromise my beliefs with my behavior. The whole point of living by mutual consent is to believe that EVERY situation holds within it the *possibility* of a mutually acceptable outcome.

So to say to myself (or to anyone), "Well, there I know there are times when I will abandon mutual consent" would keep me focused on potential breakdowns, rather than potential solutions. To say "There are three situations where I will DRAW THE LINE" keeps me from thinking creatively about those very situations, you know?


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
*warning personal opinion ahead* I think it is a violation of someone's body to hold them down, while verbally and physically protesting, sometimes crying and begging (according to some posts in the past), and forcing a foreign object in their mouth. I refuse to do it. I refuse to threaten punishment or bribe or manipulate. I just don't see how forcing someone physically to accept a foreign object in their mouth while they spit and cry and fight and beg you to stop is in any way shape or form gentle.

I respect your opinion and your views. I'll admit, that even I feel judgemental of people who hold down their dc's to brush their teeth- I think "but did they try x first?" "have they really thought it through" whatever. (not fair, but true). I though about it long and hard.
I guess I kinda agree that it is a violation. I do take issue with the rest of your description. Ds did cry the first couple times, but there was no spitting, begging, or even super-upset-type crying. And he wasn't scared, he just didn't like it. Trust me, I know the difference. And since then, he doesn't cry. He puts his feet up in my face for me to kiss them. He asks me to sing to him, and I do.
What it came down to for us was this- His teeth had to be brushed. I'm sorry if there are people who don't feel that way, but he had big cavities already (found out since that they are really not cavities but places where the enamel came off, probably due to trauma. But his first dentist said they were full blown cavities.) So, they had to be brushed. The options were this- convince him to let us brush his teeth (we tried everything I could think of, everything listed on mdc, and anything else I could fin online). Which led to him being upset, us being upset, and him having to deal with the choice of either letting us brush, or we are unhappy (not punitive, but frustrated). I was very uncomfortable with having that be a choice at all- it wasn't fair to him. That lasted an hour every time, and it resulted in getting his teeth kinda sorta lightly brushed. Twice a day.
When I started holding him down, the unhappiness lasted a minute (if that). Twice a day. Then we moved on to something fun. He held no resentment at all, even 5 seconds later.
Even dp, who refused to hold down ds, has said that he's amazed at how much it doesn't upset ds.
Anyways, I'm not going to say any more about it. Because I'm not an advocate of it. You can say its not gentle if that's how you feel, but there was no gentle option that involved getting his teeth brushed. At all. Not even once a day, or once every other day. (Though I do believe that if I had held off for a while, it may have helped. but that could have been weeks or months!)
Now that he is open to getting his teeth brushed, we will skip it if he doesn't want to do it right then. I'm ok with only once a day, if that's what it takes to get his teeth brushed willingly. If he wants us to stop after we get 2 teeth brushed, we do. If he wants to do it on his own, that's fine.
But there were no options like that when he was younger. If it was up to him, it would have been no toothbrushing, no way, no how. period. And I was really not ok with that. Especially after his cavities started feeling sensitive to him (he indicated a lot that they felt wierd. he knew right where his cavities were). But he was too young to put it together or care enough to let us brush.
Anyways, like I said, its obvious that I feel defensive. Because its not totally in line with my parenting beliefs. But I did what felt like the best thing at the time, and still I'm ok with the whole thing.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SneakyPie*
I know this might be a frustrating or annoying answer, Miz, but I really don't mean it to be, and this gets to the heart of CL:

CL is not, for me, about wondering if I will ever compromise my beliefs with my behavior. The whole point of living by mutual consent is to believe that EVERY situation holds within it the *possibility* of a mutually acceptable outcome.

So to say to myself (or to anyone), "Well, there I know there are times when I will abandon mutual consent" would keep me focused on potential breakdowns, rather than potential solutions. To say "There are three situations where I will DRAW THE LINE" keeps me from thinking creatively about those very situations, you know?

I completely agree. There is no issue where I "draw the line". That statement in itself sets up an adversarial exchange with my child where one of our needs or wants (hers) is off the table.

Of course, there are special considerations of immediate and dire safety when you have an infant or young toddler. For instance, I remember freaking and getting a penny out of my daughter's mouth in a non-consensual way -- but to me those situations are not about her wanting to specifically chew on the penny itself, but to explore, or chew something, or whatever -- and I'm not going to risk her choking in that instance.

Basically, anything that has a high chance of killing her right then and there or putting her in the hospital near death is something I would step in on. *I mean that literally*. I don't mean it in a "well unhealthy food can cause problems later on so I force her to eat healthy" ... or "plaque on your teeth can affect your heart when you are 50 so I force toothbrushing" ... I mean LITERALLY life and death.. right then and there... is something I would act first and ask questions later on...and I think ANY loving parent, regardless of parenting philosophy, would do the same.

I am completely at peace with that and I don't feel it makes me in any way, shape or form any less consensual with my daughter.

I parent in the spirit of 99.9% of situations which will happen in the course of the life of a sahm in a developed country. I am not going to just say *fuggit* and throw in the consensual living towel because of a few incidents throughout her childhood where I *may* have to step in (like with the penny incident, which she wasn't really upset about but sensed my fear I think)


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Two comments and then off to bed. Plenty of children (and adults) have their teeth brushed religiously and still have cavities. Plenty of children (and adults) do not brush their teeth religiously and do NOT have cavities. Tooth brushing does not provide any guaranteed benefit. A pattern of forcing someone to do something against their will pretty much guarantees that force is being modelled as a tool of resolving conflicts.

I completely believe and trust that in the event of a life threatening incident, children (and adults) *want* to be saved from certain death. Consent is implied, unless someone is suicidal. And I don't believe that children are suicidal. IMO, the use of force, in an immenently life threatening situation, is when there is no forethought of 'well, does he want me to do this?'. It is an act of reacting without doubt before, during or afterwards. Otherwise, force is optional. I do not opt for force to resolve conflicts. I firmly believe that we are able to negotiate conflicts based upon consent. My goal is to create a solution which meets the needs of everyone involved.

Pat


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SneakyPie*
I know this might be a frustrating or annoying answer, Miz, but I really don't mean it to be, and this gets to the heart of CL:

CL is not, for me, about wondering if I will ever compromise my beliefs with my behavior. The whole point of living by mutual consent is to believe that EVERY situation holds within it the *possibility* of a mutually acceptable outcome.


No, this is not frustrating . . .it is not how I choose to parent (or live my life) but I can understand it for others. It is not a matter of disagreeing with it philosophically that keeps me from doing it, it is the fact that it would be the end of me as a person. I've learned this from the past!

You cleared things up for me, and I appreciate that!


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FreeRangeMama*
We allow our kids to use the sockets. I'd rather teach them to do it safely than to just assume they aren't able and have them explore while I'm not around









Same here. I keep a close eye on our 23 m/o Ds when he's near the socket and remind him that if he wants to plug in anything he needs me to help. Then I'll help guide his hand so he can plug it in. I stay close by, like literally inches away, when he's near the socket and if I see him pick something up I remind him in a gentle and non-threatening way that only cords can go in the socket, just in case he's thinking of sticking something else in there.

~Nay


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
He hurt. He's scared. Would I serve his needs better to blast through that fear and pain and force a brushing, "for his good"? Or try to convince him that it's not really the big deal to him that it is? Will he really think that stickers are so important to have that he'll intentionally go through fear of pain to get them? I don't know. But personally, I'd be pi$$ed at the offer.

Aira, your son is lucky that you're so understanding of this. And I'm not surprised he remembers that. Trauma and muscle memory is so linked, and I bet even more so when their little synapses are firing like crazy, like in the beginning of our lives.

I also liked your comment about bribery. I've often felt this ickiness about "sticker charts", which lots of my friends use, but never really been able to understand why, and I think you clarified it. Sorry to be totally OT, but it seems like bribery and rewards, while not only being a form of punishment when you take them away or don't give them, are a dishonest way to tell your child what you want. Confusing for the child, I would imagine, as well as demeaning.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
Now that he is open to getting his teeth brushed, we will skip it if he doesn't want to do it right then. I'm ok with only once a day, if that's what it takes to get his teeth brushed willingly. If he wants us to stop after we get 2 teeth brushed, we do. If he wants to do it on his own, that's fine.

I know you didn't want to say anymore about this, but I wanted to say that I think it's probably not that bad for him if he allows you to do it. I "coerce" my dd on a regular basis, so you might think that I could brush her hair, but she absolutely refuses to let me. I, by myself, would not be able to hold her down AND brush her hair. So anywho, I wouldn't feel too guilty, though it doesn't sound like you do.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Thanks for the kind words, Sarah.









I guess my point for bringing up my DS's situation is that I think there is always a reason under the protests that we can address. Hopefully most are not as severe as that one, but it serves as a clear example. Mainstream parenting would have us completely ignore something as serious as pain and muscle memory in getting kids to comply.

And just to add, when DS was born, he couldn't latch. Never did, in fact - though I worked with him on it for a year. I didn't know about the pain he was having until 12 weeks, when my LC noticed a pattern in him that she suspected to indicate an injury. Even after his jaw was successfully treated, he was outraged at any attempt to encourage drinking from the tap. Lots of that time was training for me in non-coersion. I knew instictively from the start that we were having not only the unknown (at that time) main issue, but that it had been made worse by the nurses when he was born who forced his head to my breast while he screamed. They didn't respect my requests to stop, and I was too weak to push them away. I could just feel that it was harming DS. I can't explain it.

Later, when we first got home, the nursing was torture for us both, and I finally, in a moment of desparation, looked at DS and told him how sorry I was that he had been forced. I told him how I understood how disrespectful and awful that had been for whatever his problems were and that I'd never force him again - that he was in control of his own body and eating. After that he let out the biggest wail yet and then tried to nusre and cried for 2 hours straight. I had a strange sense that he knew.

I knew nothing of either his jaw issue or of an organized philosophy of CL. I just came into it instictively.

The next day (day 5) we sought help from a specialist who got me pumping and bottle-feeding him. I took some criticism for agreeing to that, but DS was actually starving, and he was so clearly relieved when he got the first bottle of EBM, getting to eat without pain I assume. I really wanted to work it out with him to get back to nursing. I hated pumping - thus the year I spent gently encouraging BF. But he would never agree to try again. That situation was not exactly mutually agreeable. But it was more agreeable to me than FF. So we do out best with the situations we have. How would I go about drawing a line there, even though I hated every moment of pumping? OK, get it from the tap, or not at all?

In that case, I put off my needs to benefit DS. It caused me real problems, but I still feel that the benefit DS will have for the rest of his life is greater than the detriment to me. So it _was_ agreeable in that sense - and was always a consious choice by me.

Well, sorry for the ramble. This was the backstory to the toothbrushing thing... and why I don't force it. I just feel very lucky that I know about his problem. I think most kids with such an issue wouldn't be understood, and would be thought obstinate or contrary. They'd never be able to explain to their parents what's going on. I'm lucky my LC was so sharp.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SneakyPie*
I know this might be a frustrating or annoying answer, Miz, but I really don't mean it to be, and this gets to the heart of CL:

CL is not, for me, about wondering if I will ever compromise my beliefs with my behavior. The whole point of living by mutual consent is to believe that EVERY situation holds within it the *possibility* of a mutually acceptable outcome.

So to say to myself (or to anyone), "Well, there I know there are times when I will abandon mutual consent" would keep me focused on potential breakdowns, rather than potential solutions. To say "There are three situations where I will DRAW THE LINE" keeps me from thinking creatively about those very situations, you know?

I wanted to comment on how much I agree with this. Really well said!!


----------



## jkpmomtoboys (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I also liked your comment about bribery. I've often felt this ickiness about "sticker charts", which lots of my friends use, but never really been able to understand why, and I think you clarified it. Sorry to be totally OT, but it seems like bribery and rewards, while not only being a form of punishment when you take them away or don't give them, are a dishonest way to tell your child what you want. Confusing for the child, I would imagine, as well as demeaning.

We use sticker charts periodically, for instance right now when we are potty learning. Not as bribery, but as visual evidence of how far ds has come and all that he has accomplished. He enjoys putting stickers on for stickers' sake and really likes talking about all that he has done to achieve those stickers.

It's not discussed unless in a positive way after the fact, as in "Yay! Let's go put a sticker on the sticker chart!"

So while sticker charts can be abused, for us it's a whole different animal and a very positive one at that...

Just my $.02...


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mizelenius*
No, this is not frustrating . . .it is not how I choose to parent (or live my life) but I can understand it for others. It is not a matter of disagreeing with it philosophically that keeps me from doing it, it is the fact that it would be the end of me as a person. I've learned this from the past!

You cleared things up for me, and I appreciate that!

Mizelenius, I really want to understand your perspective of how you perceive that the process of living consensually could be the end of you as a person. I sense that there is some misunderstanding of some aspect of the conflict resolution and solution negotiation which doesn't allow one to have personal boundaries, or fear that one's needs are not expressed, valid or addressed? I am quite confused. If your concerns relate to being in a relationship where your boundaries were not respected, considered or valued, I have been in a similar one in the past. I have chosen not to continue to be in that relationship however. But, within a relationship with our son, my dh, family and friends, I haven't reached this sense of impass when *I* am working to find a mutually agreeable solution.

We are all seeking to have our needs met. And the process of expressing and hearing each's needs AND believing that a solution can be found that works for everyone, has brought much less fear and imposition of my boundaries than less collaborative ones. I guess it is the process of everyone believing that their needs matter which makes working together more effective. When I alone had to be sure that *MY* needs were going to be met, it took more energy than I had available to help others get their needs met too. OH! I guess it is the same for the other person, when they felt alone to be sure that their needs were going to be met, they don't have the energy available to help me meet my needs!







I honestly just figured this out.

Something about changing my dynamic to *wanting* to help others get their needs met *with equal priority*, turned the tables so that my needs were not experienced as in conflict with their needs, but rather as another important variable to be incorporated into the solution. My perspective of meeting others needs is this same process of incorporation of their needs, without giving up my needs. It _sounds_ like that is taking on more work, but I have actually found that it takes much less energy to work with, than to work against (or without priority) for another's needs. The energy is so different that it is easier when someone believes and trusts that their needs are valued, heard and a solution is going to be worked out. Easier all around.

Please don't feel pushed to reply. I am just expressing my concern and confusion.

Pat


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

To this point of philosophy of CL, I thoroughly admit that I struggle with this regarding DH. Not really so much with DS.

I have some theories as to why that is, but in the end, I sometimes really feel like I'm just placating to avoid "punishment" rather than effectively meeting both of our needs. But we both have deep wounds, and it's hard to negotiate that. But it doesn't mean the concept is flawed.

Just thought I'd throw that out there, as it applies to us as active participants...


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Mizelenius, I really want to understand your perspective of how you perceive that the process of living consensually could be the end of you as a person.

I need to play with DD so I will give you the short version.

(1) I tend to be a perfectionist and overthink everything. When I tried TCS I felt I was constantly criticizing/judging myself and analyzing my every action and word. It became paralyzing for me as a person and as a parent. I continue to criticize myself (which I am working on . . .by trying to be a better parent







: ) but not to the extent that I did before.

(2) I have a real problem identifying my needs vs wants. I feel I am too immature, too selfish. So, I cannot trust myself-- I often wonder if what I think I need is in reality what I WANT. Thus, trying to take my own wants/needs into account is confusing already, and then to add into the mix two other children and one adult . . .MASS confusion. I posted recently if AP is all about selflessness. Of course, people said no. However, sometimes I think it's just easier in the long run, even if it isn't right.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

I have a question for Pat and/or other CLers, spurred by Mizelenius's comments regarding overthinking things and being confused about needs vs. wants (which are things I've felt as well in the past). I'm wondering if what you're doing involves more of an awareness or mindfulness than a lot of rigorous/exhausting thinking and analyzing. KWIM? At some points I find myself really caught up in thinking and analyzing and guessing what people's needs are, which is different from simply pausing long enough to become aware of the reality of the moment and each other. For me, there's a lightness that comes from awareness/mindfulness that is liberating and brings sort of an automatic creativity. And there's a lightness and genuineness also that comes from working from awareness in the moment rather than trying to...I don't know, fit myself or my kids into a particular box or from focusing on a particular idea of how it will all turn out in the end. This is different from the burdensome sort of overthinking and under-experiencing of the moment. Does that make any sense? I can see where Mizelenius is coming from, having been down that road many times myself, and I wonder if maybe CL really isn't as cumbersome and heavy as all that analyzing/judging/confusion regarding needs vs. wants. Anyone willing to elaborate for the curious?

Also, Mizelenius, this has probably little to do with the discussion of CL but personally I don't think having wants is all that bad. I'm not sure it's always necessary to distinguish between a need and a want, though it's often helpful when two people's needs/wants seem to be in conflict. And by choosing to just listen to myself instead of anazlyzing myself I often am able to become aware of what I'm really needing vs. what strategy I'm using to get that need met. Just by slowing down, by breathing, and listening.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I struggle with this too, from the other end. It's what I was getting at before. Needs and what we think we need. It's harder for me with DH...

...but DS wants to play (you guessed it) TRAINS!!!

I'll be back...

ETA:

OK. I'm kinda useless mentally right now, but I'll attempt to express what I'm getting at.

DS's history is intertwined with mine. I know him - all that he's experienced, though not all the depth and thought he's had. I'm even largely responsible for the bad times. So I can relate to him without feeling victimized. Also perhaps he's not threatening to me because he's smaller, I held him in my body and cared for him when he was incapable of even holding his head up. I'm not sure what other factors might contribute to my ability to more easily view his underlying needs more immediately, but for whatever reason DS doesn't dredge up my childhood issues.

DH, on the other hand, well... we push each other's buttons all the time. He's a wonderful man and husband. Sometimes though he seems to interpret his "needs" in a way that I think are not needs, but demands that I find hurtful to me to accommodate. He feels the same about some of my issues. We really project our parents on each other. Learning to communicate what's going on inside in non-threatening ways is the only way through this. It's far from easy to accomplish, but we're trying.

I just don't know how to trust another's account of their needs, when I feel that their "needs" are for me to placate them to avoid the fallout if I don't. OTOH, circumventing what an adult claims is their need in the moment, and addressing what I think it the real deal can be a little patronizing and often gets interpreted as a "know-it-all" attitude. This is very hard for me to negotiate.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Aira, I just wanted to say that I have similar... um... challenges with DH.

It's harder to get "in sink" with somebody who has a "history" before you, no matter how "brief" this history is in retrospect (we've been longer together than NOT together and still)

Actually seeing those challenges helps me realise how DEEPLY ingrained the childhood memories/habits/outlooks are and motivates me even more to avoid pitfalls with our own kids.

If/when I come up with words of wisdom on this (or maybe you will before me) - let's share!


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Irina, it's a deal. If I figue it out, I'll share with the whole world!









Quote:


Originally Posted by *irinam*
Actually seeing those challenges helps me realise how DEEPLY ingrained the childhood memories/habits/outlooks are and motivates me even more to avoid pitfalls with our own kids.

Totally. That's exactly the point.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

I'm hesitantly and shyly stepping in to say that this is very interesting to me to hear you ladies talk about your difficulty with needs vs. "what we think we need" when it comes to your partners. For me it's the opposite. My dh and I have no problems with this between the two of us. It's this issue wrt our kids that's difficult for us. For dh and I communication is totally the key, as is trust-we know we're safe communicating with each other, and we both know our relationship depends on being both very honest and very gentle/respectful. There's no question about what's really needed, except on occasion and even then we each can infer with pretty good accuracy (because we've been so open since the beginning) what's really needed-and then we can, if there's any doubt, just ask. When it comes to our kids, well kids are just not as able to communicate their internal life so we spend a lot of time having to figure it out and that's so much harder for us.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I just don't know how to trust another's account of their needs, when I feel that their "needs" are for me to placate them to avoid the fallout if I don't.

I don't think anyone likes to be placated, really. I assume that most people, when it seems they're asking a loved one to go ahead and placate them even though it would be hurtful to their loved one, really either don't yet feel that they've been heard accurately or want reassurance that they are loved, that they matter, that their needs are important to their loved one. And at times when I've thought someone wanted me to placate them, part of what's going on is that I don't feel I've been heard about my needs and how their request doesn't meet my needs. At this point there's a choice: first ask to be heard or first ask if I'm hearing that person correctly (because people are more open to hearing once they've been heard, and because it's important for me and our communication to be sure I've heard them correctly). I highly recommend Nonviolent Communication for all relationships.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

ITA sledg.

Sometimes DH beats me over the head with the "being heard" thing. (I mean that totally figuratively!) But he sets up complex requirements that he says are the only way to make him feel heard, and to me they are just tangential demands of a tantruming child. I get that, and I want to help the tantruming child. But the dominant actions really speak to my victim self, and I lose all ability to actually form words or verablize at all. Ironically, what he wants most to feel safe is excessive verbiage. So we set each other off.

One solution we have found is that if I can remember in the moment, I make a sign and hold it up. Doesn't always happen, and even then, doesn't always dissipate the tension. But it's a start.

Oh well, sorry to go so far OT...


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Ah, that's tough. Communication is so simple yet it's definitely not easy. It's especially hard when a person's actions or demands trigger older issues.

I feel really vulnerable and stupid saying this, but it's my kids who trigger my older issues. That is what makes parenting so difficult for me. I actually worked out a hand signal with my kids, similar to what you do with your dh-for their safety and for all our peace (now skulking off feeling pathetic in the presence of such wonderful moms....







).

I guess we all have our easy things and our issues, eh?


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
For dh and I communication is totally the key, as is trust-we know we're safe communicating with each other, and we both know our relationship depends on being both very honest and very gentle/respectful. .

I totally agree that communication is the key, and if you hear our convesations you will think that "this couple communicates wonderfully", but sometimes (often) I see/hear DH passionately saying something and I agree and believe and go with it and then... he does exactly opposite to what he spoke so passionately about. Then he can just as passionately apologize and I again believe and "buy" it. Or he can claim he does not remember the conversation.

So I do not know how to classify this - "fruitless comminucation" may be?

I am trying and trying to implement CL in our relationship and yes, I am *somewhat* successfull. May be I want (need?







) too much?


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

sledg,

I usually feel like a completely inferior and incompetent wife.







:

And daughter...







:







:

I generally find myself thinking that everyone I don't see arguing on TV has a more peaceful and harmonious marriage than I do.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

, aira. I simply cannot imagine you being an inferior anything-you just don't come across that way.

Yk, I woke up thinking about this in the middle of the night. I was thinking of how things my kids do trigger issues buried within myself, and how this is so common to relationships. To illustrate, I have this adult male relative who does things that I find rather obnoxious. For a long time I was really bothered by him, really disturbed and defensive and angry and uneasy. It took about 10 years for me to figure out that my reaction to him had more to do with my own internal stuff (memories of a particular abusive person and relationship) than it did with this actual person and the things he was actually doing. Once I saw that, I could be free from it-sort of recognize it and set it aside so I could see him more clearly. This is what I have to do as a parent, too. We see others and what they do through the lens of our history, assumptions, point of view, etc. And sometimes that's helpful, and often it gets in the way. To really begin to become the parent I want to be, I've had to learn to get out of my own way-to recognize the things triggered within that have more to do with my past than my present, and to let them go so I can be present and see clearly. That's really, really hard to do in the moment when emotions are running high.

Irina, I think sometimes communication is just ineffective despite how effective we think we're being. That's part of being human. And what you described again makes me think of something to which I can relate, which is how as a parent I can be heard passionately speaking about what I believe about parenting and then I could be seen doing the exact opposite. And it's not that I'm inconsistent in my beliefs, it's that I'm human and have difficulty sometimes living up to the ideals I have. And then again, sometimes people feel differently about things in different moments. And again, how I perceive someone's behavior sometimes says more about me than about them. And also, attacment to outcome is something that hampers my ability to communicate as well and sometimes I'm not fully aware of how attached to outcome I am-again a huge problem for me in parenting, but at times a problem in my interactions with adults as well. (Believe it or not, I actually do think about a lot of these things when there's a conflict, which dh thinks of as odd because he doesn't. For him self-awareness, effective communication, and effective listening just happen (at least I perceive his communication and listening as effective), he says he doesn't think about it much.)

Has this gone way OT? Sorry for that.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Sledg, your whole post made sense to me, but one little phrase made (yet another) click... *"Attachment to the Outcome"*





















I AM like that with DH.

Man, it's going way OT, shall we take it to the Consensual Living Tribe? Aira, Sledg, do you mind if I cut and paste the last few posts dealing with DH's to CLT?


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

I don't mind.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
In that case, I put off my needs to benefit DS. It caused me real problems, but I still feel that the benefit DS will have for the rest of his life is greater than the detriment to me. So it _was_ agreeable in that sense - and was always a consious choice by me.

Yeah, I can see that CL might occur a little differently with a newborn. I guess if you have the "need" to have a newborn, you're going to have to be willing to put off your other needs for a while? Is that one way to look at it?


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Sarah, I think that's a fair representation.







It's not the entire picture, and I can't say that I ever had a "need" to have a newborn. But I did have a need to be the best parent I can be, or to offer DS the best care I can - and for that need to prevail over other needs of mine. Like sleep or sanity?
















Sledg, I don't see you coming across as "pathetic" either!








Just can't imagine.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

resilience hasnt been addressed in this thread yet. i was wondering if anyone would like to comment on resilience and consensual living. here is an article i found recently from psychology today, which might be inflammitory, who knows. i tended to agree with some of the article and poopooh other parts of it.

would like input please.

btw, i know this article isnt about consensual living, its about remaining hypervigilant and accommodating children to the extreme. some of this may overlap, especially when we fall prey to the martyr momma syndrome. i vacillate between martyr momma and resentful momma. im constantly struggling with how to communicate with my son and whats the best _for him_ immediately and in the long run.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly*
resilience hasnt been addressed in this thread yet. i was wondering if anyone would like to comment on resilience and consensual living. here is an article i found recently from psychology today, which might be inflammitory, who knows. i tended to agree with some of the article and poopooh other parts of it.

would like input please.

btw, i know this article isnt about consensual living, its about remaining hypervigilant and accommodating children to the extreme. some of this may overlap, especially when we fall prey to the martyr momma syndrome. i vacillate between martyr momma and resentful momma. im constantly struggling with how to communicate with my son and whats the best _for him_ immediately and in the long run.

Well, we practice CL and my dd still skins her kness on the playground, struggles to figure out a new puzzle, and has to deal with the fact that we are occasionally out of kiwis when dh has the car....out of state. There are plenty of inherant struggles and disappointments in life without me creating more for her. CL does not mean she gets what she wants, instantly, every time. It means that I help her to get what she wants/needs, just like I do for my friends, dh, etc......

And for the record, I do not use hand sanitizer







We like germs around here.....


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I thought the article had very little to do with consensual living. Control is control, whether you're controlling your child's environment for "their own good or safety" or whether you are controlling it in a punitive way -- though those two things often go hand in hand when the child doesn't consent to the things parents do *for their own good*.

I keep our daughter safe, but in consensual living, only life and death circumstances are things we *consider* coercion --- and like Pat said, the idea is that most humans have a desire to live so by that fact, something like scooping your child out of the way of an oncoming mack truck, implied consent is assumed (that they want to live).

I have already been balked at, jaw dropped, and tsked tsked when I let my daughter play with a balloon, when I let her explore electrical oulets, when I stated we don't force toothbrushing, and that she doesn't have a set bedtime.

I don't think that article is representative of CL at all really. There was a quote in the article "children need to feel badly sometimes" (or something to that effect). I think the difference between CL and some other forms of parenting is that we realize that by sheer participation in the world our children are bound to "feel badly" -- a friend slights them, a skinned knee, wanting a toy we genuinely can't afford..whatever it may be... but we as parents don't have to impose pain on them so that they can "learn about the real world".


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I agree that the article is nothing like CL, but perhaps it's in line with the OP question? My opinion, though, it that hyper-parenting isn't all that gentle either, in the long run.

That's why I don't care for it. It's controlling - in the opposite end of the spectrum from the old-fashioned idea of control.

Like, CC, I tend to take more criticism for not protecting DS enough. Though I do play with him in parks when he asks for it. And I back off when he asks for space. But I don't take my eyes off him for a second in a park. That's just insane. At least in my area.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I agree that the article is nothing like CL, but perhaps it's in line with the OP question? My opinion, though, it that hyper-parenting isn't all that gentle either, in the long run.

That's why I don't care for it. It's controlling - in the opposite end of the spectrum from the old-fashioned idea of control.

Like, CC, I tend to take more criticism for not protecting DS enough. Though I do play with him in parks when he asks for it. And I back off when he asks for space. But I don't take my eyes off him for a second in a park. That's just insane. At least in my area.

Yeah, I think it's easy to become confused when thinking of CL. it can easily equal being hypervigilant for those who do not practice or for those who misunderstand CL.

for me, its so hard to see anxiety or fear or pain or hurt or any other "awful" emotion in seth's eyes, i want to alleviate every bad feeling he has, but i can't and i shouldn't. im trying to back away from intervening in every interaction he has (this age between two and three is very challenging for me in this respect) and allowing him the space to work it out and then joining in when he asks me to. backing off has been very hard for me, especially bc i feel so damned guilty for working. i support my family; i have no choice. we went ten grand into debt when i took off work for the first ten months of his life. i struggle so continuously with what is too much space for him adn what is too little.

at the same time, i struggle with CL stuff, like he is very interested in chasing the dog with his larger toy trucks and even hitting the dog with them, bumping into the dog. the dog hates it and howls for me. i have taken his toys away and put them in the garage, every day he gets a new opportunity to play with the larger toys and every day, without fail, he loses that privilege. i cant see ANY other way to do this, other than imposed consequences. and he doesnt like this arrangement at all. definitely NOT consensual, but i need to protect the dog.

its HARD.

i feel that if i went with CL, i would end up spending the entire day explaining to him each minute that he bumps the dog that the doggie doesnt like it and neither do it. just doesnt work.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

I found the article interesting, thank you Kathy.

I found that some of the things the article outlines I am "guilty" of (sometimes trying to help too much) while some I can not be further from (pushing for academic achievements or "germaphobia")

While I disagree that we have to "make" our kids feel bad sometimes (article actually does not say we have to make them, it says "kids need to" and agree with CC that they will no matter what), I agree that sometimes the exact reason teens sometimes "go crazy" is because they have been "overcontrolled".

CL actually goes against control of other human being (kid or an adult)

I think the some concerns raised in the article can apply to all kinds of parenting philosophy - whether it's Cl, authoritarian or permissive.


----------



## RootBeerFloat (Nov 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I thought the article had very little to do with consensual living. Control is control, whether you're controlling your child's environment for "their own good or safety" or whether you are controlling it in a punitive way -- though those two things often go hand in hand when the child doesn't consent to the things parents do *for their own good*.

I couldn't have said this any better so I'm copying . . . I agree with what others have said, the article talks about just another way that parents control their kids and their environments. CL feels to me like a different paradigm.

For example, if I see dd doing something that could be dangerous, but not life threatening (like climbing up on something where she could fall), I'll warn her, once, "please be careful. if you fall, you could bump your head and it will hurt," and then I let her figure it out for herself. That feels like honoring her agenda while sharing some information that she may not have, and seems like the opposite of what that article talked about.

RE the ds hitting the dog with toys . . . it's funny you bring this up, as my mother was lecturing me on how if I don't spank dd she'll grow up to be a delinquent who "pokes kittens with sticks" just the other day














: If it were us, I would try to get to the need behind the dog poking and find another way to meet it. Does he want to poke things? here's a pillow. Does he want to interact with the dog? Here's how to use our hands gentlly. Does he want to hurt the dog? It's not okay to hurt living things, we can poke the toy dog instead. Or even better, find a different activity that is equally entertaining before he gets to wanting to poke the dog. At this age, I think it's important to supervise, supervise, supervise. Ds doesn't have the information he needs to know it's not okay to hurt the dog, so prevention and redirection are important tools right now.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ally'smom*
I couldn't have said this any better so I'm copying . . . I agree with what others have said, the article talks about just another way that parents control their kids and their environments.

So maybe people are resorting to controlling their children in more socially acceptable ways? Now that harsh discipline is pretty faux pas?

I think this also might be a by-product of the rise of the parenting "industry". You know, the magazines, the how-to articles, the products, the books, the clubs, the playgroups. As a SAHM, I can attest to a lot of pressure to "parent", pressure I don't think my parents dealt with, though I would say has been growing recently. I think people used to have kids, you know, and that was that. You just kind of did what you did, and they grew up.

But look at us nowadays. I think that we're a good example of how much time is put into thinking about parenting, how much time do you think the average GD poster spends on this board?

Anyway, it was an interesting article, though I would think again more of a permissive parent, one who was afraid to share any sort of unpleasantness with their child, and afraid of negative emotions that their child might have.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly*
i feel that if i went with CL, i would end up spending the entire day explaining to him each minute that he bumps the dog that the doggie doesnt like it and neither do it. just doesnt work.

I imagine that you'd spend LESS time dealing with it if you'd explain a few times that "Dog doesn't like to be hit. It hurts him- see how he howls when you do it?" and tell him "If you want to play with truck, you can roll it on the ground, or on the couch. If you want to touch the dog, touch him gently."
I've been saying that stuff to ds since he was younger than 18 mos. It took just a few times of explaining thoroughly, and after that, I just have to say bits or pieces. Usually just a "whoa! Don't hit brooke!!." But it really is very rare that he hits the dogs at all. I imagine that if I were taking stuff away, ds would not feel the way he does about the right reasons to NOT hit the dogs.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
So maybe people are resorting to controlling their children in more socially acceptable ways? Now that harsh discipline is pretty faux pas?

I think this also might be a by-product of the rise of the parenting "industry". You know, the magazines, the how-to articles, the products, the books, the clubs, the playgroups. As a SAHM, I can attest to a lot of pressure to "parent", pressure I don't think my parents dealt with, though I would say has been growing recently. I think people used to have kids, you know, and that was that. You just kind of did what you did, and they grew up.

But look at us nowadays. I think that we're a good example of how much time is put into thinking about parenting, how much time do you think the average GD poster spends on this board?

Anyway, it was an interesting article, though I would think again more of a permissive parent, one who was afraid to share any sort of unpleasantness with their child, and afraid of negative emotions that their child might have.

Grrr. I just lost a post to the cyber-netherworld. No fair. <<sulking>>

The distilled point was that I agree that people substitute more acceptable control, and that the industry feeds this. But I also think that what it's feeding is deeper. Selling magazines and stocking doctors' offices with articles that scare us and keep us dependant on "experts" to tell us about our kids is keeping us powerless, and incidentally spending more money on the industry. Remember, they want to control us too.

I also think that parents generally really do want to do well by their kids. But shattering a paradigm is freakin' hard. And _that's_ exactly where we have to look to make progess.

And that's also where the real difficulty lies - not in learning how many minutes to force a kid on a chair for, or finding ever cleverer ways to get Johnny to get dressed on time. But it's also where to find peace, freedom, and cooperation within the family.

Looking at a checklist from an expert, or having an approved "formula" handy, for how to deal with every situation is comforting and provides a very strong - and very false - sense of security that we are doing "right". We can get really addicted to that idea. But we have to think way deeper than this to effect any meaningful change.

Replacing spanking with time-outs, and punishment with "positive reinforcement" is surface level stuff. It won't change a thing about what it is to be a human.

Ehh, I can't get this to make more sense than it does. Once I lost the first post I typed out I can't straighten out my thoughts again... Sorry.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I agree that I spend way less time getting DS's cooperation than anyone else I know IRL. Working with kids is so much easier than "enforcing" rules. They respond beautifully.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I agree that I spend way less time getting DS's cooperation than anyone else I know IRL. Working with kids is so much easier than "enforcing" rules. They respond beautifully.









ITA

And as they grow older, since it's the only way they saw in their family - they do it without much effort on their or the parents side.

That's the way they know how, that's the way they learned to live.

Kinda like walking I suppose - it might take a little longer to "leap" from crawling to walking, but at the end it's the easiest way to move around for humans.

(Although my DD never crawlled







)


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Remember, they want to control us too.
True aira, so true.

They want to control us by keeping us insecure. Insecurity sells. When we are secure in our life, in the way we are helping our children become the people they were meant to be instead of the people we want them to be, there is no need to turn to all the books and products out there which aid in promoting less attachment and more control.

I have learned much from books, don't get me wrong, and have benefited from certain products too, but parenting is a *big* business -- which is why the flavor of the generation keeps changing regarding the "right" way to raise children.

It is much less fashionable (or profitable I should say) for companies, and authors and magazines to simply say "treat them like anyone else you love and respect tremendously.

That would be easy.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Well, that article depressed the crap out of me.







Thinking of my kids entering that 'society' in a few years makes me almost want to take DH up on his offer to build a "compound" on a piece of his uncle's farm way out in the middle of nowhere.









I have to agree that the parenting in the article seems less like CL to me and more like permissive or suffocating parenting, or a strange mix of both...the depressing part to me is that it seems that many parents want to NOT parent harshly (which is great, obviously), but don't realize that you can parent gently, set limits, and let your child be their own person, and they then swing way too far in the opposite direction and don't provide their child with any guidance towards building life skills or opportunities to do things on their own. Or, worse yet, they are overindulgent, and then harsh sometimes too, and then wonder why their kids are confused from the mixed signals. Not claiming that I'm perfect at ALL, I just wish that more parents would realize that they don't have to be drill sergeants OR pushovers; that there is another way...


----------



## RootBeerFloat (Nov 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I agree that I spend way less time getting DS's cooperation than anyone else I know IRL. Working with kids is so much easier than "enforcing" rules. They respond beautifully.









This is one of the things that BLOWS me away about CL. I did not start out this way, and I think I still have a way to go, even though I feel like I'm doing a pretty decent job. Nobody could ever accuse us of having an "easy" (cooperative, laid back) baby, and I like it that way. But boy did we have battles for a long time about everything, including sleep. I thought I was really child-led, waiting until she was tired to go to bed, co-sleeping and never CIO, but I decided it was time to go (when I saw that she was tired) and forced her to stay on the bed (gently, without punishment) once we got there.

Recently, I decided to give that up. She will sleep when she's tired and we go to bed when she wants, I decided. I was scared to death, but forcing her to do anything just doesn't jive with my beliefs and got to feeling more and more uncomfortable. And I'll be darned if she doesn't tell me when she wants a nap, go to bed, and nurse to sleep every day. Bedtime is the same thing. No, I don't want to take a walk, I want to go to bed--she's preverbal, so this looks like her shaking her head when we say "do you want to take a walk," and then running back to the bedroom and jumping on the bed. It's fantastic and SO much easier.

And, this is the kicker, she's sleeping better and longer than she used to. Her bedtimes and naptimes are pretty consistent, at the same time we've always gone to sleep. I was right that she was tired, I just needed to give her the power to decide it and act on it. This is really unlike any of her friends IRL, for whom naptimes are currently a huge battle and who were all subjected to CIO because their parents needed to "win" the nighttime battle.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Yeah, CC. We gotta get off the ferris wheel of parenting tends. Every point on the ride is another flavor of the same.

Connecting with the kid - that's where it's at!









I recently started responding to that cliche about kid not coming with instructions like this:

They do come with intructions. They _are_ the instructions. Listen to them.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ally'smom*
This is one of the things that BLOWS me away about CL. I did not start out this way, and I think I still have a way to go, even though I feel like I'm doing a pretty decent job. Nobody could ever accuse us of having an "easy" (cooperative, laid back) baby, and I like it that way. But boy did we have battles for a long time about everything, including sleep. I thought I was really child-led, waiting until she was tired to go to bed, co-sleeping and never CIO, but I decided it was time to go (when I saw that she was tired) and forced her to stay on the bed (gently, without punishment) once we got there.

Recently, I decided to give that up. She will sleep when she's tired and we go to bed when she wants, I decided. I was scared to death, but forcing her to do anything just doesn't jive with my beliefs and got to feeling more and more uncomfortable. And I'll be darned if she doesn't tell me when she wants a nap, go to bed, and nurse to sleep every day. Bedtime is the same thing. No, I don't want to take a walk, I want to go to bed--she's preverbal, so this looks like her shaking her head when we say "do you want to take a walk," and then running back to the bedroom and jumping on the bed. It's fantastic and SO much easier.

And, this is the kicker, she's sleeping better and longer than she used to. Her bedtimes and naptimes are pretty consistent, at the same time we've always gone to sleep. I was right that she was tired, I just needed to give her the power to decide it and act on it. This is really unlike any of her friends IRL, for whom naptimes are currently a huge battle and who were all subjected to CIO because their parents needed to "win" the nighttime battle.

I have tried this with DD and she won't go to sleep!







: It's not that she never gets tired, but she never gets to a point where she'll indicate that she wants to sleep. She will force herself to stay up even if she's almost staggering around due to exhaustion. I really wish I could just let DD choose her sleep times, but she doesn't want to choose *any* times to sleep! (Today for example she had NO nap all day and is about to fall over! But still no interest in the bed, in nursing, anything!)


----------



## RootBeerFloat (Nov 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I have tried this with DD and she won't go to sleep!







: It's not that she never gets tired, but she never gets to a point where she'll indicate that she wants to sleep. She will force herself to stay up even if she's almost staggering around due to exhaustion. I really wish I could just let DD choose her sleep times, but she doesn't want to choose *any* times to sleep! (Today for example she had NO nap all day and is about to fall over! But still no interest in the bed, in nursing, anything!)

Yep, it was like this, too, for us, for about a week. Then I went back to exercising control over bed for a few days, then finally let it go. If she doesn't want to go to bed, I go do other things. I let her know that we can go to bed when she's tired, but I'm not making her go. Once I demonstrated that I really don't want her to go to bed, but rather to choose when she wants to go to bed, she started going. I think that having a deeply connected relationship where there is alot of trust already is really helpful, because it takes alot of trust--in both directions--to let it go and give it time to work.

I think the not wanting to go to bed thing while exhausted is about exercising control about her own body and life. Dd plays this game now where she says she wants to go to bed, so dh and I go lay down, then she runs into and out of the bedroom over and over again. If we say we want to get up and do other things, she says she wants to go to bed, so we lay back down and she's back to running in and out. This is so the reversal of what was going on before--now she's working through having that power and using it. I read Playful Parenting a while ago and I keep thinking about how Cohen says that kids use play to work through things. Dd, and maybe yours too, has 16 months of mommy controlling her body to work through. So we're giving her the space in which to do that.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I have tried this with DD and she won't go to sleep!







: It's not that she never gets tired, but she never gets to a point where she'll indicate that she wants to sleep. She will force herself to stay up even if she's almost staggering around due to exhaustion. I really wish I could just let DD choose her sleep times, but she doesn't want to choose *any* times to sleep! (Today for example she had NO nap all day and is about to fall over! But still no interest in the bed, in nursing, anything!)

My dd was like this, too. She'd fall asleep in her high chair. I agree, it had to do with me trying to dictate when she'd sleep, because I was always trying to go by the clock, and by the book.

I don't know if it's just more experience or luck, but ds goes and gets his blankie and points at the rocking chair and cries when he wants to go to sleep. But even then, there are days when he gets too riled up and needs help going to sleep. Anyway, I guess I'm just saying it's possible to have a child who knows when they need to sleep without CL.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Thanks for your posts, Ally'smom and natensarah!

That's very interesting to think about her needing to process my having had control over her body...

Hmm. I think while we are in Greece (leaving next week and will be gone 10 days) I will tell her that she needs to let me know when she is sleepy (she knows the sign although she doesn't usually do it) and see what happens. We'll be all screwed up with the time difference anyway so there's no point in me trying to impose anything.

Maybe it will work this time! I really feel bad when she resists sleep so much. I also feel very confused as to what my role is. Still trying to find a solution everyone is happy with.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

This is an oldie but a goodie! Just thought I'd bump it up as it was a great discussion but got locked due to some default autolock of old threads. Interesting reading here and several years old. Anyone change their thinking about gentle disipline since this discussion?


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

I am posting the opening post of a thread from another site to consider, that offers similar food for thought:



> We have always practiced attachment parenting, even before I knew it had a name. My husband and I are both animal scientists by education, and behaviorism is the accepted theory for animal behavior. So ideas about attachment theory and behavior were new to me when I first had children. But they simply made sense to me on a gut level - people are not animals, and rewards/punishments seemed to be the wrong approach for teaching children. It wasn't until I heard Gordon Neufeld speak for the first time that I started exploring the science behind attachment and learned that behaviorism is, in fact, not accepted for people and hasn't been for years, and the science behind that. But, behaviorism is still the basis of most of the parenting ideas and techniques out there.
> 
> The "gurus" of attachment parenting - Neufeld, Kohn, etc. all state more or less that with an intact, attached relationship, the child "wants" to be "right" with the parent. So the idea as I understand it, is that if you use the ideas of attachment theory for babies and toddlers, are responsive to your child, honor their emotions, trust them, avoid puishment & discipline practices that lead to detachment, then by the time they're older, they will simply "want" to be right with you and you'll avoid a lot of discipline struggles off the bat.
> 
> ...


http://www.attachmentparenting.org/...viorism-discipline-for-grade-school-aged-kids

Later she says that she cannot use her insurance get treatment because all the qualifying treatments go against her GD philosophy:



> The mainstream treatment options (read, covered by insurance) use behaviorism. Haven't found anything that doesn't use behaviorism that isn't considered "experimental" or "alternative" (read, pay out of pocket and they're expensive).


PS: There is a CheriK registered here, might be the same person.


----------



## muddie (Nov 10, 2014)

I have some difficulty understanding what GD is, what it means. There is a list of GD resources here:

http://www.mothering.com/articles/gentle-discipline-resources/

I have not read most of these authors but I have read Kohn's _Unconditional Parenting_ and I have read much from Sear's web site. There is a vast range of disagreement between Sears and Kohn. In my opinion, Sears approach to discipline has more in common with the modern mainstream approach (for instance, Kazdin) that he does with Kohn. I think Sears is mainstream+, he adds stuff to mainstream, does not subtract.


----------

