# Where do you stand



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

I was trying to get an understand of where people here stand. But I realize now that I might be violating MDC rules by allowing personal pref for corporal punishment in some circumtances. Since I am one of the people who says "no matter how much obdediance you want from your child, any form of punishment is wrong" I am certainly not advocating this at all. If the moderators want to pull this poll, I understand.


----------



## MamaSoleil (Apr 24, 2002)




----------



## MamaSoleil (Apr 24, 2002)

Sorry, when I posted my scratching smilie, all there was on your post was 'Where do you stand'. Sorry about that!!!
Anyway, I voted.
I do negotiate some rules with her. Cause sometimes, some of the rules just don't make sense.kwim?


----------



## jenaniah (Nov 23, 2003)

None of your options fit what I do with the boys and Grayce...We don't have a whole lot of rules (mostly just no hurting each other, no whining, and no tv until after 5) We do negotiate on the rules we do have (like the no TV rule...some days are just nasty or they are feeling bad then they will probably get to watch TV before 5 or if there is something on that Grayce really wants to watch she may get to) I also use both logical and non-logical consequences (I suppose anyway...I don't really uderstand logical consequences) like if they are super whiny and have been asked repeatedly to stop whining they will either have a nap or early bedtime, b/c whiny boys are tired boys. That doesn't mean that they have to go to bed by themselves, they still get the same routine of a story and cuddling until they fall asleep. I also do time outs if they hurt each other or someone else but again there time outs are with me either on the couch or at the kitchen table. Grayce rarely needs anything but I have sent her to her room twice for being very ugly to me (she was not speaking nicely at all the first time and the second she kept sticking her tongue out anytime I said anything to her) but I tell her that she just needs to go away from us until she decides she is ready to be nice again so she decides how long she is there and she is allowed to play or read books or do anything else she wants.

Anyway long story short...I have no idea what to vote in the poll


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

I don't fit in your poll either.

First, "logical consequences" are a kind of punishment. They're punishments that are related to the "offense', but they are punishments.

And second, the whole rule thing doesn't really work for us. When you think of non-child events, do there tend to be rules? Maybe in sports, but generally not... there are some mutually understood and agreed-upon standards of behavior, I guess, but they're different than rules.

I think more in terms of values - for example, I value kindness, so I want to live my life in ways that reflect this.

Dar


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
I don't fit in your poll either.

First, "logical consequences" are a kind of punishment. They're punishments that are related to the "offense', but they are punishments.

And second, the whole rule thing doesn't really work for us. When you think of non-child events, do there tend to be rules? Maybe in sports, but generally not... there are some mutually understood and agreed-upon standards of behavior, I guess, but they're different than rules.

I think more in terms of values - for example, I value kindness, so I want to live my life in ways that reflect this.

Dar

Most large workplaces have lots and lots of rules. The law is rules. Government makes rules covering everything from housing to medical care. I don't understand how you can say non-child things don't have rules.

And for logical consequences, I personally don't use many, but can't say none. I don't think they ARE punishment.

Mine are "If you don't hurry getting dressed, we aren't going to have time to read a story before school."
And "if you and your sister keep fighting, you are going to have to get away from me, cuz I don't want to hear it"

And, if you don't pick up your toys, mama is not going to be very happy.


----------



## MamaSoleil (Apr 24, 2002)

Example:
The other day, we were at a friend's house, and they have a tiny kitten. DD was obsessed, and was really enjoying the kitten. NOT HURTING AT ALL, she's 5, and knows better. Well, friend's dh, decided the kitten had had enough, and started telling dd to leave kitten alone...I couldn't really understand why, neither could dd...I mean, she wasn't harming it in any way...ANYWAY, he kept telling her to leave kitten alone, finally, I took her aside, and said, "Listen, I know you don't understand *why* he doesn't want you to play with this kitten, but he doesn't, and it's his cat, and we have to respect that.". DD still wouldn't listen, so we ended up leaving, I tried to ask him WHY she couldn't play, he kept saying she needed a nap...wtf? So, we left. We could have stayed, but dd didn't want to respect his wishes, as dumb as they were. THat's just the way it goes. I wasn't into fighting. This guy also believes in spanking, and was just waiting for me to threaten her, I'm sure....UGH. Not going back THERE anytime soon. That's, a logical consequence, no?


----------



## kavamamakava (Aug 25, 2004)

I don't know if i would vote "do not negotiate most rules" or "do not negotiate any rules"
We don't have many rules. Just things like "no running in the road" type of rules. And those are not things I am willing to let my children learn for the consequences for.
As for punishment, if one of the children is being disruptive to the rest of the family, I ask them to spend some time in their room.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya43*
Most large workplaces have lots and lots of rules. The law is rules. Government makes rules covering everything from housing to medical care. I don't understand how you can say non-child things don't have rules.

Now I've had coffee, I'll try again...

I guess I'm thinking of rules about personal behavior, more than rules about who can apply for housing or whatever. We regulate children's behaviors in ways we would never regulate an adult's.

I work for a really large workplace. We have a very detailed set of rules about sexual harassment, which we all read but doesn't really seem to apply to anything I've seen. I guess there are "rules" about turning in your timesheet, and things like that... but really, it's more than there are procedures that everyone generally follows, because we can all see that they help things run more smoothly. The same with locking up if you're the last person leaving, and jumping behind the counter if it gets busy, and lots of things. Our house works like that - we throw our laundry in the hamper because then it's easier for whichever one of us decides to do laundry to find it. If there isn't a lot of laundry in the hamper, we'll give a shout out and ask if the other person has any more.

On the other had, all of the schools where I worked have had tons of rules for the kids to follow, about how you could dress, touch other people, where you can be when you can be there, when you can talk, when you must talk, when you can't talk, how you must line up... on and on and on.

Quote:

And for logical consequences, I personally don't use many, but can't say none. I don't think they ARE punishment.
Behavioralistically speaking, a punishment is an action done to the subject after a behavior intended to decrease the likelihood of the subject repeating the behavior. In other words, something you do to someone to make him less likely to do what he just did. If your kid rides his bike without a helmet, you can take his bike for a week or make him write lines - both are punishments intended to decrease the chance of him riding without a helmet again, even though the former is the also directly related to his "crime".

Quote:

Mine are "If you don't hurry getting dressed, we aren't going to have time to read a story before school."
Are you really not going to have time, or would you be deciding to take away story time. If it's the former, then this is a natural consequence, not a logical one. It's more akin to "ride without a helmet, fall and get a concussion" then "ride without a helmet, I take away your bike". You're not doing anything, it's just the way life goes. I d think a parent has a duty to warn children of possibke natural consequences of their actions, but because they happen naturally, without intent, they're not punishments.

dar


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Dar, I wonder if you thought about it more, you might notice more rules at your workplace. For example, do you have specific hours or times that you are expected to work or can you come and go as you please? Are you expected to dress in a particular way? I don't mean necessarily wearing a uniform but being clean and reasonably professional. Are you free to take as many breaks as you want and to take them whenever and wherever you want? Even if the rules are understood rather than spoken or written down, they are still rules. If you were at a potluck dinner and everyone was lining up to get food, would you walk right up to the front and just but in? Probably not because you know that's not considered acceptable behavior. It is an unspoken rule. The consequence of you breaking that rule would be that the others would be angry or upset with you. That's essentially the same as having children line up for the lunch line at school. The difference is that the children don't always have the impulse control and social awareness to line up nicely on their own. What do you think?

As to the poll, I didn't fit into one of the choices either. I negotiate some rules and I also sometimes use non-logical punishments. I'm not particularly happy with our way of doing things but am having a hard time changing it. I don't really have set rules, though, which is why we are constantly negotiating. I do not negotiate safety rules. I expect my 13 year old to clean up after himself. Oh, how I wish he would do this.







If he refuses to clean up, he is not allowed to do anything else until he does. Me being angry or upset with him for not doing it does not phase him and I have too much other stuff to do without also having to clean up all of his little messes. Additionally, if he gets extremely argumentative and worked up, I will again tell him he cannot do anything and maybe even has to go to his room until he can calm down. It gets very tiring having discuss every little thing with him. He's a great negotiator and he wears me out.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

The second option fits us best, although for us it should say "most rules" instead of "some". IME, most situations are negotiable, and the thing that makes compromise sometimes impossible (seemingly) is not the actual circumstances, but rather the attitude that either dd or I bring to the situation, kwim? One or both of us is just too tired or grumpy to work it out.....

I know it is just a poll, and am just expressing my opinion, but I object to the last option even being listed on this board. IMO, the last option advocates hitting in some circumstances, and that is against the rules in the gd forum.
Hitting is not discipline--even as a "last resort". Hitting is violence. And I can say that here, cause this is the gd forum


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

I do sometimes have a problem deciding between calling somethiing a natural and logical consequence. With the getting dressed example, it really is if we don't have the actual time, which I guess you could call natural (but I thought maybe the "natural" consequence would involve still reading the story (the normal morning routine) and being late for school.

I guess I'd use true "logical" consequences when it comes to matters of safety, like the bike helmet example. But my kids know my Dh's cousin who actually and tragically suffered the natural consequence of riding without a helmet and this has never been an issue.

DAR, its really interesting for me to read your posts. We definitely parent differently, but I think that compared to many on this board we are more alike in using few consequences.

As for punishment my dictionary defines it as "to inflict with pain or suffering for a crime or fault". So I guess we may really be using different definitions. I maintain that under mine, I don't punish.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama*
I know it is just a poll, and am just expressing my opinion, but I object to the last option even being listed on this board. IMO, the last option advocates hitting in some circumstances, and that is against the rules in the gd forum.
Hitting is not discipline--even as a "last resort". Hitting is violence. And I can say that here, cause this is the gd forum










yeah, as you can see in my first post, I realized the same thing right after I posted. I did not know how to edit the poll but invited the moderator to do so.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya43*
yeah, as you can see in my first post, I realized the same thing right after I posted.

Ah, I see that now....hopefully they won't pull the whole poll, but just edit it


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

But I also noticed that 2 people chose that last option


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama*
But I also noticed that 2 people chose that last option










Yeah, its really sad. My belief is always that there is no need to punish, let alone hit.


----------



## ~Megan~ (Nov 7, 2002)

not enough options there. dd is still young but I plan to negotiate some rules and use some natural consequences and some non natural (as in taking away priveledges for being irresponsible, which is sorta logical in a way).


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya43*
As for punishment my dictionary defines it as "to inflict with pain or suffering for a crime or fault". So I guess we may really be using different definitions. I maintain that under mine, I don't punish.

I don't know whether you specifically use punishments, but I think that what most people call "logical consequence" fits under that definition. If the "crime or fault" is bike riding without a helmet, then one could inflict "suffering" by taking away the bike. The point is that the child wants to ride the bike, and so taking it away makes them suffer, right? I mean, if they didn't care about riding the bike, it wouldn't be used as a "logical consequence"/punishment".

The part about "to inflict" implies that punishment must be intentionally implied, as oppoed to natural consequences, which are just things that happen, without intent.

MarineWife, I think there are lots of things you could call "rules", or you could just think of as thoughtfulness and good manners. I tend towards the latter. I suppose you could create innumerable rules that people follow all the time - right now, one could say I'm following rules about not throwing the laptop across the room, not spitting on the floor, not calling my daughter ugly names, and on and on. I *could* do all of those things right at this very moment, but I don't... but not beause there are rules about them.

That's why I like having general frameworks, like goals and values, instead of specific rules. If I live according to these things, I generally do pretty well. Sometimes there are specific procedures I need to follow, like "Put your time sheet in this slot, in front of the folder", but I see a difference between procedure-type rules and other rules... and besides, the consequences for not following them would be someone reminding me of the procedure again, which isn't really a bad thing.

Anyway, I'm finding this discussion very interesting and thought-provoking (and it's effectively distracting me from all sorts of housework







)

Dar


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

We negotiate some rules with dc, use logical consequence when non-negotiable rules are broken.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

well, then there is the negotiate some rules, soemtimes punish logically.........or something like that?

Nothing there fits me


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Dar, I guess I think of them as rules when someone or something else puts them on you and values when you put them on yourself. Does that make sense? For example, I don't spit on my floor because I don't want to. There is no one to tell me that the rule of the house is no spitting. However, there is a no spitting on the sidewalk law (rule) imposed by the city legislators. I think you are right that it is a perspective thing to a point. I may see not cutting in line as a rule, where you may see it as a value. My dh is in the military and there are a lot of rules imposed on the adults. I don't like most of the rules so I choose not to play (hehehe) but my dh doesn't have a choice. If he doesn't follow the rules, he could be court-martialed.

I also agree that the last choice should not be part of the poll since it has nothing to do with GD. Spanking is not an option when using GD.


----------



## allbrightmama (Aug 8, 2004)

I am also unable to answer this poll. We really don't have any "rules". We have an expectation of kindness of the family as a whole. To us that means caring for our bodies and minds and treating others with respect. Do I negotiate everything? No. There isn't anything to negotiate. We look at every situation on an individual basis. Is this safe/healthy/hurtful at this moment? Is it safe to jump on the couch? Yes. Is it safe to jump on the couch with your friends holding pencils? No. I would not allow a serious injury to ds or anyone else based on a belief in natural consequences. If I apply this to the bike helmet scenario we end up with me supervising to make sure dc put on the helmet before riding. No punishment. So I guess I have to answer "none of the above"


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
Dar, I guess I think of them as rules when someone or something else puts them on you and values when you put them on yourself. Does that make sense?

Yes! That actually makes a lot of sense to me.

I can think of very few things that I do just (or mostly) because they're externally applied rules. I guess not eating in costume when I'm in a show is one... but then I *do* eat in costume when the costumer isn't around, so I guess I don't really follow that one. Mostly I do what feels right for me to do, so the fact that there are rules about doing it is really meaningless.

The rules I tend to follow because they're rules are procedural rules, and I think that's a different category. They're really value-neutral rules, meant to improve efficiency, and the natural consequences of not following them tend to be decreased efficiency. Effiiciency is good. I want my timesheet to be entered into the system so I get my paycheck on time, so I put it in the designated place.

I think Rain feels pretty much the same way (brief pause for a discussion with Rain). Yep, she does. She had some different examples but they work out the same way...

Dar


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Hmm, not sure how well we fit in the poll but I voted the first option. The only "rules" in our family have been agreed upon by all members. We strive for respect, kindness, and fairness whenever it is at all possible. That being said I am not sure how many rules we have. Our family rules are things like : Respect other peoples space, feelings, and property. To be honest not much more than that has ever really been needed. Now that they are old enough to be home alone for periods of time we discussed the things we thought were important regarding that and came up with things like "Dont answer the door when home alone, no friends inside while we are gone etc"

Weve never, as parents, felt that we needed to rule over the kids. Instead we all strive to be the kind of people we feel good about, together and seperately.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

I'm having a hard time figuring out where I fit in your poll too.










We have a few non-negotiable rules. But the grown-ups have to follow those too. Seatbelts in the car, no hitting people, no name-calling, and that sort of thing.

We have other rules that exist to help our household function. With 4 people doing different things at different times we need some loose guidelines to keep things from disintigrating into chaos. Things like, each person is only allowed to leave one pair of shoes laying around the house. The rest get put away. But the only consequence to leaving your shoes out is that you get asked to put them away. And if its really a problem for someone, then I'm open to disscussing it.

As far as punishment.... well, I'd like to say that we don't punish. But Dar would say that we probably do because we use a handful of logical consequences. For instance, if a kid runs in the street then I bring him indoors and tell him we have to play indoors until I feel safe about him staying out of the street. If a kid refuses to brush teeth, then I let him know we'll be stopping juice and sweets until he's back in the habit. If someone hits, then they need to go to another room until they can pull themselves together. So, I don't know if I punish or not. I guess I'm not real concerned about it. My kids are happy and my conscience is clear.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I ended up not voting because I couldn't figure out where I fit.

I consider basically all our "rules" to be non-negotiable. But that is just because we have very few of what I consider to be actual rules (rather than parental preferences). No hitting, no being mean/saying hurtful things, wear your seatbelt, things like that are RULES. There is no negotiation. No matter what they will be done the way DH & I have decided.

Most other things are my personal preferences. Cleaning up, chores, what to wear, etc... are all up for negotiation/input. My saying something/making a suggestion does not necessarily make it a "rule" any more than my DD saying something would make it one. Anyone following me here?

We do time outs, but not as a punishment, and not for a certain amount of time. Rather, DD (it is not an issue w/DS even though he is younger, just a different temperment) still has a hard time willingly removing herself from certain situations. It hasn't happened lately, but when she was younger (she is only 5.5 now!) she *needed* to be told to take some time alone. Usually she would go to her room and read for a bit, or play with blocks (something repetative & calming) and she is welcome to come out when she is ready (she determines that). Sometimes she didn't even make it up the stairs before she was ready to return... other times it was a LOOOONG time before she was ready to come out. As she gets older, she is more able to interpret that need for herself and so we don't need to "punish" her in that way.

I never know how to classify my personal reactions (as logical or natural). For example, if DD was constantly rude & bossy w/her friends they wouldn't want to play with her anymore (natural consequence). BUT, if DD is rude & bossy towards me (or otherwise unpleasant to be around) and I decide to not play w/her anymore--- what is that? Opinions are welcome.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
That's why I like having general frameworks, like goals and values, instead of specific rules. If I live according to these things, I generally do pretty well. Sometimes there are specific procedures I need to follow, like "Put your time sheet in this slot, in front of the folder", but I see a difference between procedure-type rules and other rules... and besides, the consequences for not following them would be someone reminding me of the procedure again, which isn't really a bad thing.

Dar

That's really interesting because in my home, while I have alot of rules the consequence for not following them is mostly that you get reminded of them again. (not saying that there is not a little irritation in the reminder, but my guess is that could happen at work also)


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Just wanted to add:

If I could say, "ditto" to all mamaduck says/does I would feel 100% guilt free.

I responded as my "ideal" of course, I have yelled/freaked out a LOT in the past.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*

I responded as my "ideal" of course, I have yelled/freaked out a LOT in the past.

Uh -- me too. Really. I thought that would probably be assumed? We all get tired and grouchy sometimes, right?

In fact this morning, I distinctly remember saying something like, _"Alright, everybody get out of the kitchen and leave me alone!!! Or I'm going back to bed and nobody is getting any breakfast!"_


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

"Alright, everybody get out of the kitchen and leave me alone!!! Or I'm going back to bed and nobody is getting any breakfast!"
Next debate: is that a logical or natural consequence?







:


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Next debate: is that a logical or natural consequence?







:


BOTH!

Its natural that everyone being in here would irritate a person and its logical to want to go back to bed when one is so irritated!


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

It gets fuzzy sometimes...

I'd say natural, because it's about you, and changing the child's behavior is only incidental to meeting your needs.

I yell sometimes, too. More at the dogs than the kid nowadays, but Rain still remembers when she was five and I was so angry I threw a whole bowl full of apples against the wall, one at a time, yelling the whole time...

dar


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

I was so angry I threw a whole bowl full of apples against the wall, one at a time, yelling the whole time...
That sounds like it could be strangely gratifying.

Knowing my kids, they'd not hesitate to join right in!


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

Since so many people have said they don't really have rules other than for safety, I started thinking about this more and realized that I don't really have rules either. I just expect people in my family and my house to treat each other with respect and care and take care of our home and our belongings. Every time I had ever tried to impose rules, which "experts" have told me I need to do with my ds, it has ended in disaster. I guess we are just not a family that does rules very well.

So, I was wondering, whether you have rules or not, what are they? What would be some household rules that you have or grew up with or could conceive of, whether reasonable or not.


----------



## polka hop (Dec 23, 2003)

*


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
So, I was wondering, whether you have rules or not, what are they? What would be some household rules that you have or grew up with or could conceive of, whether reasonable or not.


Our Rules that apply only to kids:

Make your bed every morning

Soda allowed only on weekends

Homework must be started within 1/2 an hour of coming home

No whining

Sit at the table until mom or dad say its ok to leave

Don't complain about what is served for meals

If you bring something downstairs you must bring it upstairs when you go upstairs

These are not all, just a few of them.

Some of you may be thinking, well its not fair if those rules apply only to kids. As my mom told me "rank has its privleges" Adult do get more privileges than kids in the house I was raised in and the house my kids are being raised in.

But like the house I was raised in, there are very few consequences to not obeying the rules, though there is an expectation that you will obey.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

Some of you may be thinking, well its not fair if those rules apply only to kids. As my mom told me "rank has its privleges" Adult do get more privileges than kids in the house I was raised in and the house my kids are being raised in.
See, one of priorities is to teach my kids that it is possible for people to organize themselves socially without using "ranking" systems. IMO, hierarchy is very damaging to people. I would much prefer people organized themselves according to gifts and needs, and interacted based on trust and empathy.

I know that people *do* live in the context of power based hierarchies, but I also think that a child's upbringing should give them a picture of what is ideal and good, so that they have the power to transform the world in whatever little ways they are able.

I do play the role of leader with my children, but only because I have more expertise at life, and they recognize that fact and look to me for guidance. They trust me, I think, most of the time anyway. When we have a rule in place, it exist for the well-being of everyone. Not to serve the privlages of certain people. If I don't want my child to have soda, I explain that soda hurts bodies that are still growing. That one soda once in a while is okay for a treat, but that growing children need to drink mostly water or milk. And that Daddy's body is finished growing so he doesn't need to be exactly as careful as a kid does, though he could probably stand to drink a little less soda too!

I think realizing that some people have special expertise to offer, and some people (like children) have special sets of needs is an important thing for them to learn. But I don't want them to learn that different types of people should have automatic and arbitrary power over other types of people. I would not say, _"Ask a grown-up because grown ups are in charge."_ I would say, _"As a grown-up because a grown-up might have some information that will help you solve a problem."_


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Samsoleil*
Example:
The other day, we were at a friend's house, and they have a tiny kitten. DD was obsessed, and was really enjoying the kitten. NOT HURTING AT ALL, she's 5, and knows better. Well, friend's dh, decided the kitten had had enough, and started telling dd to leave kitten alone...I couldn't really understand why, neither could dd...I mean, she wasn't harming it in any way...ANYWAY, he kept telling her to leave kitten alone, finally, I took her aside, and said, "Listen, I know you don't understand *why* he doesn't want you to play with this kitten, but he doesn't, and it's his cat, and we have to respect that.". DD still wouldn't listen, so we ended up leaving, I tried to ask him WHY she couldn't play, he kept saying she needed a nap...wtf? So, we left. We could have stayed, but dd didn't want to respect his wishes, as dumb as they were. THat's just the way it goes. I wasn't into fighting. This guy also believes in spanking, and was just waiting for me to threaten her, I'm sure....UGH. Not going back THERE anytime soon. That's, a logical consequence, no?

I think your friend had a point there with the kittens though!


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Samsoleil*
Example:
The other day, we were at a friend's house, and they have a tiny kitten. DD was obsessed, and was really enjoying the kitten. NOT HURTING AT ALL, she's 5, and knows better. Well, friend's dh, decided the kitten had had enough, and started telling dd to leave kitten alone...I couldn't really understand why, neither could dd...I mean, she wasn't harming it in any way...ANYWAY, he kept telling her to leave kitten alone, finally, I took her aside, and said, "Listen, I know you don't understand *why* he doesn't want you to play with this kitten, but he doesn't, and it's his cat, and we have to respect that.". DD still wouldn't listen, so we ended up leaving, I tried to ask him WHY she couldn't play, he kept saying she needed a nap...wtf? So, we left. We could have stayed, but dd didn't want to respect his wishes, as dumb as they were. THat's just the way it goes. I wasn't into fighting. This guy also believes in spanking, and was just waiting for me to threaten her, I'm sure....UGH. Not going back THERE anytime soon. That's, a logical consequence, no?


See, I also think your friend was right. To me this is something that bothers me when kids are taught that there has to be a REASON for every rule. I have a friend whose when I tell the kids they can't go in my office always say "why not". To me this is rude. I don't owe them an explanation. People have a right to make rules in their own houses and ya gotta follow them even if they are irrational, stupid, whatever. I definitely think that your dd was picking up from you the idea that she should not follow the rules if she is not given a good explanation. Your friend should not have had to "keep telling her" to leave the kitten alone. If she wasn't doing it the first time, you had an obligation to intervene. I do think you did the right thing by leaving though.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Gosh Maya. If people didn't question rules, where would we be? I can think of endless examples through history where good came from questioning rules and evil came of not questioning rules. I would not hinder my child from asking "why." I might answer, "We'll talk about it later," but I don't see a problem with the expectation that rules be reaonable.


----------



## BusyMommy (Nov 20, 2001)

Interesting thread. I would have "assumed" we had more rules than most, but I realize ours are mainly safety as well; ie. helmets, hands in the parking lot, etc.

I guess my Q is if people are concerned w/the social rules; ie. the patterns we follow to help the family/house run smoothly; ie. when you come in, your boots go in the bootbox and your sweatshirt goes in the basket. When meals are over, everyone brings their plate to the kitchen and pushes in their chair. I consider those rules. And, the ?natural consequence is that one is reminded and unable to play until it's accomplished.

The "reason for a rule" issue is tough. I have very very inquisitive kids and I absolutely do NOT want to stifle them. But, bottom line, some things are simply non-negotiable and I think it's important for them to understand that; ie. they may NOT play in my garden. So, I made them their own raised bed gardens.
hmmm...i'm wandering


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaduck*
Gosh Maya. If people didn't question rules, where would we be? I can think of endless examples through history where good came from questioning rules and evil came of not questioning rules. I would not hinder my child from asking "why." I might answer, "We'll talk about it later," but I don't see a problem with the expectation that rules be reaonable.


I agree, some rules which might effect one's health or life or someone else's need to be questioned. But the rules other people make in their homes about their own stuff, you just got no right to question.

No one should let their child repeatedly bother someone else's stuff becuse the answer given did not meet their satisfaction.


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
It gets fuzzy sometimes...

I'd say natural, because it's about you, and changing the child's behavior is only incidental to meeting your needs.

I yell sometimes, too. More at the dogs than the kid nowadays, but Rain still remembers when she was five and I was so angry I threw a whole bowl full of apples against the wall, one at a time, yelling the whole time...

dar

I think I'm getting better at staying calm in trying situations, but I'm another one of your GD fans, Dar, and it helps tremendously to hear you tell this kind of story on yourself! Thanks a lot! :LOL


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

I don't necessarily disagree with rules in general. They can serve a purpose. I do, however, disagree with a rules that do not allow people (children) to express their thoughts and feelings.

For example, the not complaining about dinner rule I would consider very unreasonable and disrespectful to the feelings of the child. Children have much more sensitive taste buds than adults. Flavors are much stronger to them. My ds is very sensitive to anything the least bit spicy. He can't even stand a little pepper on his food. He says it burns his tongue. I love hot food and would never even conceive that regular black pepper could burn someone. If I did not allow my ds to complain about dinner, I would never know that about him and I would be forcing him to either go hungry or eat something that hurt him.

Additionally, I disagree with the idea that it is rude for children to ask why about a rule. Children are naturally inquisitive. That's how they learn about themselves and the world around them. If we don't allow them to ask questions and answer those questions, how will they ever learn anything? They don't ask why to be rude. They ask why because they are trying to make sense of things. There's nothing wrong with that. A child can (when developmentally ready) understand that a reason given for a rule may not make sense to them but still needs to be respected when it involves others. I think children are more likely to follow a rule when they are given a reason for it.

I will agree that being asked why all the time can get annoying and exhausting but it is not rude. What I would consider rude is someone telling me that the rule is the rule and they don't have to tell me why. If my dh pulled that on me, he'd see that rule ignored at every turn of his head. Your reason for not letting friends' children in your office can be as simple as saying that it's your private space and you don't want anyone in it. They should respect that. If they don't, then they are being rude and you can ask them to leave. Very simple.

I guess the reason we negotiate so much is because we don't really have set rules. It's more like me asking my ds to turn the TV off because I'm tired of hearing it. He will say he's in the middle of a show or wants to really watch this or that. So, we will negotiate.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya43*

No one should let their child repeatedly bother someone else's stuff becuse the answer given did not meet their satisfaction.

This I agree with. But that doesn't mean the child shouldn't ask why. That just makes no sense to me.

Quote:

But the rules other people make in their homes about their own stuff, you just got no right to question.
Perhaps I have no right to disregard the rules. But why shouldn't I (or my child) ask the reason for the rules? Children are much more likely to internalize a sense of respect for rules in general as they develop a sense of why they are necessary.

However I do think that if the reason I give leaves a child feeling unsatisfied, then that feeling may be something he sometimes has to learn to live with.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Correct me if wrong, but I don't think that the concern was that the child SHOULD NOT ask why she couldn't play with the kitten. But, that since the kitten was another's personal property, no matter what the answer (cause I don't want you to) the behavior needed to be stopped immediately, IMO. I would hope others would treat my child with the same respect (if they said, "please don't touch my ___blank___" they wouldn't). If you are in another persons house, you go with their rules, no matter how nonsensical to you







(except for some obvious exceptions, lol)


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)




----------



## FireWithin (Apr 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MarineWife*
Since so many people have said they don't really have rules other than for safety, I started thinking about this more and realized that I don't really have rules either. I just expect people in my family and my house to treat each other with respect and care and take care of our home and our belongings. Every time I had ever tried to impose rules, which "experts" have told me I need to do with my ds, it has ended in disaster. I guess we are just not a family that does rules very well.

So, I was wondering, whether you have rules or not, what are they? What would be some household rules that you have or grew up with or could conceive of, whether reasonable or not.

I felt a little surprised that no one had rules, and then I realized that the majority of our rules are safety related. I brainstormed last night potential rules we have (or might have in the future.) that are more convenience related. Another poster mentioned them as helping the household function properly

As just mentioned I dont' feel the need to impose the following rules now, possibly because DS is so young (17 mos). Guidance to what I want (which might becoem a future rule) is what I do.
I consider these "convenience" limitations
1. When DS eats "wet" food independently (yogurt, applesauce), he eats it at his highchair, or at his little table. He can carry around crackers, even if I know that they will end up on the floor.
2. Coloring is on paper, not the walls. It happens at his table and chairs (to help prevent wall exploration)
I would expect that other rules such as these will pop up in the future. I prefer to look at them as falling under our family principle of "we are a team - we all deserve respect and consideration, we work together to help each other"

3. Sand is not thrown off the balcony, for fear that other tenants will complain, and we will lose sandbox privledges.


----------



## elephantheart (Sep 2, 2004)

I don't think we fit in to any of the categories, either.

I'd say we negotiate on some things, and use logical consequences or time out with some things that are non-negotiable. But like so many other people, I'd say the majority of our non-negotiables would be respect issues that I also must follow. No one hits, no one fights, no one takes something out of someone else's hand, etc. And that is an explanation we use often. "How would you feel if you came in the room and saw mommy and daddy wrestling on the floor and fighting over a book? We respect each other and share our things. We expect the same of you."

I do have a question though-

Our original "rule" about food was, everybody has to try it, but if you don't like it, you don't have to eat it, but there will be no alternative given. (of course this wouldn't apply to something that was too spicy or anything like that).
Well, we really don't have a lot of money to buy whatever everyone likes to eat, so not eating your dinner ends up wasting a meal and wasting money we don't have to waste. I know my kids can't understand this, but my husband has started making them eat what he fixes, regardless. Now, the truth of the matter is, most meals are ones they've had before and eaten and had no problem with. And then one day they'll refuse it. We could let them not eat it, and go to bed hungry, but then they'll wake up crying and hungry. They're too little to see this before-hand, and it's frustrating waking up with a hungry child in the night because they were simply being picky. How would you handle this?


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

MarineWife said:


> I
> For example, the not complaining about dinner rule I would consider very unreasonable and disrespectful to the feelings of the child. Children have much more sensitive taste buds than adults. Flavors are much stronger to them. My ds is very sensitive to anything the least bit spicy. He can't even stand a little pepper on his food. He says it burns his tongue. I love hot food and would never even conceive that regular black pepper could burn someone. If I did not allow my ds to complain about dinner, I would never know that about him and I would be forcing him to either go hungry or eat something that hurt him.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> In our house everything is buffet style. there is always bread or plain rice or potatotes at every meal. You don't have to eat anything at all. And by "complain" I don't mean stating a fact like "the meat is too spicy for me" I mean "ugh I hate this meat"


----------



## momsgotmilk4two (Sep 24, 2002)

I don't exactly fit into the poll either. We negociate some rules, although not many because we really don't have many rules. I'd say we negociate lots of situations that come up, but the main "rules" stay. Things like no hitting and ride your bike with a helmet or not at all or buckle up in your carseat if you want to ride in the car are just not negociable in my book.

I also disagree that adult behavior is not regulated. If I invited a friend over and that friend ran around my house screaming and jumping on my furniture and hit me, that person would no longer be welcome in my house. I can't exactly tell my kids to hit the road so we need to talk about certain behaviors that they tend to display and work it out. For instance I'll let them know where they can jump and run and scream.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

We have no rules and no punishments. We have not found them necessary. Even safety issues are not a problem. Ds1 always wanted to cross the streets by himself (he is 3 BTW). He knows that you wait for the light to signal it is okay to walk, then you look for cars, then you cross quickly. He figured since he knew how to do it he just didn't need to wait for me and would be irritated when I asked him to (I gotta GO Mama). I simply explained that he is much shorter than I am, so a car may have a harder time seeing him before turning a corner than they would seeing me because I am higher up. He understood because I was honest with him and that made sense to him and has waited for me every time since them. No "rule" about it, no "consequence" needed, no danger to worry about.

We just all try to live our lives according to our values and belief. The kids learn by our example, not by our imposing rules. I have the only 3 yo I know that says, "Thanks for getting my book Daddy, I really appreciate that!". He says it because we thank him for things. It is a part of life. Same with "chores". Everyone tries to pick up toys, everyone helps with dinner, everyone helps if asked, etc. We notice they behave the same way we do, so dh and I live accordingly. If issues come up we talk about them and try to resolve them in a way that leaves everyone feeling good. It works well for us


----------



## MarineWife (May 1, 2004)

What to do about dinner can be hard? One thing to do is get your child's input before you make dinner. If they are involved in deciding what is made, they are much more likely to eat it. I certainly would not make something for dinner that I knew my dh could not stomach eating and I would be very upset if he made something he knew I couldn't stand. I would think you'd be able to find enough money to keep a few things around that the kids could eat if they absolutely cannot stomach the dinner. This could be something that doesn't have to be prepared. Or, if they do like one thing you've made but don't like the other, let them eat more of the thing they like. My ds is old enough now that he can heat up his own can of soup or whatever if he refuses to eat what's been made for dinner.

Children go through phases where they like something and that's all they want for a week. Then as soon as you think you understand what they want, they change it on you. My ds does this to me all the time. I try to respect this changing and growing in my child. I, myself, have foods that I used to love when I was a teenager that I wouldn't dream of eating now and vice versa.

I don't mind if my ds says he hates whatever has been made. If he continues to go on and on about it, I just tell him that I heard him and understand he doesn't like it so he doesn't have to eat it. Most times, if you just acknowledge how the child feels or what they think without adding anything else, they will move on.

For example:

DC says: "I hate this meat!"

You say: "The meat doesn't taste good to you. Well, you don't have to eat it, then."

I have another question about rules now. If you do have rules, do you state them ahead of time or do you just make them as you go? I've had so many people tell me that children need to know very clearly what the rules are up front. I find, however, that I sort of do things on the fly.

Gosh, my posts get long. I'm really enjoying this thread.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elephantheart*

I do have a question though-

Our original "rule" about food was, everybody has to try it, but if you don't like it, you don't have to eat it, but there will be no alternative given. (of course this wouldn't apply to something that was too spicy or anything like that).
Well, we really don't have a lot of money to buy whatever everyone likes to eat, so not eating your dinner ends up wasting a meal and wasting money we don't have to waste. I know my kids can't understand this, but my husband has started making them eat what he fixes, regardless. Now, the truth of the matter is, most meals are ones they've had before and eaten and had no problem with. And then one day they'll refuse it. We could let them not eat it, and go to bed hungry, but then they'll wake up crying and hungry. They're too little to see this before-hand, and it's frustrating waking up with a hungry child in the night because they were simply being picky. How would you handle this?

What we do is designate a few simple things that are always alternative options, and that the kids can more or less get for themselves. PB&J is always a choice. Cereal and milk is always a choice. Bananas are always a choice. Those are just our examples. But anyone can get up quietly without complaining and pour a bowl of cereal and then return to the table.


----------



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

We don't really have 'rules' but we negotiate most things on a case by case basis. We just discuss it and come to a decision--mostly together, but sometimes it is just a "because that's not safe/appropriate" mom/dad only decision.

I dislike the separate models for kids and adults also. But, more beacause I think it sets people up for a backlash and b/c I want my kid to enjoy being a child (instead of wishing/waiting to be old enough to get the priveleges). I don't want my kid to grow up and do something simply b/c this is what adults 'get to do' (eat cookies for dinner, swear, not make their beds, smoke, etc.). I think dangling a carrot in front of someone's nose will make them want the carrot whether or not the carrot is something they would've chosen otherwise.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

I want my kid to enjoy being a child (instead of wishing/waiting to be old enough to get the priveleges).
I think this is so important. I remember waiting and wishing to be grown up so I could do stuff I wanted, and not recognizing that the reason we behave well goes deeper than obedience and transcends age.

My kids seem to enjoy where they are at, and I don't ever hear them pining away to be grown up for the sake of privlages.


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Some of the things that people have as 'rules' wouldnt occur to me. Like, no whining. If one of my chidlren starts whining, first, I want to know why, then if we have dealt with the issue and the whining continues, I might point out to them that it aggravates others and doesnt get the desired result. It wouldnt occur to me to make 'no whining' into a rule. Or not complaining about food, etc. If that situation occurs, we deal with it and try to teach our children how their actions effect others, eg if you complain about the food, you make mummy/daddy sad, because they spent time preparing it. There are ways to express dislike, eg "I don't really like the pasta mixed with the vegetables" not "Yuck, this is disgusting." This is part of general guidance and example over what is socially acceptable, polite and kind. Not a rule per se.

Rules about food interest me. I know that most people have them, but we really strive not to. I believe that many eating disorders are caused by food rules in childhood, and that food can become an issue very easily. It's one way that children can have power, and I really work to avoid it ever being an issue.

I keep things in the fridge that I know the kids like, and before meals ask them what they want. Or make suggestions, like today, "Daddy said he'd make pancakes and yoghurt for breakfast. What do you think?" Both girls jumped at the idea ,but if they hadn't it wouldnt have been a big deal. I'd rather put a piece of toast in the toaster for one of them than make what you eat into an issue. When they are older, they will be able to do that for themselves.

I'm always fascinated by watching friends who have a lot of food rules and the battles that they have over meals. Like the 'take three bites' thing. Personally, if someone put oysters or beef in front of me and told me to take three bites, I'd throw up. Maybe I"d like them when I tried them, but I'd hate anyone coercing me into trying it. It may be coincidence, but we have no food battles, and my children eat a fabulous diet. It's limited and repetitive, but nutritionally it's very good. I cannot buy enough fruit to keep them going, and they love most vegetables. So what if they dont eat the same as dh and myself a lot of meals? I don't really identify with the whole idea of family mealtime meaning that one dinner is served (not talking of anyone here, but most of my friends do this, and interestingly battle over it most nights). I can heat up macaroni in the microwave or open a yoghurt for anyone who doesnt like what dh and I are eating, and I know fairly well what the girls will eat and what they won't. Portions can go in the fridge of favourite dinners for the next night, and they can have that if we are having something they don't like or want.

I guess my standpoint is that I dont want them longing to grow up so that they can make their own choices. I recall the absolute sense of freedom and rebellion if my parents went away adn I could eat what I wanted to eat. I was so sick of having to have what my mother dished up day in day out, with no choice in the matter. I'd hate it now, dh and I almost always consult over meals, I don't just make something and expect it to be what he feels like eating.

I really can't think of many rules in our home that are anything but to do with safety. The only one is that some foods stay in the kitchen - drinks except water, and ice lollies. The chidlren know why, because spills and drips are messy and the house is rented and we must take care of carpet areas. I honestly cannot think of any other rule that is not safety based (holding hands to cross streets, buckling up in the car, etc.)









The great thing about not having rules, is that you dont get into battles that lead to punishments, resentment, and kids trying to beat the rules. That's not to say that you don't respect one antoher and property, but every event is taken in context and dealt with as it arises. And life is fairly harmonious in our house most days, and my kids generally behave well out of the home, so our way seems to work for us.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Britishmum*
Rules about food interest me. I know that most people have them, but we really strive not to. I believe that many eating disorders are caused by food rules in childhood, and that food can become an issue very easily. It's one way that children can have power, and I really work to avoid it ever being an issue.

I guess my standpoint is that I dont want them longing to grow up so that they can make their own choices. I recall the absolute sense of freedom and rebellion if my parents went away adn I could eat what I wanted to eat. I was so sick of having to have what my mother dished up day in day out, with no choice in the matter. I'd hate it now, dh and I almost always consult over meals, I don't just make something and expect it to be what he feels like eating.

*Well we have many rules about mealtimes. But one is NOT that you have to eat anything that is served. Everything is served in bowls or plates and you can take what you want. Or nothing at all. There is alwasy plain bread, rice or potatoes, something everyone eats, so no one goes hungry. Other rule is that you have to sit at the table until all are finished. WE HAVE NO Battles over these rules.*

The great thing about not having rules, is that you dont get into battles that lead to punishments, resentment, and kids trying to beat the rules. That's not to say that you don't respect one antoher and property, but every event is taken in context and dealt with as it arises. And life is fairly harmonious in our house most days, and my kids generally behave well out of the home, so our way seems to work for us.

*We have lots of rules but NO PUNISHMENT. The rules are stated. There is an expectation that you follow them, but if you don't there is not much of a consequence. (Generally just a restatement of the rules and a stern but calm "I did not like it when you..." There are NO BATTLES. Our home is made up of people who enjoy rules and are happy with rules.*


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

Hmm, I guess I don't have many rules as I dont see any need for them. I also think that they can surpress natural behaviours and expressions of emotions, for example, having a rule of 'no whining' rather than just dealing with whining if or when it happens.

My chidlren don't often whine, for example, but if they do, I deal with the situation as it arises. Each time they whine there may be very different reasons or issues behind it. Like, tiredness, hunger, pain, a bad experience earlier, needing some time alone, jealousy of a sibling, etc etc. Young children do not necessarily have the vocabulary or ability to acknowledge or express these things. They whine because they need to express their unhappiness, and they need an adult to help them decipher what's going on. They also need an adult to help them find a better way of expressing their feelings, and maybe to appreciate how their whining makes others feel.

That's an example of why I don't make up rules about behaviours like this. I deal with things as they arise on a daily basis. I want my children to feel that it's fine to whine if they are bothered by something, or to complain if they dislike a meal. We will then deal with the issue, whether it is the obvious (like the meal) or something else making them grumpy. Dd at three can often say "I was cross and shouting at my sister because I'm hot/I'm hungry/I'm tired". I think that this sort of expression is vitally important to emotional and social growth.

What bothers me about a lot of rules is that these issues get surpressed because certain behaviours are expected. The freedom from these rules only comes when you are old enough to escape them - and then impose your own on other people. I just don't like the idea of power-based parenting, ie, being older brings priviliges, so wait until you're older and bigger, then you can do the same to other people.

This is not to say that I don't teach and model appropriate behaviours or have rules for vital issues, like safety, and a few for hygeine etc, but other than that, rules don't sit well with me. And I know that they would lead to far more battles in my home than we have now, and less understanding and appreciation for other people's needs and points of view.

I believe that you can have kids who behave well without having rules to enforce that behaviour. That way, it comes from an intrinsic desire to behave well, not from extrinsic forces. Which ultimately, imo, will equip a child far better for the world.


----------

