# Toddlers comprehension (honest discussion)



## Damien (Oct 13, 2004)

My wife and I subscribe to the theories from "Raising a non-violent child" by John Rosemond and was wondering what people here thought of it.

One of the key aspects of the current parenting philosophy is that you must talk to your child in depth about what they did, why they did it and have them comprehend the reasons they shouldn't repeat the offense. I was wondering how people believed that, say, a two or three year old would be able to fully comprehend what was going on in either in themselves or in others in a given aggressive situation.

The reason I ask is that I have seen several "buddy parents" and their children, and honestly I don't want our child to be anything like them - they're spoiled, they bully others and hit parents and other children. "They're just being children", yeah, and they're six and seven years old! A child hitting an adult or another child shouldn't be tolerated past the age of three (or younger, if possible), so I think it is rediculous to believe that a two minute time-out and a ten second lecture (which is ignored anyway) is enough for these sorts of incidents.

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm honestly trying to understand an opposing view.

Thanks


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

I have to say that I just disagree with you that telling children that something is wrong is not ennough. You have a child who is not yet one. How do you know that a lecture is ignored. That has not been my experience at all, and I am a much more experienced parent than you.

I am NOT a "buddy parent." I have lots of rules in my home which I don't feel a need to justify to my kids. BUT I also know that expressing your disaproval to kids IS ennough (unless the child has other problems like ADD etc...) Kids really do listen to what you say. You'd be suprised... if you try it and if you don't expect it at a ridcuousy early age (like one ) Before age two, you really have to depend on GENTLE phycial intervention. So if they hit, you take their hand, gently and in a strong and serious voice "NO hitting".

There is a HUGE difference between saying when a child hits "OH they are just being kids" ( and thus not telling your child that what they are doing is wrong) and saying to your child "No hitting" or if they are older "You must not hit. It is wrong and it is not allowed." I said this to my kids when they were little, like around age two (in a strong and serious but calm voice). They really stopped hitting very quickly.

My children are all well behaved. They follow the rules in my house 99 percent of the time. And when they do not, there is NO punishment.

If you want to be a strong parent and REALLY want to use only GD I highly suggest you read "The Secret of Parenting" by Anthony Wolf.

It's subtitle is "How to be in charge of kids today without punishment or threats."

Its method is how I was raised and how my three age 7, 9 and 11 are being raised.

If you just want to justify using punishment, this board is probobly not the right place for you.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

I am probably a "buddy parent"...though it would depend on the definition of that term I suppose. Hitting has always been strongly discouraged in our home. Do toddlers understand the in depth reasons that it's not okay to hit? No, probably not.. surely not all of them anyway. They are just starting to really wrap their minds around that fact that others have emotions, and needs. They are seeing for the first time that they want some independence. They also often have limited verbal skills to deal with all of that. All of that is what causes behavior like hitting to begin with, IMO.

I think it's important to discuss things with a child on the level he or she understands. A simple "please do not hit. It hurts." works as can "You hit Matthew, and now he is sad/angry because it hurt him/his feelings. Why did you hit him? What can we do." works too. It all just depends on the child and the situation. Not hitting just falls under respecting other people in my book (I do however think hitting to be acceptable in some cases) and we've approached it that way with our children.

I do not believe in punitive time outs, so if that is where you are coming from I totally disagree with that. I'm not sure what more you believe a parent should do with a 2 or 3 year old that has hit someone. To me that age is really just a baby, and because their comprehension is often limited I cannot imagine how scary, and upsetting a time out would be let alone more than that. My family does not punish


----------



## Damien (Oct 13, 2004)

I think you might be misunderstanding me. I'm not looking for justification to punish our child(ren), I don't punish our 1 year old and don't believe that any punishment of any sort will make a difference until they are 2-to-3. During that stage I believe they are starting to comprehend that their actions have reactions and I believe it is through this learning that they start pushing their boundaries ("what happens if I knock over the glass of water?" etc).

My questioning I guess comes from the fact that I can't talk with the parents I mentioned in the previous message without _them_ blowing up and accusing me of telling them what to do (long story, involving them being totally passive when one child had a severe reaction to a vaccine). Maybe I figured by posing a question or two here I might be able to understand them better...

By "buddy parent" I mean focusing on being a friend to your child more than a the respected role model / authoritarian that (IMHO) parents should be. For example, when I was growing up my siblings and I weren't given a choice of three things for dinner, the adults cooked food for the family (and others, we lived on a farm with lots of hired hands and had relatives living with us too) and the children ate what was prepared, no debates like I see people doing with their children today.

For the record, we use cloth diapers for our son, he still eats 90-95% breast milk (and will continue to), he sleeps in a 3-sided crib beside us (easy night feedings) and I love him more than life itself. I don't want to beat him, I'm interested in hearing opinions on the rationale behind the timeout-and-talk methodology.

Oh, and I'm also a geek who has to rationalize and scrutinize everything, thus reading, researching and discussing an issue that we won't have to deal with for a few years yet.


----------



## kerc (May 9, 2002)

I'm not really sure what you're asking...there's a big difference between the ideas behind
"kids just hit sometimes"
"no hitting"
some kind of phrase to express "no hitting" -with a gentle reminder "we use soft hands"
and similarly
"no hitting" -- if you're upset we can do XYZ to express it.

I don't think cloth diapers, breastfeeding, or vaccinating necessarily mean you don't spank your kids. Plenty of mamas here at MDC talk about moving away from spanking as the first option.


----------



## mittendrin (Nov 5, 2003)

thanks for being brave and starting this thread on mdc







you know you might get stoned...
i agree: i have no clue sometimes if ds (25 mos) understands it when i tell him hitting hurts and makes people sad. honestly, most of the time i think he doesn't know what i'm talking about. it's easy for poeple to say: "of course, my 2 yr old knows exactly what i'm talking about when we're having a discussion about why running on the street could get you killed." but especially at that age when you're starting to have conversations like these there's so many differences in developmental stages in kids. my friend's 2 yo for example is more advanced than my child: you tell her why she can't hit and she gets it. she will forget about it again, but at the moment she understands why it is wrong. my 2 yo just started saying mama and dadda and car...he won't even sit still enough for me to finish my 20 seconds reasoning. no way i'm gonna get us both frustrated by trying to reason with him. a short: "we don't hit other people, please don't do that" imo will do better at the time than a discussion as to why he shouldn't hit. gee, he still eats crayons, once he stops doing that i think i can start reasoning with him


----------



## Butter (Oct 6, 2004)

I've seen parents using the talking in depth thing. Rarely does it work. The child learns very early how to tune out mom and dad. Shorter is WAY better.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

lol I didn't think you wanted to beat him, or at least I really hoped not







I can embrace time out only as a "lets do something else for awhile maybe so we can cool off a little". I've never been able to accept it as "you did this wrong. Go take a time out. (Not that you would say that, im just being general lol) I think talking is super important though. Talking about things to our kids is how they learn to develop a vocabulary that expresses what they are feeling. It's how they move from whacking each other to saying "I need space please" or "I am angry/frustrated right now".

I am a buddy parent by your definition. My friendship with my kids is very important to me. I feel that I am a role model, but I am not authoritarian. In our house the kids eat whatever they wish (that we have access to anyway) at any time they want. They do not have to eat dinner, or any other meal for that matter. Further more the kids are in on meal planning anyway. There is no debate over foods because the choice of what to eat is always their own


----------



## Evan&Anna's_Mom (Jun 12, 2003)

First, I think you should know that the approach of Rosemond is not generally embraced by most on this board. Taking you at your word that you are interested in "honest discussion", I'll add my 2 cents.

I am not at all interested in being an authoritarian parent. I believe it is possible to be a respected role model without being feared, which seems to be necessary to be "the authority". I don't think I should be my child's best friend either, so I am striving for the middle ground. I think the goals you have as a parent necessarily influence the approach you take to parenting.

To answer your question, I am not sure if my 19 mo. old understands "Please don't hit your brother, hitting hurts. Let's play with this instead." But she does see that gentle, respectful words are the answer to a problem, not physical violence. And somehwere in the next year, she will start to understand more and I will have already established a way to communicate with her that involves mutual respect. I am modeling for her the way I want her to resolve conflicts in the future. And when I say "We don't hurt people" she will believe me because, in fact, we don't hurt people in our home. It is far more important that the members of my family respect each other and work together from that respect than for me to be an authority who is obeyed out of fear.

Now, my 5 YO certainly does understand "please don't throw that because you could hurt your sister" and he will generally comply because he has learned that hurting is not something that we do.

Like all tools, "talking" through issues can be overused or used poorly. Sometimes a gentle hand to restrain a hitting hand is needed, especially before impulse control is learned. Sometimes a child needs to be coached to "take a break and get control of yourself". And a "lecture" any longer than 1 short sentence is totally lost on a small toddler. It is a matter of respecting where your child's development is and knowing what is reasonable and what isn't. That should be true of any discipline choices, though sadly it isn't.


----------



## CindyC (Mar 22, 2002)

I notice Rachel does really well when I explain what is going on, but I don't try to reason with her in terms of discipline. She is 2. As DH keeps reminding me, I'm the parent.

Don't people ask their partners what they want to eat for dinner? Why can't we ask a toddler? But you're right, I don't want to be my mom who was practically a short-order cook while we were growing up. But I do give Rachel choices when appropriate.

I think it's all about balance.

BTW, I don't give disciplining advice to other parents.


----------



## Nurturing Mama (Nov 11, 2003)

My son is two, and the only discipline methods I've ever used with him are talking and, if necessary, physically helping him do (or not do) whatever it is that I am asking. So far this has worked. He is not spoiled, he is not a bully, and he doesn't hit anymore. He is compassionate and as well behaved as can be expected of a two year old.

Quote:

A child hitting an adult or another child shouldn't be tolerated past the age of three (or younger, if possible), so I think it is rediculous to believe that a two minute time-out and a ten second lecture (which is ignored anyway) is enough for these sorts of incidents.
I don't think many gentle disciplining parents would tolerate a child hitting. Saying, "They're just being children" and doing nothing is the equivalent to no discipline at all in those circumstances. However, a time out or a reminder to the child is discipline, and is "enough", in my opinion. Anything further, such as spanking, may appeal to the adults' sense of justice, but isn't necessary to teach a child acceptable behavior. And that's what discipline is all about, teaching a child what is and what isn't acceptable behavior.

As for your question, I don't think my two year old is capable of understanding an in depth, one sided discussion of his behavior. I limit myself to a sentence or two to tell him what is expected of him and why it is expected. For example, "We don't hit. Hitting hurts," or "Stop pounding on Grandma's table, pounding can damage the table." When he was younger, around your child's age, my words were accompanied by me physically helping him to stop hitting or pounding, so that even if he didn't understand my words, my meaning was clear. As he gets older, I expect the discussions will become longer and more specific, but for now a couple sentences is working.

Another very useful tool in toddlers is re-direction and helping them to express their feelings in an acceptable manner. For example, I told my son that if he is angry, he can't hit, but he can stomp his feet. Some parents may not tolerate foot stomping, but you get the idea? You can't do x, but you can do y. When the child becomes more verbal, they can be taught to express their feelings verbally.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Damien*
The reason I ask is that I have seen several "buddy parents" and their children, and honestly I don't want our child to be anything like them - they're spoiled, they bully others and hit parents and other children. "They're just being children", yeah, and they're six and seven years old! A child hitting an adult or another child shouldn't be tolerated past the age of three (or younger, if possible), so I think it is rediculous to believe that a two minute time-out and a ten second lecture (which is ignored anyway) is enough for these sorts of incidents.

I think the people to which you are referring are the example of the extreme--and are not representative of gentle discipline (discipline= to teach--and your example does not include any teaching).

I don't think there is any age at which hitting should be "tolerated", but I also don't believe that there is any age that hitting must be punished--even by a time out (if used punitively).

I believe that hitting at any age must be *addressed. That is where the words--and maybe a hand to stop the hitting, and maybe removing the child for a "break" (nonpunitive timeout) to calm down with gentle reassurance--come in. All of these tools model to the child how to act, what to do when they feel out of control, what is appropriate and inappropriate. All of this is teaching: discipline.

I have a 3 yo who is sometimes aggressive (in certain situations). When she aggressive with friends, my approach is increased supervision. I remain in eyeshot or earshot to moniter the situation, and *help* her when I can tell that things are getting tense, and trouble is looming. That way, I can step in before she hits (I know her well enough to know when she will), and give her the tools to navigate the stressful situation without violence.

My dd knows that hitting is wrong. She knows that it hurts. She gets it. But she still hits sometimes.

I trust my child's intentions. I *know* that when she hits, it is because she has not developed the tools (cognition, patience, negotiation, effective communication) to handle the situation more appropriately. She is literally out of ideas, so she falls back on hitting. Punishing her would not teach her *how* to handle that situation better in the future, and she would be left with the choice of hitting and being punished, or stuffing her emotions and being a doormat. GD, otoh, is teaching her how to express limits clearly and get her needs met in a nonviolent manner.


----------



## Damien (Oct 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Evan&Anna's_Mom*
I am not at all interested in being an authoritarian parent. I believe it is possible to be a respected role model without being feared, which seems to be necessary to be "the authority".

To be authoritarian you just have to emphasise that you have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation. Your children are still children therefore simply do not know how to act for every given situation (not that parents do either, but they've atleast had some maturing) and need to be both guided and instructed in the correct behaviour. Fear doesn't and shouldn't be involved, but children should also understand that if you give them an instruction that it isn't optional or to be debated.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Evan&Anna's_Mom*
To answer your question, I am not sure if my 19 mo. old understands "Please don't hit your brother, hitting hurts. Let's play with this instead."

I can understand that, your child still isn't completely in control of their actions and decisions, versus, say, a five-year-old that does the same thing.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Evan&Anna's_Mom*
It is far more important that the members of my family respect each other and work together from that respect than for me to be an authority who is obeyed out of fear.

Again you're linking fear with authoritarian and they don't/shouldn't be linked.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Evan&Anna's_Mom*
Like all tools, "talking" through issues can be overused or used poorly. Sometimes a gentle hand to restrain a hitting hand is needed, especially before impulse control is learned.

That's what we do with our ~1yr DS who has a tendency to flail his arms in excitement. Its slowly working.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Damien wrote:
"To be authoritarian you just have to emphasise that you have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation."

Damien I think the first step in seeing the fault in this kind of parenting, is seeing a certain degree of fantasy and ego involved in thinking that a parent, somehow, magically, has the wisdom to always know best.

A good way to do this is to look back at your own childhood. You can probably think of a few instances where your parents could have understood a situation better had they not assumed immediately that they alone knew best. You can probably think of an instance where they overreacted, rushed to judgement, made an incorrect assumption...surely they were not perfect Damien and I'm sure you can remember examples of that.

What this led me to realize was that while I may know what is best for myself most of the time, and for my child in some instances, I really don't know what is best for them all of the time. I can't know that, and neither can you. Can you always know what is best for anyone? No, you'd have to be a mind reader, and be able to see the future, to always know best.

I think it takes a certain amount of humility to realize that authoritarian parents tend to think *too* highly of their own opinions, and to confuse opinions with fact, when the only satisfaction in doing so is to have things their own way.

Is there an opposite extreme? Yes, I have known parents who have so little self discipline and self respect, that they simply cannot set boundaries, or problem solve, to any degree of effectiveness as a parent. They either ignore a behavior entirely, or they over react to everything. Maybe this describes your friends?

You don't have to think in terms of "authoritarian" or "buddy" types of parents.

I will post more in a few hours, I have to run...


----------



## andi_3k (Oct 22, 2002)

Quote:

I can embrace time out only as a "lets do something else for awhile maybe so we can cool off a little". I've never been able to accept it as "you did this wrong. Go take a time out.
I don't like the punitive aspect of it, either, but I will send kids to sit down and cool off. Usually saying something like "Colden, you seem to be having problems with anger right now, please sit with me while you get yourself under control, then we can talk about what is making you angry."
When he can use words ( Colden is 3.5) and explain to me what is making him so angry we address that.
It does work with most kids....I have only seen one child it didn't and he was so out of controll he hit folks randomly... from his grandmother to the 1 year old neighbour girl. You didn't even have to be interacting with him, or indeed looking at him..he is an extreem, and I am sure there are other issues going on there, most kids will respond to being treated with respect.
I do think there is a place for "NO"...but the are safety issues and I do say "because that can hurt you/others."
If I am in a house that does not have children or a house where the rules are different, I expect the kids to deal with and respect the rules of that house and tell them that "In this house things are different, and we don't do XYZ here." It works...they may not like the changes in rules but they learn what is acceptable in other homes and learn to respect their rules.


----------



## zipperump-a-zoomum (Jan 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Damien*
_*To be authoritarian you just have to emphasise that you have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation*_. Your children are still children therefore simply do not know how to act for every given situation (not that parents do either, but they've atleast had some maturing) and need to be both guided and instructed in the correct behaviour. Fear doesn't and shouldn't be involved, but _*children should also understand that if you give them an instruction that it isn't optional or to be debated*._

(Bold mine)

I have not read the book, but I can tell you that as it is phrased here I strongly disagree with your basic premise. I believe that beginning your parenting from this premise sets you up to engage in all sorts of power struggles with your child. I believe that parents do not have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation, and as a child ages and realizes this they will fight this assumption every chance they get.

My personal philosophy- begin from a place of respect. Respect my child for the individual he now is, and the person he is learning to be.
Kaly
PS- I think I love you UnschoolnMa


----------



## Nurturing Mama (Nov 11, 2003)

Expanding on what Zipperump-a-zoomum said, I would worry about a child's sense of self when a parent exerts ultimate control over every situation. I think that children should be raised with an end result in mind. In other words, I am not raising a little boy, I am raising a person who will grow up to be a man, and when I think of qualities I want my son to possess as an adult, obedience is not one of them. I want him to question authority, even if it means he will question my authority sometimes. Hopefully our strong attachment and his deep sense of trust in me will mean that he won't question me _too_ often on his journey to adulthood.


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama*
Damien wrote:
"To be authoritarian you just have to emphasise that you have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation."

Damien I think the first step in seeing the fault in this kind of parenting, is seeing a certain degree of fantasy and ego involved in thinking that a parent, somehow, magically, has the wisdom to always know best.

A good way to do this is to look back at your own childhood. You can probably think of a few instances where your parents could have understood a situation better had they not assumed immediately that they alone knew best. You can probably think of an instance where they overreacted, rushed to judgement, made an incorrect assumption...surely they were not perfect Damien and I'm sure you can remember examples of that.

What this led me to realize was that while I may know what is best for myself most of the time, and for my child in some instances, I really don't know what is best for them all of the time. I can't know that, and neither can you. Can you always know what is best for anyone? No, you'd have to be a mind reader, and be able to see the future, to always know best.

I think it takes a certain amount of humility to realize that authoritarian parents tend to think *too* highly of their own opinions, and to confuse opinions with fact, when the only satisfaction in doing so is to have things their own way.

Is there an opposite extreme? Yes, I have known parents who have so little self discipline and self respect, that they simply cannot set boundaries, or problem solve, to any degree of effectiveness as a parent. They either ignore a behavior entirely, or they over react to everything. Maybe this describes your friends?

You don't have to think in terms of "authoritarian" or "buddy" types of parents.

I will post more in a few hours, I have to run...

I would love to add to this but heartmama said it all, and beautifully!


----------



## wasabi (Oct 12, 2004)

Gosh my parents were such authoritarians and I despised them for it. I don't want to be that kind of parent for my Dd. That said she is a very exuberant 2 year old. She is also bigger than a lot of kids her age and can get rough without even realizing it. In very rare situations she does hit other kids and she hits us her parents as well. Due to several ear infections she is not incredibly verbal so I can't ask her why she hit someone. As far as I can tell by observing her she does not do it because she is angry but because she's experimenting sort of a cause and effect type of thing. I always tell her short and to the point that we do not hit. That it makes me sad etc. She may not understand it yet but she understands that I am not happy with what she did. If her friend is crying she has some concept that something has gone wrong. Over time especially as she develops empathy she will understand when I tell her not to hit but I'm setting the groundwork now. I will never just sit by while she hits someone and say "she's just being a kid." She is just being a kid but she's just being a kid who needs to learn she can't hit people.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

*Ziperump-a-zoomum wrote:
I believe that parents do not have the ultimate control over what happens in any given situation, and as a child ages and realizes this they will fight this assumption every chance they get.*

I agree with this. So much is not in our hands, and rightly so. I am not suggesting that we should overlook our 4 yr olds running around the backyard in a tinfoil hat in a lightening storm carrying butcher knives or anything. That would be a safety (and a whopper at that lol) issue. But everyday life presents much less extreme situations on a regular basis. I am honest with my kids that I don't always have the right answers, and I don't always know what is best. However they do know that I try to do what is
fair, and respectful and that I seek their input. Besides, I know they are going to be out and about eventually without me around and I'd like them to be able to work on their inner right/wrong making skills long before then.

*My personal philosophy- begin from a place of respect. Respect my child for the individual he now is, and the person he is learning to be.*

Yes, yes, and yes again!









*PS- I think I love you UnschoolnMa*
Aww, very kind of you. Really though, I've enjoyed reading you as well!


----------



## chie96 (Apr 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama*
I trust my child's intentions. I *know* that when she hits, it is because she has not developed the tools (cognition, patience, negotiation, effective communication) to handle the situation more appropriately. She is literally out of ideas, so she falls back on hitting. Punishing her would not teach her *how* to handle that situation better in the future, and she would be left with the choice of hitting and being punished, or stuffing her emotions and being a doormat.

I just wanted to say, you made so much sense with that paragraph! All of a sudden a lightbulb went off in my head. I don't have a hitter, but do have a 3 yo that I am not teaching as well as I could be. Thanks


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

I have not read the book in question but it doesn't sound like something that I would find useful.

I try to explain to my children why certain rules are in place and most of them are out of respect for others. I try not to have arbitrary "just because" rules. I have a 14yr old, a 10 yr old and a 15mos old. So I have some parenting experience.

I think that I go for the "parent and child" philosophy rather than the buddy/buddy or authoritarian type thing. I am the parent, they are the child...that is the fact. I have some experience and I am trying to teach them what I know to be true by guiding them through their own life and supporting them through their own mistakes. I am also there to prevent them from getting into situations they are not mature enough to handle(my 14yr old and boys and cars for example)

But I also think that wouldn't work if I didn't give them the respect they deserve. The innocent have a wisdom we lose when we gain experience. In our family we are equal in that we all deserve the same respect as persons, but my husband and I are the family leaders and protectors and the children need us to be that.

We do not hit our children anymore than we would hit each other and we do not allow the children to hit each other or anyone. I have always given an age appropriate explanation and redirection.

Oh and redirection doesn't stop when they are older...my 14 year old wants to sleep over at a 17 year old friends house where a 15 year old boy she likes lives, the 17 year old's boyfriend will pick them up...the redirection "friend can come here for sleep over and boy can come here for a few hours and I will drive them to movies and back" the explanation "I am not trying to ruin your evening, you know I would never do that however in my honest opinion you are too young to be riding in a car with older teens and a boyfriend. I can't in good conscience agree to that but here is the compromise" She agreed without an arguement or fuss.

But I don't know if it would work on a teen who wasn't raised this way from birth and didn't "know" that I always try my best to do what's best for her.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls*
We do not hit our children anymore than we would hit each other and we do not allow the children to hit each other or anyone. I have always given an age appropriate explanation and redirection.

Oh and redirection doesn't stop when they are older...my 14 year old wants to sleep over at a 17 year old friends house where a 15 year old boy she likes lives, the 17 year old's boyfriend will pick them up...the redirection "friend can come here for sleep over and boy can come here for a few hours and I will drive them to movies and back" the explanation "I am not trying to ruin your evening, you know I would never do that however in my honest opinion you are too young to be riding in a car with older teens and a boyfriend. I can't in good conscience agree to that but here is the compromise" She agreed without an arguement or fuss.

But I don't know if it would work on a teen who wasn't raised this way from birth and didn't "know" that I always try my best to do what's best for her.

The redirection and compromise you touched on is important I think. It shows that into the teen years you still have these respectful tools available even as you negotiate them needing more independence, and when the issue isn't hitting a fellow toddler but dating and etc.

I also agree that a child raised this way (or the earlier the better at least) will have a better understanding of where the parent is coming from if a redirection/compromise is needed. Because so much control and respect is given to them generally, if I voice concerns they know I have real worries and that it comes from a place of wanting to do the very best thing for them.


----------



## Divina (Sep 13, 2003)

I would like to suggest, Damien, that you read a variety of books on parenting/discipline approaches. Check out the book list at the top of this forum. I have found that any one "method" just doesn't work in all situations. It's very, very important to understand where your child is developmentally, and what he can or cannot do. For example, a two year old has little impulse control, so you can't expect him to keep his hands out of a plate of cookies set down where he can reach it. I like "Your Baby and Child" by Penelope Leach for the development info, though I don't agree with everything she says.

In addition to my two little ones, I have two teens, one of whom is now out on her own and the other a junior in high school. I am extremely happy with the people they are, respectful, thoughtful, creative, and intelligent. I did not bring them up on either the "buddy" model or the "authoritarian" model. I can't say I used a "model" at all, but what I did do was treat them as humans who deserved as much respect as myself, but who were less experienced in life and needed guidance and reasonable protection. I acknowledged my mistakes and apologized to them if I needed to. I explained things to them _to the level that they could understand_, given their ages. While I was the final decision maker, they always had choices whenever it was possible and they always had input into the decision unless there was an extremely good reason not to (emergencies). For example, if I wanted to eat something for dinner that I knew they wouldn't like, I would offer an easy option they would like. Clothes had to be appropriate to the weather and the situation, but otherwise they could choose. My daughter was very into "costume" in high school and often chose to wear wigs or fairy wings ... but she never wanted to look like a streetwalker! Since I figure it's just fashion, and that high school and college are the appropriate ages to play around with it, I had no problem with letting her do that.

While you keep insisting that "authoritarian" doesn't have to equal fear, there is definitely a connotation of absolutism and disrespect for the child. I think respecting the child does not equal allowing her to disrespect you, but it does equal doing your best to understand what she can and can't do and understand at each stage, allowing her to express her needs, emotions, and opinions in constructive and respectful ways, and having those needs, etc. taken into account when making the final decision. Oh, and a strong daily dose of humility--every parent makes mistakes, big and small, and we all have to learn to deal with them in a way that promotes the growth and learning of our kids and ourselves.


----------



## kamilla626 (Mar 18, 2004)

This is the definition of authoritarian. I certainly hope that when people are using the word authoritarian, they mean to say _authoritative_...?
They are 2 different words that mean very different things.

AUTHORITARIAN
[adj] characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic government"; "despotic rulers"; "a dictatorial rule that lasted for the duration of the war"; "a tyrannical government"
[adj] expecting unquestioning obedience; "he was imperious and dictatorial"; "the *timid child of authoritarian parents*"; "insufferably overbearing behavior toward the waiter"
[adj] likened to a dictator in severity


----------



## Bippity (Sep 12, 2003)

Well said, Divina & others! FWIW - just jumping in here to add my own little rant....

The definition of authoritatian is expecting/demanding blind submission which is about trying to control the uncontrollable. At best control is an illusion-at worst it's an outright lie that we want to believe only when it's convenient. The only thing we ever have total control over is how we react (i.e., what comes out of our mouths). What we DO & SAY matters-it makes us who we are.

I think we need to let go of this old illusion that we can control anybody - children included. How does one really expect to control the mind and thoughts of another anyway? (Mind meld, maybe??) Maybe control/authoritarian parenting will work in the short run (esp. on our most vulnerable little ones), but over time every human will do what they think is right based upon what they have experienced and how they have internalized and interpreted their learning (Note: Not necessarily what you expected to be learned).

A lot of a child's learning comes from the unconscious ways we adults behave. So I think we need to pay close attention - stay as aware as we can and be as clear and honest as we can of the actions/messages we send out to our kids. If we don't teach our kids by example and natural consequences and allow them to grow in their own ways and try to (unsuccessfully) control them and train instead we still teach them something, but what?

Ponder the what... think of how you have felt when controlled, when somebody has "sat" on you and "made" you do things. How did you feel and how did you express those feelings later on? Repression and submission and authoritarianism never work, not with children, not with adults, not with animals, not with governments or countries, or religion - it just doesn't work out well. It creates frustration, anger and eventually that builds up and explodes in avoidance (at best) or violence at its worst. That's not a surprise to anybody. I wouldn't expect my teenage daughter to respect her body or herself if I didn't respect her enough to let her grow into her self when she was younger by making her own mistakes and looking for her own ways to correct them - with her parents by her side to help her learn.

I had authoritarian parents too -that hammer still hurts sometimes & I'm 44. What I was raised with is NOT the best way to raise a gentle loving self-aware, respectful child. I spent 12 years undoing the harm that was done to me in 18.

OK... rant over...


----------



## Evan&Anna's_Mom (Jun 12, 2003)

Actually, given Mr. Rosemond's attitude displayed in his weekly newspaper column (my DH and I often say "So, what did the abuse advisor say today"), I'm not sure he would say he meant authoritative. I refuse to sign up for his "members only" side of his website (www.rosemond.com) because I don't want him to count another person in his camp for "traditional parenting", but on the public side, he does list the following amongst his 10 "rights" of children:

"Children have the right to learn early in their lives that obedience to legitimate authority is not optional, that there are consequences for disobedience, and that said consequences are memorable and, therefore, persuasive."

Columns of his in the past have advocated confining children as young as 2 to their rooms for the entire day, locking a potty-training child in the bathroom until they "produce" in the toilet and so forth. This week's column said that, while he didn't think it was especially effective, hot-saucing (see other threads) wasn't abusive and if used, try for a sauce that wasn't made from scotch-bonnet or habanero chilis. While I haven't ever heard him advocate striking a child, his advise strikes me as about as un-gentle as you can get, short of the "beat a child into submission" folks.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Not a Rosemond fan here either.


----------



## zipperump-a-zoomum (Jan 9, 2002)

Well, that is just absolutely foul. Can't blame you for not wanting to be a member in his "camp," Evan & Anna's Mom.

Divina- What a wonderful post.
Kaly


----------



## Divina (Sep 13, 2003)

I just had a few further thoughts after my last post (and thank you for the compliments!







) One is, that both extremes of total authoritarian and total permissive produce awfully similar results--children who do not know how to make decisions. Some kids rebel, lie, sneak around. Others become totally passive, but far too easily led by anyone with an opinion. IMO, giving a child many, many choices, as many as possible, as often as possible, consistent with his age, is the way to teach a child how to make decisions and what the consequences of poor decision making are. After all, if they make a bad decision at age 4, the cost is far less than if they're making bad decisions at age 34, or even 14! Also, if you give away "control" (or the illusion of control, very good point that) as often as possible, you give the child a chance to learn confidence in herself, and you also have less chance of power struggles when it is necessary for you to assert control. Sounds paradoxical, but we humans are like that, no?

And from the quotes cited above, I would say that Rosemond's style of parenting is like one of my ex's ideas of relationships--if he wasn't actually hitting me (but was pushing me and physically restraining me from leaving a room), it wasn't abuse.


----------



## PuppyFluffer (Mar 18, 2002)

This is an excellent thread.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Hi all. Just adding my piece of pie. Perhaps its just our family, but it is a large one, but we have no trouble explaining things to young children. For instance, my daughter who is now two and a half has looked me in the eyes when I speak to her since she was a baby. In her lifetime, she has hit me once, and almost hit me a second time about 3 months ago. The first time she hit me was in fun, she got carried away and hit me in the face. I held my face in horror and said, "Oh no. That really hurt me." and got up and walked into the kitchen. She fell apart crying and begged for a cuddle. I got to her level and said, "its ok darling, you didn't mean to hurt me, but just be careful." She was looking right into my eyes and heard and understood it all - at 15 months old.

The time she almost hit me was in anger. She was having a tantrum and I got close to her and she pulled back her hand and then dropped it. After the tantrum I said, "you almost hit me there. Sheesh." and she said, "I don't want to hurt mommy."

She hears me. Oh boy, does she hear me. She spoke early, but I don't think this has any bearing, because they understand before they speak. I have raised my voice at her twice, and both times I apologized and told her that I was wrong. So now she always apologizes when she yells at me. I have never told her to do this.

So, two things, for what they are worth -
modelling (as mentioned in other posts) the behaviour you want.
and reaction. If your child won't listen, use reaction. It teaches the consequences of an action - eg, hitting hurts, so show that. Saying "don't hit" teaches nothing. It is like saying "don't drop that glass" when you could say "hold on with both hands tightly".

Not only does using "don't" give them no advice, it frames a picture in their head of what you don't want them to do, eg, "hit", "drop the glass". Instead, tell them what you DO want them to do, thereby framing a positive picture in their mind, and guiding them at the same time. For hitting, "be gentle with your friends" = postive picture.

My whole family and its children are friends, "buddies" if you will, and we have never had a problem with behavior; they are gentle and caring. However, when my child has been hit or abused, it has ALWAYS been by a child who is hit/yelled at/harshly disciplined.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PuppyFluffer*
This is an excellent thread.


I agree...

I have a 15 and a half mont old toddler...she has never hit in anger but a couple of times she has gotten a little rough in play...I hold her hands...to defend myself and say "it hurts mommy when you do that" and she will immediately cuddle and hug me. She feels bad if she thinks I am hurt.

She also did a pinching thing a few times when she was about 13 mos old and I said "that hurts mommy honey" and she would gently rub the area and love on me.

So a couple evenings ago I was sitting at the computer and my 14 year old was rubbing my shoulders and Sophia came over and tried to push her away and started yelling at her big sister. I said that's ok, sis is not hurting mommy. So she stands there and I go back to the computer typing and she pinches my leg...ouch!

So I think she thought that her Big sister was pinching me(which is what a shoulder rub looks like if you think of it) and if she can do it then so can I.

So I made my older daughter stop, and then told Sophia "that hurts mommy" and she gently rubbed where she pinched.

I think that there is a great deal of understanding there...in some more than others. Modelling it is often the key. Obviously we can't do shoulder rubs in the house until she is old enough to understand it doesn't hurt like pinching, it just looks the same.

It was also a good lesson for the older girls who argue and yell sometimes..."see she is watching and you are her role models so behave as such" they are starting to get it.

We are very gentle and respectful in our house. I think it works...


----------



## sleepies (Nov 30, 2001)

the bully kids i know are the ones with parents that are NOT gentle.

i think setting examples of being gentle is the only way not to get a mean bully kid.

physical roughness (even in play) can lead to kids hurting each other.

i think that children understand LOTS . some children you might have to use smaller words and/or shorter sentences.

but i'd say MOST 2 + year olds understand..."That makes mommy sad".. or "You hurt your friend's feelings"...etc


----------



## Foobar (Dec 15, 2002)

Good question.

Goo hits. Drives me batty. We sent her to her room once to cool down and then I went in and hugged her.

We talk and talk and slowly, she is understanding anger and sadness. I think if you teach your child from the beginning of hitting that it is not acceptable (we say, "Goo, we don't hit. It hurts mommy and makes her angry. This is not acceptable in our home to hit people.") then eventually it will sink in and it won't go on.


----------



## wasabi (Oct 12, 2004)

With all due respect to those whose kids don't hit I do think that to some extent there is an element of luck involved in that. My DD hits. I have never ever hit her. She has never seen me or DH hit anyone or anything. Whenever she hits we have always told her not to hit and that it hurts. This just does not impact her. That doesn't mean I'll stop or start spanking her instead but I do think there is a wide variance of reactions and comprehensions. If your child only hit once and dissolved into tears when you said that it hurt you your child has a very different temperment than mine. To give another example while we didn't have a huge issue of biting while nursing my child would laugh when I said ouch when she bit me. I know other kids who totally freaked out and went on a nursing strike when their mom said ouch after a biting. Different children will react and comprehend differently. This is probably just my own frustration talking but I feel like some of the posts are assuming that their child never hit or only hit once because of how they disciplined which means I must be doing something wrong to have my child continue to hit and I just don't think so.


----------



## CindyC (Mar 22, 2002)

I agree that there is probably an element of luck to raising kids. I like to think Rachel is perfect cuz we're perfect, ha!, but I don't offer parenting advice very often. But for the grace of god...

When Rachel was about one, I was worried that she wasn't empathetic enough. She might pull my hair and I'd say ouch and she'd laugh. I didn't freak out about it and I'm noticing just lately that she can certainly empathize with others and knows what it means to be sad.

As for the hitting, we are just barely seeing it. We're not sure if it's something she is seeing at my parents' house (Grandma hitting the cat?) or reacting to her 1-year-old cousin. He tends to pull hair. Or if it's just normal for a child to explore hitting. So we are just now working on this. DH is home with her 2x/week and he actually did a role-play that he would do for kids at his theraputic daycare. I'm not too concerned, yet. I see the time between 2 and 3 as probably one of the most important periods for a child. We just take it one day at a time around here.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I see what you are saying, Wasabi. I didn't mean to sound that way (doh!). There is much to be said for temperament and character etc. Definitely. I also believe that even those of more stubborn (?) character will eventually make more reasonable choices. My brother's daughter was a hitter, and she was never hit. Not all the time, but she did resort to that a few times regardless of the reaction she got. She took longer to grow the empathy result. She took longer to make more reasonable choices. That is all it takes - time. As long as we are consistent and preferably refrain from "don't" words (although, any reactionary, positive consequence action would suffice), then those personality types learn in time. I do believe that children who are hit keep a slight (if not great) violent reaction streak, as that is what is modelled. And they will carry this into adulthood, whether it is acted upon or not.

I am not suggesting that there is a parenting fault if the child doesn't learn right off the bat. That would be ridiculous. However, I am suggesting that if it is constantly modelled that hitting is ok (regardless of what they are "told") and that dominating parenting is constantly modelled, then yes, a child may well cling to that as a reaction within themself. So with your own children, with you as a model, I'd say you have no problems, and you will have gentle children who respect another's bounderies with such parenting as you are doing.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

To add -
We as humans and parents tend to want immediate results. That is a core problem in many parenting struggles. They forget the process, and that it takes time to establish a pattern.


----------



## Nurturing Mama (Nov 11, 2003)

I'm one of those whose child doesn't hit, at least not anymore. I didn't mean to imply that parents whose children do hit must be doing something wrong. I was only trying to illustrate my point, that children can be taught gently, and this is how it is working in my family. Wasabi, I'm confident (as you seem to be) that gentle discipline methods will eventually work for your daughter wrt hitting, also, but since all children are individuals, she isn't there yet. So I agree that luck is involved, but my point was that gentle discipline will get results sooner or later, and it will come from the child rather than fear of punishment. I thought about editing to clarify what I meant, but until now it didn't seem relevant. No offense was intended







.


----------



## wasabi (Oct 12, 2004)

Oh don't worry you guys like I said some of it is just frustration! :LOL It's like a mantra--keep doing this and one day she'll get it!

Calm you mentioned not using don't words. I usually say "oh we don't hit please give me a hug instead" or "Hitting hurts, please give hugs instead." Is it that problematic to say "we don't hit"? I will say I am lucky in that while she hits DH and I it's usually more slaps when she gets excited. It's not major hitting. She has hit playmates occasionally but again they were not hard hits with one exception. Sometimes she just gets so excited that's what she does. I'm sure as she gets older she'll understand that's not an appropriate way to express excitement.


----------



## dancingmama (Dec 18, 2001)

One thing that I didn't notice mentioned in this thread, and which I think is REALLY important, is to *honor the impulse.* As in, "Ooooh, dd, no hitting people! It looks like you are really mad/upset/frustrated! Is it too noisey in here? Did so-and-so take your toy?" After your child feels *heard* , in my experience, she is much more likely to accept redirections, etc. As in, "we don't hit people when we are mad. But we can hit this couch! We can hit it really hard when we feel mad."

I also think it's really important to pay lots of attention to the child who was hit, allowing your child to see the consequences of her actions.

I have found the book "Becoming the parent you want to be" to be a WONDERFUL resource, with lots of good real-life examples in all sorts of situations.

HTH


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

There is a lot of psychology behind avoiding "don't" words. I would take several pages to write it. Hopefully I can be trusted enough to take what I write with the limited psychological backup that there is a good reason. (perhaps knowing I have a psychology background helps with this trust). When we say "don't drop that" for example, we formulate a picture or concept in a person's mind - of dropping it. It is akin to saying "don't think of an elephant", most people immediately think of an elephant.

We formulate the picture, and then negate it - drop that, don't. We could be balancing on a tightrope and if someone says "don't fall off!" we will wobble a little, as the psychology is such that we implant a _possible outcome_. Not only that, but it offers _no assistance_, it simply affirms a possible outcome, the one possible outcome you are trying to avoid. Therefore, it is better to think of what you _*do want*_. What is it you want when a toddler holds a glass of water? You want them to _hold on tight with two hands_. Tell them this. Not only is it a positive picture to implant in their psyche, it is also more *helpful*.

If you tell a toddler to "hold on tight with both hands" you are guiding, giving them advice to reach the preferred outcome. If you tell them "don't drop it" you are dictating, without guidance, and they have no advice to follow on how _not_ to drop the glass.

This extends to everything:
- don't hit = be gentle with your friends
- don't fall = hold on tight to the ....
- don't run off = stay beside me while we walk
- don't yell = use a quiet voice
- don't run up the stairs = wait for me at the bottom of the stairs

This list goes on.

When you asked is it that bad, well, no, it isn't critical, and most of us were brought up with such language. But it implants things that don't extend to the rest of their life. For example, don't yell - in some circumstances, yelling is either necessary in life or useful. Do you want a child's psyche to have your voice ringing around in it saying "don't yell"? Don't run up the stairs - what if they become an athlete? They will run up stairs. So, the advice is too general. It needs to be specific for that moment.

I hope that helps. I know from experience it is hard to change, but worth it.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Makes perfect sense Calm and is something I am working on...still say "don't" out of habit some times but getting better...

cheers


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

One of my favorite GD books (Easy to Love, Difficult to Discipline - don't let the sucky title fool ya!) talks about this.

The author states that "what you focus on, you get more of". So when you say "stop whining", you are focusing the child on the whining. Instead she suggests that you say "please speak in a voice that is easier for me to hear" (or something like that) which gives the child a better focus.

I'm not saying this well. Anyway, it's a great book!


----------



## wasabi (Oct 12, 2004)

I do try to put things in positive terms but I need to work on it more.







: Heck it sure won't hurt me to pause for a second to think of a way to rephrase it before I speak!


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Damien*
My wife and I subscribe to the theories from "Raising a non-violent child" by John Rosemond and was wondering what people here thought of it.

One of the key aspects of the current parenting philosophy is that you must talk to your child in depth about what they did, why they did it and have them comprehend the reasons they shouldn't repeat the offense. I was wondering how people believed that, say, a two or three year old would be able to fully comprehend what was going on in either in themselves or in others in a given aggressive situation.

I don't know what current parenting philosophy you mean. Have you read any other books than Rosemond?

There are always lots of examples of dopey parenting around, both the too strict and the too loose varieties. The main thing to realize is that if you don't model gentle behavior and self-control, your child won't have an example from whom to learn. If you are harsh and demand obedience, you may get it. But do you want a child who is obedient to "legitimate authority" or a child who has self-discipline and is resilient in the face of obstacles? Obedience doesn't seem to me the key to long-term self-discipline.

That is, you won't get a non-violent six or seven year old because you demand obedience from a three year old. You get a non-violent six or seven year old because of your consistent attention and modeling of appropriate ways of dealing with anger and fear.

From what I have read, a child at two or three years is in the process of developing self control and empathy, the two things you need not to hit people when you get angry. Every child is going to develop these abilities at a different pace. The key is to have expectations that match their abilities at the age they are. It is definitely too permissive to say that a child is "just a child" if they hit when they are six or seven. You could say that about a three-year-old, but even so you have to intervene, give information about what hitting does to the person you hit, and give the child a way to do better: leave the situation and calm down, figure out how to make amends, figure out how to use words.

I've seen good toddler parenting in action and it looks awesome. When you are in a community of parents and children, you get to see all the ways people do things, and the punitive way doesn't seem to work.


----------



## annab (Mar 25, 2003)

This thread is rockin'. First of all, I am anti-Rosemond. Every column, it seems that I read the first paragraph, get a glimmer of hope that he is not going to go over the edge, then WHAM! He writes something that totally gives me the willies. As I tell my sister, who thinks he is marvelous, I don't think I have ever run into a child psychologist who appears to hate kids as much as he does.

I think this may be parroting a lot of what has been said here, but I want to share my feelings of authoritarian parenting. I am trying to raise a thinker. I want him to look at a situation and question the motivations, the rationale, the outcome, the process--all of it. I don't want him to be afraid to ask, "Why are we doing this?" I don't want a child who can be led blindly. If I don't give him critical thinking skills (and authoritarianism does not), how can I expect him to make good choices?

In addition, if I am an authoritarian, what that means to him is that he only makes the 'right' decision when I am there. I want him to make the 'right' decisions based on a sense of good and evil, justice, self-worth and liberated thinking, not his proximity to me. Fear and authoritarianism just don't create thinkers.

Want an extreme example? Countries that have little to no crime rate because their rulers are severe. Fear of punishment keeps them in line, but it does not really give them a reasonable quality of life either. Let's face it: Iraqis were not unruly when Saddam was around. Of course the fear of severe punishment and death promoted a false sense of peace.

On the topic of 'buddy' parents...There is a huge difference between gentle discipline and NO discipline. Nothing frosts my bottom more than people whose kids are not taken care of who do it all in the name of AP and GD. It makes the rest of us look bad.







:

What I would tell brave Damien is to read more. I love to read parenting books and take what I can use and discard the rest. However, if you are dedicated to practicing GD, then don't read Rosemond. You probably won't find any gems in there. And use this forum as a resource! I learn something here every single day. No joke.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annab*
... if I am an authoritarian, what that means to him is that he only makes the 'right' decision when I am there. I want him to make the 'right' decisions based on a sense of good and evil, justice, self-worth and liberated thinking, not his proximity to me. Fear and authoritarianism just don't create thinkers.

This is pithy and bears repeating. They have to learn from you so that they can do right on their own.


----------



## sagira (Mar 8, 2003)

_Calm wrote:_

Quote:

We formulate the picture, and then negate it - drop that, don't. We could be balancing on a tightrope and if someone says "don't fall off!" we will wobble a little, as the psychology is such that we implant a possible outcome. Not only that, but it offers no assistance, it simply affirms a possible outcome, the one possible outcome you are trying to avoid. Therefore, it is better to think of what you do want. What is it you want when a toddler holds a glass of water? You want them to hold on tight with two hands. Tell them this. Not only is it a positive picture to implant in their psyche, it is also more helpful.
Bravo!







I couldn't agree with you more. I'm being conscious of what I say to ds. This advice is gold. I read it in Montessori Play and Learn. Psychologically it makes perfect sense (this from someone who minored in Psychology in college).

Cheers,


----------

