# 13 month old and gd ?



## lovesea (Mar 6, 2007)

Up until now I have been using redirection and replacement and they have worked. Now ds seems more determined to get what he wants. If he sees something he wants he'll have a mini-tantrum if I don't give it to him. I don't want to give him things that may be dangerous like glasses, hot drinks etc..Anyone have any advice on how to handle this? Also at mealtimes, usually he and I are home alone and he will sit in his highchair and we'll eat together fine but at weekends when family are around he gets really fussy during mealtimes and someone usually ends up getting down from the table to play with him then eating later. Is this the right thing to do? I want him to get used to eating with the family and sitting at the table with us but are my expectations too high? I worry that by giving in to him (letting him out of his highchair to play), I'm being too permissive and this will lead to problems later on.


----------



## chime (May 9, 2007)

:

No advice but we're in the same boat. DS is 14 months old and I'm not sure what to do about his recent screaming fits when he doesn't get his way. I'm going to check out some of the books on the book list too.

Good luck.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

This can be a tough age. Young toddlers have so much they want to communicate, but their language skills are not there yet. That's frustrating for them!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovesea*
If he sees something he wants he'll have a mini-tantrum if I don't give it to him. I don't want to give him things that may be dangerous like glasses, hot drinks etc..

At this age, I would let him know you know what he wants--he's trying to communicate and that's usually part of the frustration--and then tell him why it's not ok and offer an alternative. "You want mama's coffee, but it's too hot. Let's get you a cup of water." If he's still upset about it, validate his feelings, give him the words he would use to express himself. Right now, he's crying to let you know how he feels. You can start giving him other tools to do that. He's little, and it'll take some time, but he will get it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovesea*
Also at mealtimes, usually he and I are home alone and he will sit in his highchair and we'll eat together fine but at weekends when family are around he gets really fussy during mealtimes and someone usually ends up getting down from the table to play with him then eating later. Is this the right thing to do? I want him to get used to eating with the family and sitting at the table with us but are my expectations too high? I worry that by giving in to him (letting him out of his highchair to play), I'm being too permissive and this will lead to problems later on.

I wouldn't worry about it. Toddlers have short attention spans and are easily distracted. As he gets a bit older, he will want to sit at the table with the rest of the family. I wouldn't force it.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
This can be a tough age. Young toddlers have so much they want to communicate, but their language skills are not there yet. That's frustrating for them!

I completely agree that this is a trying age for gentle discipline and while some gd techniques may not work that well in the short term for the toddler aged, it is the long term goal you have to keep in mind. Easy to say and hard to do.

I am in the same boat and I keep trying gentle explanation, redirection, distraction over and over again, but I am realizing the toddler years are not going to be tantrum free no matter what I do.

I am hoping GD will work when we get to the age where my child can reason and communicate better.


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovesea* 
Also at mealtimes, usually he and I are home alone and he will sit in his highchair and we'll eat together fine but at weekends when family are around he gets really fussy during mealtimes and someone usually ends up getting down from the table to play with him then eating later. Is this the right thing to do?

I live by the advice "start as you intend to go on." If you don't want him getting down, or expecting to get down as he gets older, I'd find ways to keep him interested in sitting with the family now. If he doesn't feel like eating, try giving him some little cars to play with, or crayons and paper. My kids loved playing with empty film cannisters at that age -- putting things in them, putting the lid on, take the lid off, dumping them out. Find ways to make what you want him to do attractive to him. It's a lot easier now than it will be when he's 2.5.

Re: the tantrums for not getting what he wants, all you can do is comfort him through them. It's a fact of life that you can't always get what you want when you want it, and that's extremely frustrating to a little one just starting to explore his own power and independence. When my daughter would fuss like that, I'd agree with her! "I know it's hard when you want something and can't have it. I don't like it either. Do you need a hug and your blankie to feel better?"


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
I live by the advice "start as you intend to go on."

I think that advice could make everyone very frustrated. It doesn't really make any sense. You don't start your newborn on solid food, or using the toilet. A child's needs and abilities change as they get older, and our expectations adjust accordingly.


----------



## TortelliniMama (Mar 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
I think that advice could make everyone very frustrated. It doesn't really make any sense. You don't start your newborn on solid food, or using the toilet. A child's needs and abilities change as they get older, and our expectations adjust accordingly.









: I'd like my kids to move out some day, but I'm not handing them the help wanted section of the paper just yet.







Actually, though, I'm thinking that "start as you mean to go on" *can* work as long as the ultimate goal you're looking at is providing for your child's needs and being sensitive to his developmental stage.

Picture yourself at a table with a bunch of people discussing, say, particle physics. (Note: If you are well-versed in particle physics, pick something else.) They're also speaking German 90% of the time. (Note: If you are fluent in German, pick something else.







) They smile at you pretty frequently, and occasionally make a brief remark that's directed toward you and that you understand. You're given a sandwich. Once the sandwich is finished (or once you're full), how long are you really going to want to sit at that table?

Speaking as the wife of a Ph.D. in physics, I can tell you that I've been in this situation. (Okay, they weren't speaking German, but they might as well have been from my point of view. Trust me, they discuss this stuff starting on too high a level to catch up during the course of a conversation.) It gets pretty mind-numbing pretty quickly, and that's with the attention span of an adult.

For a baby at the dinner table, it's really the same thing. Yes, people smile at him and talk to him occasionally, but he really has very little interest in hearing about Grandma's operation or Aunt Jess's mortgage refinancing, and he's not going to gain much from the conversation. He'll benefit more from getting down and playing actively rather than sitting there passively, not taking anything in.

In terms of tantrumming because of not getting inappropriate/dangerous things, I try to substitute similar but safer items (plastic cup for glass, water for hot drink, etc.), but if those aren't accepted, it helps to keep in mind that good parenting doesn't equal having a child who never tantrums. Little kids have big emotions and not a lot of skills in handling them. A tantrum is just a way of letting those feelings out. It's not terribly pleasant for anyone involved, but it's also not a horrific thing that must be avoided at all cost. When dd tantrums because she wants something or wants to do something, and I won't agree, I sympathize and model statements of her feelings ("You're frustrated! You want the knife.") and I'm there to offer cuddles when she wants them. I don't give her the item, because it's still dangerous, but I also don't get angry or stern with her. For a child her age (the same age as your ds), having a tantrum is about the same level of reaction as a 10 year old saying, "Boy, I'm upset about that."


----------



## wendizbaby (Jul 22, 2005)

I'm right there with you.







: My ds is 17 months and it's only gotten worse for me. So, what I've done is offer an alternative like the pp said and then if he still cried and fussed, I just let him. There's an article on here about a new perspective on tantrums (I don't have the link), but it made me realize that toddlers NEED to cry and the best thing you can do is be there for them instead of trying to prevent it all the time. My ds is up to 20 minutes of crying for not being able to play on the stairs and it is so trying for me. My biggest challenge is not getting mad at the crying and whining and actually remaining present for him.
Hopefully, someone will post that it will end soon.







:

Wendi


----------



## lovesea (Mar 6, 2007)

Thanks for the advice everybody. So if I let him have a tantrum, what do I do while he's having it? Do I pick him up and try to soothe him or leave him down and soothe him with my voice. I've read the article about a new perspective on tantrums and do agree with it but it's quite hard at the moment as he's only just a toddler, and still like a baby in a lot of ways.


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
I think that advice could make everyone very frustrated. It doesn't really make any sense. You don't start your newborn on solid food, or using the toilet. A child's needs and abilities change as they get older, and our expectations adjust accordingly.

Of course I don't mean ridiculous extremes like that, and clearly a child's needs and abilities change as they get older. But if you have an expectation that a child hang out with family during dinner, there's certainly no harm in working toward that goal in an age-appropriate way. Letting him get down every time he throws a tantrum isn't reasonable, nor will it lead to the result the OP is after. To me, gentle discipline is about guiding the child toward age-appropriate social behavior, rather than punishing him for mistakes. A child that age can certainly sit at the table during dinner. Exceptions can be made if the child is having a bad night, or Mom doesn't feel like hassling with a grumpy toddler who doesn't feel like sitting, but I'd call that a one-off, and the next night continue to work toward the family goal if I were her.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
Letting him get down every time he throws a tantrum isn't reasonable, nor will it lead to the result the OP is after.

I have always allowed my children to get down from the table when they wanted to, and they all (4 kids, the youngest is 2 1/2) have learned to happily sit at the table with the family during dinner.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovesea* 
Thanks for the advice everybody. So if I let him have a tantrum, what do I do while he's having it? Do I pick him up and try to soothe him or leave him down and soothe him with my voice.

If he wants you to hold him and soothe him, I would.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
... the next night continue to work toward the family goal if I were her.

I would just ask: "what if the she [the child] doesn't want to sit with the family for the course of the evening, even when she's older?" In fairness what you are calling the 'family goal' is really *your* goal. I think I'd like DD to join in such traditions because she wants to and not because I've worked on her (however gently) from infancy. My expierence has generally been that, all things being equal, children gravitate towards participating in traditions and family events with gusto, particularly when they've been planned with a mind to being fun and available to kids. But if she grows up to be someone with less tolerance for something like that then I'm inclined to let her off the hook.

Along these lines, if a toddler emphatically objected to staying at the table for a whole meal I don't think letting him down is really 'giving in', and I'd fear that forcing the issue (again, even incredibly gently) could actually backfire and make something that we hoped would become a fun family tradition into an unpleasant obligation.


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

My experience has been that kids who are not expected to sit at the table and enjoy their family during mealtimes learn that playtime is a lot more fun, and that if they fuss, they'll be free from obligation. So I guess we're coming at this from different angles.

I also think it's perfectly acceptable as the parent to set the parameters of how I expect my children to behave, and to continue to gently guide them toward meeting those expectations, so I may be more to the center of the gentle discipline spectrum than most. It would not occur to me to "let her off the hook" if she "has less tolerance for that," unless she had some sort of developmental disability. I'd be sensitive to how challenging a child finds a particular situation, and adjust my expectations accordingly, but we would continue working toward appropriate social behavior. I'm not talking about making a little kid sit through the adults' third cup of coffee (which I was always required to do), but there's no reason a typical child can't sit at the table long enough for dinner to be served and consumed, IMHO. If it's not fun for them, you find ways of including them that will make it more enjoyable.


----------



## wendizbaby (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovesea* 
Thanks for the advice everybody. So if I let him have a tantrum, what do I do while he's having it? Do I pick him up and try to soothe him or leave him down and soothe him with my voice. I've read the article about a new perspective on tantrums and do agree with it but it's quite hard at the moment as he's only just a toddler, and still like a baby in a lot of ways.

My ds doesn't let me hold him...it only frustrates him more. Also, if I say things like, "I'm sorry you are so upset, but you can't play on the stairs", it makes him more upset. I just sit there and keep him from hurting himself with the rolling around and throwing himself on the floor. Eventually, he comes to me and I'll stroke his head and speak to him in a soothing voice. Sometimes, though, I get so mad because I just want to go the frickin' bathroom that I have to give him and I space and he sits there and cries until I get my wits about me and can be supportive.
Good luck!
Wendi


----------



## cpop (May 3, 2006)

Do I pick him up and try to soothe him or leave him down and soothe him with my voice.

I agree with the pps. If he lets you hold him, great. My dd never would, and if I tried she would get enraged and scream for me to get away from her.
For her it worked best (and still does on the rare occasion that she has a meltdown) to just tell her "I'm sorry you're upset. If you want to ,_____(insert fun activity here) I'll be in the living room waiting for you"
THat way when she lets off some steam she comes to me and we do the fun activity. It worked pretty well.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
My experience has been that kids who are not expected to sit at the table and enjoy their family during mealtimes learn that playtime is a lot more fun, and that if they fuss, they'll be free from obligation.

I try to keep the long-term goal in mind. I don't think training a toddler to sit at the table during dinner is going to mean your 4 or 7 or 16 year-old will want to. I don't want any of my children to view eating with the family as an "obligation." It's something we all do because we enjoy it.

Our family sits down to dinner together most every night, and we sit down together for breakfast on the weekends. It's an expectation the kids in our family hold the parents to as much as vice versa







(they get very strict with us about breakfast especially







) But no one is made to. Toddlers, or anyone, can leave the table when they want to.


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

It really depends on what your goals are. It sounds like you don't care if your kids leave the table whenever they want to, so your approach worked great for your family. I gathered, perhaps incorrectly, that the OP was moving toward a more structured situation, which is what we have at my house. My 3YO and 7YO sit until they're excused, and there's never a question of doing otherwise; they know that's what is expected of them.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
It really depends on what your goals are. It sounds like you don't care if your kids leave the table whenever they want to, so your approach worked great for your family. I gathered, perhaps incorrectly, that the OP was moving toward a more structured situation, which is what we have at my house. My 3YO and 7YO sit until they're excused, and there's never a question of doing otherwise; they know that's what is expected of them.

Yeah, must just be different goal--My goal is to have a happy family that all enjoys and happily chooses to have dinner together







It's not so much that I "don't care if my kids leave the table whenever they want to" but that I hope to teach them the value of sitting together as a family--so that it is a value they personally share, and not one that they view as a forced obligation.


----------



## ryansma (Sep 6, 2006)

I agree with setting high expectations. Children in daycare are expected to sit while everyone eats. If not meal times would be unmanagable. It's not questioned and no one ever says that its too much to expect of those kids -it's just what it is and the kids do it.


----------



## NotTheOnlyOne (Oct 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ryansma* 
I agree with setting high expectations. Children in daycare are expected to sit while everyone eats. If not meal times would be unmanagable. It's not questioned and no one ever says that its too much to expect of those kids -it's just what it is and the kids do it.

Yes, this. I do home daycare and my ds is 13 months. Our "rule" for meal times is : You come to the table when the meal is ready even if you don't want to eat. Everyone will come and sit for a while (most of the time they end up eating this way even if they started out saying they didn't want to eat) After 10 minutes or so... if you are done you may get down after your hands and face have been wiped off. Even if you didn't eat a bite. If you want to sit and eat for 30 minutes, that's ok too. My ds is expected to comply with this rule as well.

Same goes for nap time. Nap starts at noon and ends at 2:30. Everyone HAS to lie down. You may take a book or a quiet activity like a puzzle if you don't feel tired right away, but this is a quiet time out of respect for everyone that does need a nap. If you wake up early, you may come into the office and watch cartoons. (let the flames begin!)

My ds has been taking naps at noon since he was 5 weeks old!


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
My goal is to have a happy family that all enjoys and happily chooses to have dinner together

Right, as opposed to the rest of us, who prefer dour children overburdened with the dreadful obligation of sitting with family and forcing down a meal together. Look, the difference is that some people find intrinsic value in establishing a rhythm of family dinners that involve everyone, without the ongoing issue of who's walking away from the table when. Everyone stays until the meal is finished; it's polite, it's an opportunity for the family to reconnect, and it's uninterrupted parent/kid interaction time. As the PP noted, it's de rigeur in preschool, regular school, restaurants, and dinner parties, and if it's approached as a matter of course, it's not seen as an obligation, but instead as What People Do. My kids love sitting at the table with us, and would feel like they were missing out on something if they were excused early to go play. In my mind, the obligation is no more onerous than picking up your own toys, wiping your bottom after you use the bathroom, washing your hands, or saying thank you when you're given something, all things I require of my children as well, for the record.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
Right, as opposed to the rest of us, who prefer dour children overburdened with the dreadful obligation of sitting with family and forcing down a meal together.

Right, I was responding a bit snarkily to the "it depends on what your goals are," in your post. I should have put a winky in there I guess. You seemed to be saying that families won't eat together unless they had no choice. That's not been my experience.

The OP said that her toddler was normally happy to sit through meals, but was occasionally distracted on the weekend when there was lots of family around. She asked if it was ok to let him get down when he got fussy. I think that's fine. Just because he gets down from the table occasionally, when there are lots of people and activity, that doesn't mean he'll never want to sit at the table.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
if it's approached as a matter of course, it's not seen as an obligation, but instead as What People Do.

Sure. That's what I do. We have the family meal sitting together. The whole family expects it. The real question comes with what you do when the toddler wants to leave the table? If he's not allowed to get down, how do you keep him at the table?

Toddlers have different abilities as far as attention span. Yours might have easily sat through long, noisy family dinners, and another toddler might find it too distracting.


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

Toddlers are much more malleable than preschoolers and school-age children. If it's never been an option to get down, by the time they're 4 or 5, they won't even think to ask (mine don't). It just makes life easier, which is always my goal.

The mere fact of being expected to do something doesn't make it something that you resent, dread, or feel oppressed about. (See, e.g., the aforementioned bottom-wiping example.) But if you've been allowed to get down whenever you wanted to for your entire life, and then suddenly you're in Kindergarten or at a special restaurant dinner, and you're not allowed to leave the table whenever you wish, you might very well feel oppressed and frustrated then. Plus, it'll be harder to reconcile those feelings of frustration -- "Wait, what do I do now? I want to leave the table, and I'm being FORCED to STAY HERE. This is so unfair!" My kids wouldn't even entertain the notion.

As far as how to keep a grumpy toddler at the table, I've given my ideas already. Basically, you make it fun and engage them. If the kid is screaming his head off, you leave the table with him, but not to let him get down and play. You go somewhere private, help him calm down, explain that it's eating time and we're all sitting together, get him a toy or some crayons, and return him to the table. It's not rocket science. It's not intuitively easy for any child, but luckily they can be taught. Neither of mine are particularly calm or easy-going, but we managed.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
My experience has been that kids who are not expected to sit at the table and enjoy their family during mealtimes learn ...


I hope it's okay to say that I cracked a smile at the sentence structure above...they're expected to sit and they are expected to *like* it, too.









I know what you mean, I promise, and I think our goals are very similar but our paths to get there are somewhat different that's all. But this is my take on such an expectation:

I try to focus on intrinsic motivation for my DD, particularly for activities that are meant to be enjoyed (vs. the good hygiene parallel which is really pretty different from sitting at the table with your family in many ways.) I, personally, value time spent eating with DD; I have shared this value with DD and I have included her in this tradition since birth. I have tried to make mealtime something she can enjoy on her level, too, just like you suggested.

But at the same time, the idea that DD would choose to stay at the table because "it's never been an option to get down" and she wouldn't "even think to ask" casts a pall on the tradition for me. In general, I don't like the idea of doing anything or indoctrinating DD to do anything because it's What People Do.

ETA: That's not to say that children who do feel as described in the above paragraph are bitter, resentful and destined for a life of crime







or that children are incapable of sitting at all (i.e. successful preschool routines), just that it's not my method.

For me, mealtime is something to be enjoyed, by everyone, because you choose to be there. If DD grows up to fundamentally not enjoy it, I'll tailor the family tradition to something she does enjoy -- yes, I'll let her off the hook, and I hope she'll feel free to come to me with such a request.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
The mere fact of being expected to do something doesn't make it something that you resent, dread, or feel oppressed about.

Of course. But, I believe there is a difference between expectation and force. For many toddlers (maybe yours were particularly easy-going), not having any room for flexibility is a sure-fire way to set up a power struggle.

I am not a parent who subscribes to the "if you give an inch they'll take a mile" mentality. I lean more towards "lines drawn in the sand are begging to be crossed."









Of course (if it's in line with your goals) it's a good idea to find ways to make sitting at the table agreeable for your toddler, to encourage and gently guide him toward the goal of peacefully sitting through the family meal. But, if he's miserable at the table, I don't think it's going to spoil him to let him down. I *know* it won't.

You can set clear expectations, have consistent routines, and be flexible and understanding. It doesn't make a child want to run wild or anything. Children want to meet our expectations. They like to have routines. Flexibility and understanding are traits I want to show them too.

I'm glad your way works for you. But, it's not the only way to have a family that happily sits together for dinner.


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *easy_goer* 
In general, I don't like the idea of doing anything or indoctrinating DD to do anything because it's What People Do.

I find this a lovely but impossibly vague and unworkable notion. There are countless things in life that you have to do, not because you want to or find them intrinsically valuable or enjoyable, but because it facilitates social harmony and demonstrates respect and love toward others. Visiting elderly relatives, saying please and thank you, stopping to let someone pass, assisting a package-laden stranger in opening the door ... these are all things that you will (hopefully) model for your children, and expect them to do. Life is full of "shalls," and I think eating at the dinner table is one of the least burdensome.

It is a true and noble goal that your children would always just naturally WANT to do what you wish they would, but that will not always be the case, and I see no harm in establishing expectations and requirements, in a gentle and respectful way. Requiring them to sit at the table is definitely not the only way to achieve the result, but I find it the simplest. And I have to ask myself how these children who wander restaurants, refuse to sit at the table even when Grandma's visiting from out-of-town, neglect their dinner to leave the table and go play and then ask for food 15 minutes after everyone's gotten up, or never even sit down for dinner, got that way. I've seen this a lot, and sought to avoid it with my kids. At some point, those parents will have to require something of their children, or the kids will never learn appropriate social behavior at mealtimes.

Neither of my children could be accurately described as easy-going or naturally compliant. It's something we work on regularly, from an early age, and I believe that's one of the reasons we never have a problem with them agitating to go play instead of eat dinner. Perhaps if you do have easy-going children, it's easier to manage that flexibility without everything going off the rails.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
find this a lovely but impossibly vague and unworkable notion. There are countless things in life that you have to do, not because you want to or find them intrinsically valuable or enjoyable, but because it facilitates social harmony and demonstrates respect and love toward others.

Don't you see the intrinsic value in demonstrating respect and love? I think one of the central goals of discipline, and I think this is what easy_goer was talking about, is to help your kids see the intrinsic value of doing the right thing. The ultimate goal being self-discipline.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
And I have to ask myself how these children who wander restaurants, refuse to sit at the table even when Grandma's visiting from out-of-town, neglect their dinner to leave the table and go play and then ask for food 15 minutes after everyone's gotten up, or never even sit down for dinner, got that way.

Well, I imagine there are lots of reasons. I have known children with attention disorders and other special needs who found it nearly impossible to sit through an entire meal. And I've also known families who almost never sit down to dinner together. A surprising number of people eat dinner sitting in front of the television.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
There are countless things in life that you have to do, not because you want to or find them intrinsically valuable or enjoyable, but because it facilitates social harmony and demonstrates respect and love toward others.

But, I enjoy and *want* to facilitate social harmony and demonstrate respect and love toward others







: I go into my relationships with children assuming that, given the chance, they are also wired to want to be social, participate in harmonious social interaction and give and get love and respect; it's sort of a cornerstone to my ideas about discipline. And from my experience, they really do. They are inexperienced and may not always know how, but the motive is there.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 

It is a true and noble goal that your children would always just naturally WANT to do what you wish they would, but that will not always be the case, and I see no harm in establishing expectations and requirements, in a gentle and respectful way.

I don't know about children always wanting to do what I wish they would, that's a pretty big stretch, but I'd say children will naturally want to be socially appropriate in an age-appropriate way. The trick sometimes is how to help them learn how to do that.

And I absolutely, sincerely do not see *harm* in establishing the expectation that they sit for dinner, either, it's just not something I choose to do nor the only means to the end, IMO.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
And I have to ask myself how these children who wander restaurants, refuse to sit at the table even when Grandma's visiting from out-of-town, neglect their dinner to leave the table and go play and then ask for food 15 minutes after everyone's gotten up, or never even sit down for dinner, got that way. I've seen this a lot...

This a pretty extreme example of the worst imaginable dinner behavior (well, you didn't say throwing food or anything







) and I honestly have not seen "these children" who act like this myself. People often assume that 'permissiveness' -- as in: lack of expectations/requirements/rules -- leads to children running amok but it sounds like if something is that bad, there is another issue...my first guess would be a serious breakdown of communication, i.e. no one has taken the time to explain and demonstrate to them how these actions affect others around them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
Neither of my children could be accurately described as easy-going or naturally compliant. It's something we work on regularly, from an early age, and I believe that's one of the reasons we never have a problem with them agitating to go play instead of eat dinner. Perhaps if you do have easy-going children, it's easier to manage that flexibility without everything going off the rails.









I've got to own up, my DD (who is almost 2 and obviously very young yet) is ridiculously easy-going about mealtime. The kid has a serious facility for sitting at the table







She and I go out to eat almost daily, usually for a mid-morning snack, and many days I have to hurry *her* along as I am itching to get up long before she is. But I try really hard to apply this same thinking to areas in which she is not so compliant, and I believe the approach has merit and isn't impossibly vague or unworkable.


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
Don't you see the intrinsic value in demonstrating respect and love?

Of course I do, but IME, when given the choice, kids would choose to play and/or attend to their own needs over about anything in that list. Setting up expectations that they do certain things regardless of their desire to do so gets them in the habit of appropriate behavior, and as they get older and develop empathy, compassion, and selflessness (which, according to what I've read, aren't developmentally present or instinctive until age 6 or 7), they'll already HAVE the habit. It won't be a new thing, and therefore won't seem at all burdensome.

What I see frequently, among friends, acquaintances, and strangers, is benign neglect when it comes to parenting. They'd rather finish their cup of coffee and chat with their friends than require Junior to have seat and color instead of bothering other restaurant patrons. Of course it's easier, and ideal if Junior WANTS to sit and color, but I do think there are occasions when requiring him to do so, i.e., not giving him a choice in the matter, will be necessary.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
Of course it's easier, and ideal if Junior WANTS to sit and color, but I do think there are occasions when requiring him to do so, i.e., not giving him a choice in the matter, will be necessary.

I get a kick out of this "simply require it" business. I seems the same as forcing. It just doesn't sound as nice to say you'd force him to color.









Personally, I think that there is a limit to the amount of time you can ask a small child to sit still while you attend to grown-up needs. A parent should keep the toddler's needs in mind too. If you've been in the restaurant so long your child has to get up and run around, maybe the answer is not that he should be "required" to color, but that you should leave.

Quote:

What I see frequently, among friends, acquaintances, and strangers, is benign neglect when it comes to parenting.
It's tough being the only one who knows how to do it.


----------



## elizawill (Feb 11, 2007)

aliviclo - i just wanted to tell you that my family also eats together. we eat lunch at 12:00 and dinner at 5:30 as a family most days. we all enjoy it, and it's not an issue for all of us to sit together. my children are playing with the neighbors right now and at 5:30 i will send the neighbors home, completely against all of the children's will i'm sure







but it's supper time and it's not being mean to anyone imo. we will eat until 6:00 and then the neighbors will be back at that exact moment. everyone will play and run and jump for a while longer, and then i'll send them home for the night at about 7:30 so i can get my children ready for bed. we will do our routine and then they will go down for the night. i know it may seem like i "force" my children to do these things, and i guess that's one way to perceive it -- but that sounds really negative to me. for me, i'm a SAHM and i homeschool. i'm with my children 24/7 and following a routine and everyone adhering to it and following very simple guidelines like when we eat ...and yes, even eating together...it just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. i don't mind families who do it any other way at all....but i wouldn't change the way we do things in my famliy. i really love it, and so do my kids.


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

Thanks Eliza. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
I get a kick out of this "simply require it" business. I seems the same as forcing. It just doesn't sound as nice to say you'd force him to color.









Personally, I think that there is a limit to the amount of time you can ask a small child to sit still while you attend to grown-up needs. A parent should keep the toddler's needs in mind too. If you've been in the restaurant so long your child has to get up and run around, maybe the answer is not that he should be "required" to color, but that you should leave.

It's tough being the only one who knows how to do it.









To say you'd force someone to sit down and color to me implies that you're going to put the crayon in his hand, and put the hand to paper, and when he fights you, you'll spank him or something. I'm talking about telling him to have a seat, and if he refuses and you can't get him calmed down (when my son was younger, we'd occasionally have to excuse ourselves to go to the bathroom for a chat about what is expected), then I agree it's time to leave. What I see out and about are a lot of parents who are unwilling even to tell their children to sit, because god forbid we make the children do a single thing they don't naturally want to do.

And yeah, I know you're being sarcastic, but it IS tough when other parents don't discipline their children. I don't like visiting with people whose children are allowed to leave the table 2 minutes into dinner, and then disrupt dinner for everyone else as they run amok and unsupervised. It's even worse when you can't hold a conversation with an adult because they have to get up an chase after the children 400 times during mealtime. I'd far rather spend my time with people who either have children who are naturally well-behaved, or who are willing to do the work of disciplining their kids.

I went to an outdoor restaurant one time that featured farm birds that milled freely among the tables. Peacocks, roosters, ducks, that sort of thing. Very exciting for little kids. One little girl, about age 4, never sat down, even to eat, but instead followed the birds around, trying to catch them. She'd walk quietly behind one, and then lunge for it suddenly to try to grab it and pet it. This resulted in the birds hopping up on the tables of other diners. People were getting angry; it was very disruptive, and ruined the meal of one table of diners, who got up and left. The parents did nothing. Under the theory that it's somehow oppressive to require/force your child to sit down at a restaurant, what should they have done? They had a baby with them, and had purchased a big lunch for everyone. Should they have up and left? Or should they have required their child to sit down, as everyone else in the restaurant was requiring/forcing their children to do?


----------



## mackysmama (Jan 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
the difference is that some people find intrinsic value in establishing a rhythm of family dinners that involve everyone,

But in your situation/example, your children aren't intrisically motivated to do this, to participate with the family in this way. They are extrinsicly (sp?) motivated - coming and leaving the table based on the desire of someone else. I think that is the difference that many are speaking of. It seems most of us want children to sit at the table and enjoy family dinners together and by ages 4, 5, or 6, the majority are doing this, regardless of the expecations of them as toddlers. But the difference is what motivates them to do this - instrinsic or extrinsic. I want my children to be intrinsicly motivated.


----------



## ryansma (Sep 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mackysmama* 
But in your situation/example, your children aren't intrisically motivated to do this, to participate with the family in this way. They are extrinsicly (sp?) motivated - coming and leaving the table based on the desire of someone else. I think that is the difference that many are speaking of. It seems most of us want children to sit at the table and enjoy family dinners together and by ages 4, 5, or 6, the majority are doing this, regardless of the expecations of them as toddlers. But the difference is what motivates them to do this - instrinsic or extrinsic. I want my children to be intrinsicly motivated.

I WANT my children to be intrinsicly motivated too but I don't think that is realistic for a two year old. I don't believe them to be ill intended but I also don't think they come into the world with manners they are learned. I think the expectation has to be there first. Then they see the enjoyment that can come from family dinner and it WILL be intrinsic. But I do think at 2 yo they can develop bad habits of running amok. I think what Aliviclo was saying is that she would rather avoid that later conflict by setting the standard high now.


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ryansma* 
I WANT my children to be intrinsicly motivated too but I don't think that is realistic for a two year old. I don't believe them to be ill intended but I also don't think they come into the world with manners they are learned. I think the expectation has to be there first. Then they see the enjoyment that can come from family dinner and it WILL be intrinsic. But I do think at 2 yo they can develop bad habits of running amok. I think what Aliviclo was saying is that she would rather avoid that later conflict by setting the standard high now.









:

Basically, fake it 'til you make it. I believe there's intrinsic value to sitting at the table for family dinner, but the kids didn't come hard-wired that way. Therefore, they have been "extrinsically motivated" so they learn the benefits and eventually become intrinsically motivated. KWIM? I generally find there's less conflict in our lives if the rules aren't constantly changing. It's easier on my kids, too.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 







:

Basically, fake it 'til you make it. I believe there's intrinsic value to sitting at the table for family dinner, but the kids didn't come hard-wired that way. Therefore, they have been "extrinsically motivated" so they learn the benefits and eventually become intrinsically motivated. KWIM? I generally find there's less conflict in our lives if the rules aren't constantly changing. It's easier on my kids, too.

I know what you mean, but I do not approach it that way. I respect your philosophy but my own is significantly different.

Rules aren't constantly changing here, either. I don't really understand the connection.


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *easy_goer* 
Rules aren't constantly changing here, either. I don't really understand the connection.

Your rules might not be changing, assuming you never require your daughter to sit with the family, no matter whether she's in a restaurant, at a friend's house for dinner, visiting Grandma, or what have you. It might not apply to you anyway, though, because as I think you posted early, you haven't really been put in the position of needing to require it; she just does it. You're lucky.







Mine are the type where if I let them do something once, I'll hear about it the next 4,283 times the situation comes up. "I can't? How come you let me do it last time? No fair!"


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

My daughter does have a lot of tolerance for sitting, and I take zero credit for it really, but she is by no means the model of "whatever you say, mama







: " She's two.







I don't have to stretch my imagination to understand the potential power struggle.

I don't think that an approach that allows for more flexibility than "it was never an option from day one" is necessarily equivalant to "constantly changing" rules. That seems like some serious hyperbole to me. It's just a different rule from yours.


----------



## ryansma (Sep 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovesea* 
Also at mealtimes, usually he and I are home alone and he will sit in his highchair and we'll eat together fine but at weekends when family are around he gets really fussy during mealtimes and someone usually ends up getting down from the table to play with him then eating later. Is this the right thing to do? I want him to get used to eating with the family and sitting at the table with us but are my expectations too high? I worry that by giving in to him (letting him out of his highchair to play), I'm being too permissive and this will lead to problems later on.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aliviclo* 
I generally find there's less conflict in our lives if the rules aren't constantly changing. It's easier on my kids, too.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *easy_goer* 

Rules aren't constantly changing here, either. I don't really understand the connection.

The connection is that the OP was concerned herself about inconsistency for her dc - weekdays with her v. weekends. Aliviclo was again saying that it's easier to just keep the expectations high from the start.


----------



## mackysmama (Jan 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ryansma* 
I WANT my children to be intrinsicly motivated too but I don't think that is realistic for a two year old. I don't believe them to be ill intended but I also don't think they come into the world with manners they are learned. I think the expectation has to be there first. Then they see the enjoyment that can come from family dinner and it WILL be intrinsic. But I do think at 2 yo they can develop bad habits of running amok. I think what Aliviclo was saying is that she would rather avoid that later conflict by setting the standard high now.

I've never required my children, 5 and 2, to say please, thank you, your welcome, or sorry. But they do it because it is how they have been treated. I've never required my son to stay at a meal table that he didn't want to be at yet at 5 he sits with us for breakfast, lunch, and dinnerand we're often leaving the table to clean up before he chooses to leave. There was NO conflict in this at all. My 2 yo doesn't stay at the table very long, except for breakfast when she is more mellow and SHE wants to be there (intrinsic motivation in a 2 year old!!). I expect that by age 5, she will be behaving the same as my son and without the conflict you mention. I don't think either of them are "running amok." Nor do I think I have low expectations. I think I have developmentally appropriate expectations. I DO think that expecting a 2 yo to behave like a 5 yo or an adult is asking for conflict.


----------



## Aliviclo (Jul 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mackysmama* 
I DO think that expecting a 2 yo to behave like a 5 yo or an adult is asking for conflict.

I don't agree that requiring a 2YO to sit at the table during meals is equivalent to asking her to behave like an adult. And I have already conceded that there are different ways of achieving the same goal. Mine works for my family, with no conflict.


----------



## Kitty_boo (Feb 9, 2007)

I used a method, when DS wanted to do something he really couldn't.

Acknowledge what he wanted to do.
say why it's not acceptable. I never say 'you can't do that' etc. I would say, something like, 'I know you want to play on the stairs, but they are very steep and you could fall'.
Usually what he would like to do, is something I wouldn't do. So I would say, 'even Mommy wouldn't play on the stairs', or 'once Mommy played on the stairs and hurt her foot'.
I would then offer an alternative. If he wants to play on the stairs, maybe he wants to climb. perhaps use cushions instead, or try and climb them stairs with him.

I found that even at an early age, DS would understand more of what I was saying, than the other way around. It might feel silly explaining to a 14 mo why he shouldn't play on the stairs. However, just by your voice, your DS will tell the difference between a flat NO, (no matter how polite it is worded), to an explaination. It also gets you into practise for later.

There are times that he will cry over something, and at these times there is NOTHING you can do but hold and console - or leave alone if that is what they prefer. Babyproofing as much as possible is also a must. If a certain 'thing' is proving a source of tantrums, just remove the source as much as you can.

As for the highchair, that's your call. We would insist DS would initially sit in his highchair, however it became apparant he didn't want to be there, then we would let him down. I think some children are grazers, and some aren't. It's like being a lark or an owl. If they are grazers like my DS, making them comply with certain routines is just a waste of time. We do impose the rule that it is okay to get down from the table, but if Mommy and Daddy are still eating, you have to play by yourself. We did used to let him have toys at the table, so that use to delay any frustration if he would have.

Hope this might help


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Setting up expectations that they do certain things regardless of their desire to do so gets them in the habit of appropriate behavior, and as they get older and develop empathy, compassion, and selflessness (which, according to what I've read, aren't developmentally present or instinctive until age 6 or 7), they'll already HAVE the habit. It won't be a new thing, and therefore won't seem at all burdensome.
This wasn't true for us regarding mealtimes. Ds at 2 could never sit through a meal. Ds at 4 could sit through a twenty minute meal easily. I never "did anything" to make him change. He just matured, developed a sense of proportion, and was capable of giving consent at 4 to things he couldn't understand or tolerate at 2.

My opinion is that a great deal is learned by toddlers via observation and indirect exposure. It isn't necessary to coerce a 2 year old to make their bed everyday if you want them to develop the habit. Simply inviting them to make the bed every day while demonstrating a good attitude as you do the work is enough. If they play with a doll or pick their nose, so what? They are still watching and observing. Most will wander over to you every second or third day and decide to "help" for a minute because it looks interesting. IMO this is enough participation to make a meaningful connection to the habit.

I agree that over the long haul of childhood there are skills that should be learned in preparation for independent living. I agree that there needs to be exposure to healthy habits from the beginning. I agree that expectations help children understand what behaviors we value. But I disagree that toddlers must be directly forced into compliance with daily habits in order to develop them for a lifetime. I think it's enough to make daily habits fun, interesting, and to invite toddlers to participate. I don't think it is necessary to coerce them into sitting through mealtimes or clean up times etc. Simply being exposed to the concept and invited to participate is enough. It really is.


----------



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

Totally agree with heartmama and sunnysideup.

We eat "Japanese style" around the coffee table most nights and my 5 and 2 have very little difficulty sitting at the dining room table when we choose to or when we visit others--in fact we often receive compliments at how well-mannered they are. No "training" involved!









If a 13 month old is crying to get down, I'd let him/her down. That's a power struggle that I could see escalating to epic levels in my house.


----------



## m9m9m9 (Jun 13, 2005)

It pains me to see parents try and get their child to do something they simply are not developmentally able to do. A 13mth is still almost a baby. Sitting for a few minutes while he eats - ok - but insisting he stay there once he is done is worthless. He doesn't reason that it is "family mealtime" and he won't remember in 2 years that it was "family mealtime". Its maturity of the child that makes them able to sit for longer periods of time NOT that you made them do it when they were a baby.

Further, I think lingering at the table can invite overeating and as someone who is overweight, I don't want to encourage this in my family. Especially for young children who get bored and figure they have to sit there so they might as well continue to eat bc it gives them something to do even if they are full or simply don't want anymore. When my DD says she's done, I respect that and she can leave the table even if its after a few bites or the rest of us aren't done. She is never expected to eat more or stay put after she says she is done.

- Maggie


----------

