# Questions for non-coercive mamas



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

I know that several people here strive to be completely non-coercive in their parenting - not trying to direct, change, shape, coax, reward or punish, force, or otherwise make their child be any particular way. I know that several people here have particularly mentioned not ever doing anything to their child by physical force.

What I'd like to know is, when did you start? At what age? Is it possible to parent an infant non-coercively?

I was thinking about the various non-coercion threads as I woke up with my 8-month-old daughter this morning, and I started counting the number of times I coerced her. She didn't want her diaper changed, and cried, but I changed it anyway. On the second diaper change, she'd gotten poop on her undershirt, so I completely undressed her and put on a clean undershirt. She hates getting dressed right now, and it upset her. As she crawled around the room, I physically picked her up and moved her away from a very interesting power cord just as she was about to find out whether it was tasty. I washed her face (covered with applesauce and snot), and later wiped her nose (much more snot), although each time she protested vigorously. It's pretty much an ordinary day with a baby, I would have thought.

Of course I do whatever I can to make these things less upsetting - giving her a special toy while she's on the changing table, doing as much of the clothes change as possible while she's sitting or standing because it's the lying-down that she objects to most, singing a silly song for washing face and hands, playing a game that involves nose-touching in hopes that it will desensitize her to having it wiped. And I always explain why we're doing what we're doing, and acknowledge her feelings. But it all comes down to this, in the end: I'll make those things happen even if she doesn't want them to.

If you consider yourself to be a non-coercive parent, how would you handle these issues with an infant? Would you not do these things if your baby objected to them? What are the non-coercive alternatives?


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I don't know exactly and I am not ashamed to admit that! We have never had that issue with our daughter who is a little over 6 months. I mean, I guess we could have, or have begun to, but I have always stopped and disengaged when she has done that. For instance, if I am about to change her diaper and she gets upset, I will simply stop. I redo the diaper or whatever and just tell her mama isn't going to force her to have her diaper changed. She usually calms right down and then when I try again, she is cool with it. Now I don't know how much she understands really, but somewhere I think she *gets* that when she gets upset, I will stop doing whatever it is that is upsetting her.

If she gets stuff all over her face and I am attempting to wipe it and she cries, I stop. I tell her that I would like to clean her face off , but I will not force her. Same thing again. Usually if I just stop and say "okay, mama doesn't have to wipe your face now" she somehow *gets* that she can decide (through her reaction) whether I am going to do something or not.

I found that was what worked with the carseat too. When she was younger, she didn't dig that thing at all and sometimes my husband and I would have to stop like 5 times on a 10 minute drive home, but every time she cried, we would stop and soothe her and then she got to the point where she doesn't cry at all in the seat. Now I can't say if that is what did it, but it was a real coincidence. I think babies are very intuitive. I think that although our daughter can't communicate in words yet, she knows that when she expresses upset at a situation, we stop what we are doing and won't force her to do something she doesn't want to do.

I know there are a world of what ifs and I am sure we will cross that bridge when we come to them, but for now that is what works for us. To us, the world isn't going to spin off its axis if she has a dirty face for like an hour ya know (I am not saying yours does!) I am just saying that just because she doesn't seem to be into doing something at the moment, doesn't mean you can't revisit it in a few minutes, or later or whatever and she how the response is then.

Now our daughter gets that she doesn't have to have something done to her that she doesn't like...we have *stopped* so many times,she knows that we will if she wants us to, so her protests with certain things have become so much less now that she feels *empowered* in that way.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Very interesting! Captain Crunchy, what about when she's headed for something dangerous? Do you consider distraction okay? What if she's got poop leaking out all over the place? Would you consider giving her a toy to get her to stop crying while you changed her?

Rivka, thanks for starting this thread, I've wondered about this stuff too!


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Non manipulative redirection is not coercion to me, and giving her a toy that stops her from crying wouldn't be considered coercion because it is my understanding that the toy redirects her, but she still knows her diaper is being changed...and agreeing to it...without me forcing or threatening or holding her down or bribing (with a slightly older child) or whatever...

I don't think any non-coercive parent here has ever said they simply try no other alternative. Playful parenting or engaging your child in something to help an activity become pleasurable and thus, voluntary, is not coercion...to me anyway.

The point is voluntary, without bribes or threat or shame or manipulation, or force. I think this can be accomplished.

Truthfully, yes, I would rather have poop leaking out of my daughter's diaper for a short while than to have a screaming, terrible power struggle where I forced my will upon her...it just isn't worth it to me -- but I don't know many children or babies who revel in rolling in their own sh*t all day...most babies do enjoy a fresh diaper in my experience.

As far as dangerous situations, we plan on babyproofing as much as possible to avoid danger, possible power struggles and frankly, make it easier on us and create many more *yes* situations than ones where we are put in the position of choosing between a coercive method or our daughter being hurt. It just makes things so much easier imo....


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Well with an infant you just do what you need to do. I didn't ask my 6 week old if she wanted to wear the red sweater or the yellow one, but I did ask her when she was 18 months. I didn't ask my 6 month old if he wanted a bath in the morning or the evening, but by the time he was 2 he was definately capable of sharing his thoughts.







As they got older and started communicating their thoughts more I just started paying attention more. It's a gradual, living thing really... that evolves from day to day and year to year.

I think redirecting is okay. Making your environment child friendly is helpful but not always possible (visiting others, etc). Thinking outside the box regarding what is usually seen as acceptable and what isn't when it comes to kids is a big thing. Like if a child wants to wear his socks in the bath...why not? If he'd rather have a jelly sandwich instead of dinner why not? and so on.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

We have always done exactly as Captain Crunchy described also. Not imposing care against obvious protest, and revisiting the needed care with distraction, or delighting our son into agreement, if you will. At 5-6 months he was communicating that his diaper was wet. At 7 months he was specifically signing to nurse.

I consider Trust to be like a ladder. The child tests and tests until they Trust that a parent is going to react consistently, not unlike testing the rungs on a ladder. If a rung is not trustworthy, one must retest each time before one can progress to trusting that the ladder will support them every rung, every time. We ALWAYS answered every cry or protest as immediately as possible, and our son just didn't need to keep testing after some point. And then he would ride in the carseat, let a diaper be changed, allow his face to be washed etc. as needed. And if it wasn't necessary, it was not done. We had no life threatening issues that "had to" be imposed either.

We babyproofed and redirected, distracted, engaged, delighted and that worked for us. I have never observed our child attempt anything life threatening. We also had many, many unfettered excursions to the park, the mall, the grocery, the Walmart, the Nature Museum, etc. where the object was to explore, rather than "accomplish". Just as he had many unfettered explorations around the house with supportive facilitation, so that the world has not been a forbidden fruit. Together we explored safely, with information on how to understand specific dangers without fear. My "motto" has been "to nurture a healthy emotional, physical, intellectual and spiritual foundation from which to explore the world without fear".

Pat


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Captain Crunchy, it's great that you've found a method that works with your daughter. I hope it keeps working as she gets older and more independent - I remember clothing and diaper changes being a lot easier two months ago, but maybe that's just a haze of nostalgia for the pre-crawling days. 

Alex is usually quickly reconciled to these things she doesn't want to do - it's usually just the initial protest. She may cry when I pick her up and lie her down to be changed, but by the time her diaper is off she is absorbed in her toy, and by the end of the change she may even be clapping and smiling. Or, she may be desperately sleepy - rubbing her eyes, pushing her face into my leg, bursting into tears at the slightest setback - but she'll still cry when I pick her up and put her in the sling. Then 30 seconds later she is content, eyes drooping, and two minutes later she's asleep.

I do try to let as much go as possible. I don't mind if she goes for a few hours with sweet potatoes in her eyebrows, for example, but I want to clean big rivers of snot up immediately. I have no objection to her pulling my books off the shelves and handling them, but I'll stop her before she rips any pages out. If I try the sling for a nap and she still looks completely awake after a few minutes, I'll assume I was wrong about the sleepiness cues and put her back down to play - but if she's fussing and complaining with closed eyes and diminished movements, I'm going to keep right on with my soothing-to-sleep routine, over her (weaker and weaker) protests.

I wonder how non-coercive mamas handle "nursing strikes." It seems like the general opinion at MDC is that a 10-month-old who stops showing interest in nursing doesn't really mean it, and needs to be convinced otherwise. But thats definitely coercion.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Ummm....we never had *anything* resembling a nursing strike.







Ds nursed every 1-2 hours all day and all night until 18 months old and then started sleeping for a 2-3 hour stretches. (After devoting myself to the "No Cry Sleep Solution" bible.) He is a very oral child and highly sensitive. So he nursed for comfort a significant amount. Occasionally, there is a exploratory lapse at 10-14 months when they become able to explore farther from mama.

You might consider pumping during any declines of interest, in order to create a back up supply for any possible separations. But, I would just offer frequently, whenever it was likely to be agreeable to her. There are certainly pros and cons to that phase of natural weaning arround 1 year; but mostly, I think they just make up for the nursing at night. Of course, you can relactate even up to months after weaning, so I wouldn't worry too much. In a couple of vigorous days (like during an illness), the milk would re-establish.

Pat


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

It's been a while since I have had babies (my dds are 6 and 8) but we did what CC described. We didn't change the diaper of a crying baby, we didn't wipe their face if they didn't want it wiped. We used games, songs, engagement to make those tasks fun and just waited it out when necessary. I don't think distraction is coercion, I think it is just offering something they want more than say the power cord.

My kids started using signs around 7 months and it really helped with our communication.

Anna


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
Or, she may be desperately sleepy - rubbing her eyes, pushing her face into my leg, bursting into tears at the slightest setback - but she'll still cry when I pick her up and put her in the sling. Then 30 seconds later she is content, eyes drooping, and two minutes later she's asleep.

Well, is that just her way of complaining? Or is she protesting what you're doing? My ds doesn't really "cry" all that often, except when he bonks







, but he does do a little protesting noise to let me know I need to change things. It usually doesn't get to a cry, except that lately he's been sick and very edgy.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
Well, is that just her way of complaining? Or is she protesting what you're doing?

I suppose it could just be an "I hate the world!!" cry, except that she also arches her back and makes it hard to get her into the sling. Then, instantly, once she's in and settled she's glad to be there.

I think she just has a hard time with transitions, actually. We have all kinds of little routines, songs, and games set up to make transitions easier, like a song for the moment during her bath when it's time to lie down and have her hair washed, and a little tickling game for getting out of the bathtub. They help a lot, but she will still protest initially. I need to come up with something for getting into her snowsuit - that's the new big stress.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
I think she just has a hard time with transitions, actually. We have all kinds of little routines, songs, and games set up to make transitions easier, like a song for the moment during her bath when it's time to lie down and have her hair washed, and a little tickling game for getting out of the bathtub. They help a lot, but she will still protest initially. I need to come up with something for getting into her snowsuit - that's the new big stress.

Have you tried the Hokey-Pokey? That's a favorite around here for getting dressed, undressed, into car seats, etc. My ds has this "bunny suit", as my dh calls it, and I have to pull out all the stops to get him in it. It's like a Broadway production.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I don't see the difference between the semantics of a child without articulation skills who "dissents", "complains", or "protests" and ultimately acquiesces or submits because there is no other choice. The intention of non-coercion is not to eliminate choice and gain compliance by default. But to find an agreeable alternative that doesn't create dissent, complaint, nor protest due to the activity.

When something is *done to* someone, the choice of refusal in our family is honored. Refusal comes in plenty of comprehensible ways, even from pre-verbal children.

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I don't see the difference between the semantics of a child without articulation skills who "dissents", "complains", or "protests" and ultimately acquiesces or submits because there is no other choice. The intention of non-coercion is not to eliminate choice and gain compliance by default. But to find an agreeable alternative that doesn't create dissent, complaint, nor protest due to the activity.

When something is *done to* someone, the choice of refusal in our family is honored. Refusal comes in plenty of comprehensible ways, even from pre-verbal children.

Pat


I agree Pat! (but what else is new...)


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I don't see the difference between the semantics of a child without articulation skills who "dissents", "complains", or "protests" and ultimately acquiesces or submits because there is no other choice.

It seemed to me that the pp was making the distinction between a child who is protesting what is being done to them, and a child who is just "complaining" that they are tired (or grumpy, or whatever), but is completely ok with what is being done to them. Just what I thought when I first read what you are referring to.

OP, I'm not non-coercive, but I'm low coersion (I'm realizing that it's 2 different worlds though. Different philosophies. When you're "low coersion" you're not *almost* "non-coersive" kwim? Kinda like the difference between "non-punitive" and "almost never punish" imo).
Anyways, in most of the situations you described, I would deal with it similar to Captain Crunchy does. When ds has pooped, and needs his diaper changed (he's 16 mos, but we've been doing similar things for a while) I sit by the changing pad and tell him he's pooped, and needs a clean dry diaper. I give him some time, and he generally comes to me. Sometimes if he doesn't, I get him and bring him over, but if he protests, I just try again in a few minutes (a few minutes really does wonders). Oh, he also has a Tigger toy that "talks" to him about diaper changes. I bounce him on his chest, and make him kiss him. And he loves it. LOVES it.
That's how we do most of our day. Even usually stuff that he gets into that will make a mess. Like if he decides to play in the plant dirt (which he's only done a couple of times). I tell him that it's not really to play with, and that it makes a mess that I have to clean up. I may suggest another activity. Then I leave it at that. If he stays to play in the dirt, I may try to suggest another (at least somewhat related, hopefully) activity in a few minutes. Same with playing in the dog's water. I tried for a long time to stop that, but I found the best thing for us was just to tell him that if he plays in the water, he'll get wet, and there will be water on the floor (which he HATES when theres water on the floor lol). He doesn't play in it near as much anymore- not that I'm saying that's why lol.
And oh, he loves looking in the fridge. He'll stay there forever. I was trying to find ways to make him stop "ok, in just a minute, we have to close the door," but I recently, in the last couple weeks, I decided to just not say anything. Just trust that he's not going to stay there forever lol. (I don't really give him information, because he already *knows* kwim). Sure enough, he's playing in the fridge less and less time. And leaving and shutting the door when he does.
I just need to learn to trust that he WILL do the "socially acceptable" thing, if he is capable (has the info, the control, and all needs met). I believe that, but trusting it is hard sometimes, seeing as how we, as a society, are conditioned to believe that kids will try to "get away" with anything you let them.!


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
I just need to learn to trust that he WILL do the "socially acceptable" thing, if he is capable (has the info, the control, and all needs met). I believe that, but trusting it is hard sometimes, seeing as how we, as a society, are conditioned to believe that kids will try to "get away" with anything you let them.!

You know I think that is a really valid point. It really is difficult to change your way of thinking. I know it is for me, coming from a VERY punitive upbringing with a mother who has strong opinions on how children are fully capable of intentionally being "bad" and such...coupled with the fact that between the two, I was far, far more the independant, questioning, *spirited* child compared to my sister who was really easygoing and agreeable -- so I feel as though I had more punishment and force heaped on me because I wasn't like that.

Anyway, sorry to veer off. I just think that when you are raised in a society, or a family that truly believes that children do or don't do things just to be *bad* or where they need to be *controlled* or *know where their place is* or where you are told to *be the parent* (which means, be in control)...-- and especially if those situations have led to trust issues (which I have) -- it is hard to wrap your head around a different perspective where you have to be willing to let go and trust and be willing to feel at ease with not being "in control" ....and get to a place where any given situation isn't being approached as one where someone has to "win" or be taught a lesson, or punished -- where you strive in every day life peacefully with your child and within the family and beyond without the use of coercion.

I am just so glad I came to this before I had our daughter, because I do think it would be more difficult (not impossible though!!) if you have a family dynamic of coercion already in place.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

My daughter didn't want to lie down at all, from maybe 8 to 18 months. I changed diapers with her standing up (for poopy ones, she stood in the tub and played in the water). I washed her hair in the sink, or with the handheld shower dealie, and she sat or stood. It took more time, and I tried to get most of the shampoo out with a wet washcloth first, because I had to do it very carefully.

Clothing was optional. Facewashing didn't have to be done right away, and by 8 months she preferred to wash her own face - she didn't always do a great job, but if I handed her a warm, wet washcloth to do it she was usually okay with me "helping" a bit.

I actually found non-coercion easier infants than with older kids, FWIW...

Dar


----------



## KateSt. (Nov 25, 2003)

Rivka, Thanks so much for starting this thread! I've been wondering the same thing with my 10 month old! I've been changing his diaper standing up for the past month or so to make it less torturous for him, while giving him something to play with or chew on. We also do part-time EC, and he's been making it clear lately when he DOES NOT want to pee in the toilet, so I don't force it even though I know he has to go.

Getting him into clothes does feel like child abuse lately, so I've been postponing it, doing it in stages, and explaining and empathizing while I do it (hey, I'D rather not get dressed either!).

My biggest hang-up is the snotty nose, especially since our whole family's health has been compromised since Thanksgiving. We just seem to be passing our sick germs back and forth. He'll have snot in his nose that's obviously bothering him and he's trying to get it out on his own to no avail. I try to help but he hates that! Yet I don't know what's worse for him -- having snot in his nose that he can't get out or having me try to help him get it out. (I never thought I'd be so caught up in baby-snot!)

So, my policy is: if the snot is really bothering him (as evidenced by crying and repeated attempts to get it out) I'll "help" him get it out. He does seem relieved once it's out. And if the snot isn't bothering him I'll leave it alone (until he's sleeping or something







).

Anyway, my point is that these threads have really made me take a good look at how to avoid being coercive to my little one. Really, they've helped me validate my own instincts. Coercion doesn't feel good and our babes are so good at reminding us of this!


----------



## proudmamanow (Aug 12, 2003)

(hi kate!!)

Rivka, I want to thank you for starting this thread too...it's excellent food for thought for me with 8 month old dd. I know that I try to minimize needless suffering for her whenever possible...I feel this is my job as her mama and because I love her. But I've been at a loss for things that seem to 'have to' be done. This thread has given me some great ideas for ways to be less coercive, more respectful & more loving of this bright spirit. We too have been 'wrestling' with the best way to clear out her nose (which she HATES) cut her nails (I now do this when she's asleep) and put on her snowsuit. Great to hear ideas and similar thoughts from other maams.


----------



## MommyMine (Oct 31, 2005)

My I ask...and forgive me if I sound dumb...but WHY?

Why raise a child with no coersion at all?

What is the message that you hope to impart? How do you expect this to create the adult you hope they will be? What is the goal?

I don't want to start the "do you have to" debate again but I do think that most of us feel that we are coerced in our jobs, in our lives, in our place in society...sure we make choices but we have negative consequenses (coersion) attacheched to those choices so I wonder...what does raising children in a womb of noncoersion teach them about dealing with what life will bring?

I mean this in all honesty. I don't get it.

I try not to impose my will on my kids "just because" and I too will usually let a dirty diaper lie rather than fight a toddler to change it...but I promis that when the poop starts creaping out I will coerce to get that dirty diaper off







I do however generally think that at every point the thing I need to do is decide if this is the fight I want to take on- is this really worth it? I think a lot of battles parents choose to pick are probobly not worth fighting.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
I actually found non-coercion easier infants than with older kids, FWIW...

I could for sure see that. I pretty much make everything a fun experience for my ds, and it's easy to do so. Babies are just so agreeable, at least mine are. If he starts to make the sad voice while I'm changing him, I can just make this silly suction cup noise and he erupts in laughter. If only everyone were so easily entertained...


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I know it is for me, coming from a VERY punitive upbringing with a mother who has strong opinions on how children are fully capable of intentionally being "bad" and such... [...]

Anyway, sorry to veer off. I just think that when you are raised in a society, or a family that truly believes that children do or don't do things just to be *bad* or where they need to be *controlled* or *know where their place is* or where you are told to *be the parent* (which means, be in control)...-- and especially if those situations have led to trust issues (which I have) -- it is hard to wrap your head around a different perspective where you have to be willing to let go and trust and be willing to feel at ease with not being "in control"

I'm sure that it is quite hard, but I also wonder if that kind of upbringing sensitizes you to the use of potentially coercive tactics in a way that isn't the case for people who had less traumatic childhoods. From seeing your posts in various threads, I get the impression that at a gut level, you can't conceive of how correction, direction, or judgment could ever *not* be deeply harmful, or how they could ever arise from anything other than a belief in the innate badness of children.

My suspicion is that most of the people on this board who disagree with you on that - who believe that *in the context of gentle discipline* there's nothing wrong with certain kinds of correction and judgment - had essentially happy childhoods. For example, I come from such a deep position of trusting my parents and feeling loved by them that I have a very hard time understanding how people make the leap from "Mom told me not to jump on the bed" to "Mom won't love me unless I don't jump on the bed." At an emotional gut level, that feels like a total non-sequitur to me. To other people on this board, that connection is so self-evident that it needs no explaining.

Keeping your childhood experiences in context helps me understand why you react so strongly to any hint of control; it must be like, "YUCK, why would anyone want to make their kid feel like I felt as a kid?" Thinking about it that way helps some of your more strongly-worded posts sound less hostile to me. With time and exposure to other people's points of view, I hope that even if your basic philosophy never changes (and I certainly don't think it has to), you'll be able to get a glimpse of how correction or control might have been neutral or positive forces in someone else's life.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
I'm sure that it is quite hard, but I also wonder if that kind of upbringing sensitizes you to the use of potentially coercive tactics in a way that isn't the case for people who had less traumatic childhoods. From seeing your posts in various threads, I get the impression that at a gut level, you can't conceive of how correction, direction, or judgment could ever *not* be deeply harmful, or how they could ever arise from anything other than a belief in the innate badness of children.

My suspicion is that most of the people on this board who disagree with you on that - who believe that *in the context of gentle discipline* there's nothing wrong with certain kinds of correction and judgment - had essentially happy childhoods. For example, I come from such a deep position of trusting my parents and feeling loved by them that I have a very hard time understanding how people make the leap from "Mom told me not to jump on the bed" to "Mom won't love me unless I don't jump on the bed." At an emotional gut level, that feels like a total non-sequitur to me. To other people on this board, that connection is so self-evident that it needs no explaining.

Keeping your childhood experiences in context helps me understand why you react so strongly to any hint of control; it must be like, "YUCK, why would anyone want to make their kid feel like I felt as a kid?" Thinking about it that way helps some of your more strongly-worded posts sound less hostile to me. With time and exposure to other people's points of view, I hope that even if your basic philosophy never changes (and I certainly don't think it has to), you'll be able to get a glimpse of how correction or control might have been neutral or positive forces in someone else's life.


This is an interesting take on it. I feel like my mother was pretty violently coercive, though, and I still don't feel like I need to reject all coercion. I guess it affects all kids differently, and no one can really understand the circumstances that children grow up in. I think some of the things my mother did would be considered abusive, and had they been witnessed by the appropriate people, even in those days, might have resulted in us being removed. But I guess I did feel loved overall, and while I was glad to grow up and not have to be bossed anymore, I didn't even really feel like it was that detrimental.

I think I could see how you would want to never coerce your kids, and understand the impulse. But I also think that this wouldn't work for most people. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think people have priorities and obligations that make it impractical at best and impossible for the most part. Again, maybe I'm wrong. But from what I've heard, it sounds prohibitively time-consuming. What do you non-coercers think?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyMine*
Why raise a child with no coersion at all?

*Because I choose not to use force to make people do what I want. I choose to honor others with the choice of consent and refusal about their lives and bodies.*

Quote:

What is the message that you hope to impart?
*That one can choose not to use force to make people do what one wants. That one can choose to honor others with the choice of consent and refusal about their lives and bodies.*

Quote:

How do you expect this to create the adult you hope they will be?
*Through respect and modelling, perhaps this same value may be adopted, practiced and shared. I hope that our son is aware that he has the freedom of choice, now, today and everyday of his life, not only as an adult. And that I and others do also.*

Quote:

What is the goal?
*That there is more peace and freedom in the world. And there is.*

Quote:

I don't want to start the "do you have to" debate again but I do think that most of us feel that we are coerced in our jobs, in our lives, in our place in society...sure we make choices but we have negative consequenses (coersion) attacheched to those choices so I wonder...what does raising children in a womb of noncoersion teach them about dealing with what life will bring?
*That we do have a choice in our jobs, in our lives, in our place in society. That we don't "have to" do things we don't want to do. That we have the freedom of choice.*

Quote:

I mean this in all honesty. I don't get it.
*I feel sad to hear this, sincerely.*

Quote:

I try not to impose my will on my kids "just because" and I too will usually let a dirty diaper lie rather than fight a toddler to change it...but I promis that when the poop starts creaping out I will coerce to get that dirty diaper off








*I choose to find a mutually agreeable way to get that dirty diaper off too. The choice of using coercion halts the attempt to find a consensual way.*

Quote:

I do however generally think that at every point the thing I need to do is decide if this is the fight I want to take on- is this really worth it? I think a lot of battles parents choose to pick are probobly not worth fighting.
*I choose not to be in fights and battles with others. I choose to find a peaceful solution to the best of my ability, instead. The more I rely on 'necessity as the mother of invention', the more abled I become at finding another way. And the world has more peace as a whole, and certainly in our home than if I were to choose coercion and force. Freedom is a choice that is available to every parent and child, unless choice is taken away.*

There is an allegory of the bird who lived in a cage but believed that he couldn't live in any other way, but the door to the cage had always been open. However, the bird wasn't aware of it. The bird could always be free, but his beliefs kept him imprisoned.

Pat


----------



## KateSt. (Nov 25, 2003)

scubamama said:


> There is an allegory of the bird who lived in a cage but believed that he couldn't live in any other way, but the door to the cage had always been open. However, the bird wasn't aware of it. The bird could always be free, but his beliefs kept him imprisoned. (QUOTE)
> 
> I believe this wholeheartedly! Dh and I were not 100% satisfied with our jobs, so we started our own business. I was not 100% satisfied with how my pregnancy and upcoming birth were being "handled" so I explored and achieved unassisted childbirth. I'm not 100% satisfied (or even 10% satisfied) with how schools are run, so we're opting to homeschool. Because of all this we live a very nice life --a life in which we feel we have consent. Some people have told me that I live a "charmed life," but I actually take offense to that because it's a life I have worked for based on my beliefs. Anyone (and I really think anyone!) can live a "charmed life" if they don't let certain beliefs keep them imprisoned.
> 
> Our lives, of course, are not always easy. But I feel fortunate to know that I have it in my power to handle the struggles with a change-- whether it be a change in environment, a change of action, or a change in attitude. And that is definitely something I hope to pass on to my son.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I think I could see how you would want to never coerce your kids, and understand the impulse. But I also think that this wouldn't work for most people. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think people have priorities and obligations that make it impractical at best and impossible for the most part. Again, maybe I'm wrong. But from what I've heard, it sounds prohibitively time-consuming. What do you non-coercers think?

I guess that I am an activist and a philosopher at heart. And that I believe the most effective way to change the world is to change how our children are birthed and "parented". (Btw, I don't consider the "parenting" relationship to eliminate our son's freedom of self-determination.) I believe that every individual makes a difference. And that with our thoughts, beliefs, assumptions and actions we change the world. Striving for peace in Real Life seems gloriously worth it as a priority and worthy of placing "obligations" in perspective. I don't believe that expediency necessitates coercion; certainly we are much quicker to find mutually agreeable solutions with practice and intention, than without.

Life is a choice. I strive to choose peace, everyday, in every way. Certainly, I do not feel that I do this perfectly, by a long shot. I don't consider my personal growth time-consuming though. I find the process of my growth of awareness to be the joy (and challenge) of living.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

KateSt. said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *scubamama*
> ...


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

Wow, this thread is amazing. My eyes are wide open and I am both full of regrets and full of possibilities for the future. I am definitely a coercive parent, but I never even thought of that word. I have been struggling for months with trying to figure out ways to get ds to do what I need or want him to do, but I was missing the boat completely. It is totally unimportant what I think ds should do. I am not honoring his decision making capabilities.

Lately, ds has been saying, "Mama/daddy doesn't love me." When we discipline him for something or stop him (usually the case) from doing something that is destructive (our big thing is hitting the dogs or blocking the dogs in the doorway). We try to help him understand that our instructions are in no way connected to our love for him, but that is not getting through.. Now I am thinking that somehow he has gotten the message that our love for him is conditional. I think that it is all because he knows that we are coercive and even though we love him and show him in numerous ways that we do, he still has this feeling of needed to do what we need him to do in order to get love/praise/comfort. I feel like I have really let him down.

For the record, my parents, but especially my father, were and still are incredibly coercive and conditional. Even still, I feel like I am letting my father down. No matter how many times he tells me I love him, I still feel like there is judgement there, ykwim?

So, my question is, how do I start being less coercive with a 3 yr old? How can I change these terrible build up patterns.

thanks mamas.


----------



## ambdkf (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyMine*
I do think that most of us feel that we are coerced in our jobs, in our lives, in our place in society...sure we make choices but we have negative consequenses (coersion) attacheched to those choices so I wonder

I'm so sorry you feel that way!!! I don't feel that way at all and if I did I would start to make some drastic changes. I don't coerce my child because I don't coerce other people either. I don't believe I have the right to force someone/anyone to do something against their will. It's as simple as that for me









Anna


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bionicsquirrel*
Wow, this thread is amazing. My eyes are wide open and I am both full of regrets and full of possibilities for the future. I am definitely a coercive parent, but I never even thought of that word. I have been struggling for months with trying to figure out ways to get ds to do what I need or want him to do, but I was missing the boat completely. It is totally unimportant what I think ds should do. I am not honoring his decision making capabilities.

Well, in my opinion, it is *not* 'totally unimportant' what you think you need. What you need is just as important as what ds needs, just not more so. But what others "should" do is basically beyond our control, unless they consent. Could you provide some specific examples about what you think ds needs to do and how his (non) choices impact you?

Quote:

Lately, ds has been saying, "Mama/daddy doesn't love me." When we discipline him for something or stop him (usually the case) from doing something that is destructive (our big thing is hitting the dogs or blocking the dogs in the doorway). We try to help him understand that our instructions are in no way connected to our love for him, but that is not getting through.. Now I am thinking that somehow he has gotten the message that our love for him is conditional. I think that it is all because he knows that we are coercive and even though we love him and show him in numerous ways that we do, he still has this feeling of needed to do what we need him to do in order to get love/praise/comfort. I feel like I have really let him down.
Perhaps you are communicating love conditionally, I don't know. This can be changed, of course. However, I still would advocate for the dogs safety too. (You might start a thread specifically about this issue, if you are interested in more GD advice on alternative ways to address it.) Sometimes, saying "I love you, *but* yada, yada" could imply that love is a choice and not unconditional love. If you could express the specific ways you try to alter behaviors, perhaps we could help tweak the communication. If anyone's underlying needs are (unintentionally or intentionally) being thwarted or ignored, one could surmise that someone doesn't care for them. (I am not saying you are doing this.) My point is that _your son's perspective_ is the relevant one for him to experience love. There is a book called "The Five Love Languages" which discusses this more proactively too.

What concerns do you have regarding praise or comfort that you think you may have associated with his behaviors?

Quote:

For the record, my parents, but especially my father, were and still are incredibly coercive and conditional. Even still, I feel like I am letting my father down. No matter how many times he tells me I love him, I still feel like there is judgement there, ykwim?
Ah, yes. Trust me. I KNOW. But, I am not dependent upon his judgement anymore. I learned to love and trust myself.

Quote:

So, my question is, how do I start being less coercive with a 3 yr old? How can I change these terrible build up patterns.
I think you may benefit most from your own thread.







Then you can be as specific as you are seeking to learn. The easiest first step, is to say 'Yes, let's figure that out' more, instead of "no". And 'What do you need? Here is what I need. How can we both get what we need?' as a process of seeking mutually agreeable solutions.

Btw, "no" is quicker and easier, in the short run.

Pat


----------



## proudmamanow (Aug 12, 2003)

Quote from Pat: "Life is a choice. I strive to choose peace, everyday, in every way. Certainly, I do not feel that I do this perfectly, by a long shot. I don't consider my personal growth time-consuming though. I find the process of my growth of awareness to be the joy (and challenge) of living."










Pat, are you by any chance a Quaker? I am and I was just wondering b/c what you are talking about here fits a lot for me with my understanding of Quakerism's peace testimony.

regardless, I love reading what you write! I was just curious....


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Umm...no Atheist. Pantheist....Taoist...but not Quaker.

Pat


----------



## proudmamanow (Aug 12, 2003)

: cool, just wondering...

back to our regularly scheduled discussion


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Wow, I am really happy Pat (scubamama) is on this board because it eliminates my need much of the time to type a lot LOL

I agree completely!

I just want to respectfully ask that people refrain from dissecting my childhood or my physche....

It is so easy to say to someone that they are choosing to parent without coercion because of some deep damage in their childhood, and while I feel that my parents did me no favors by creating an environment of control and punishment...my upbringing was not spectacularly different than that of most people I know. Unlike many people though, I am not interested in continuing the cycle of coercion, punishment, manipulation and control that seems to permeate parenting...even if it is done in a "gentle" way.

It just isn't the dynamic I want for the relationship with my child.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I googled and discern that the "Peace Testimony" is a way of life/living, rather than a statement of belief/pronouncement. Is this correct? Could you clarify.

I am a pacifist~almost. I am not perfect.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
It is so easy to say to someone that they are choosing to parent without coercion because of some deep damage in their childhood, and while I feel that my parents did me no favors by creating an environment of control and punishment...my upbringing was not spectacularly different than that of most people I know. Unlike many people though, I am not interested in continuing the cycle of coercion, punishment, manipulation and control that seems to permeate parenting...even if it is done in a "gentle" way.

It just isn't the dynamic I want for the relationship with my child.

I believe that people want to attribute a reason to why one is passionate about something. I certainly am sensitive to coercion because of my upbringing. But, I know many adults who grew up with significantly less coercive childhoods who consciously choose non-coercion too. The choice to live consensually is an active choice.

I certainly don't want to replicate (for me or our son), my relationship with my parents. I am breaking the cycle of non-consensually relating too. There is another way to be in relationship with people. I am learning to live with mutual respect. It certainly is preferable for everyone, imnsho.

Pat


----------



## proudmamanow (Aug 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I googled and discern that the "Peace Testimony" is a way of life/living, rather than a statement of belief/pronouncement. Is this correct? Could you clarify.

Pat--I would say that the peace testimony is both a belief and a way of life. In Quakerism these are inseparable...you can't believe something and not act on it, otherwise your belief is completely meaningless. Likewise the way that you act will reflect your beliefs.

More practically, for Quakers, this means that you are striving for peace in ALL relationships...in your family, your community, your country and the world. So if you're a peace activist but have a terrible conflictual personal life, then your peace activism is worth very little, kwim? But also your peaceful home should then spur you into broader action trying to create peace in your community etc., or else it too is worth v. little.

(this is all as I understand it, I've only been a Quaker for 5 years







which is not a long time in Quaker terms--and Quakers aren't big on having definitie pronouncements on anything!)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I am a pacifist~almost. I am not perfect.









I hear you on that one!


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Thank you for sharing. I am intrigued.

Pat


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
For example, I come from such a deep position of trusting my parents and feeling loved by them that I have a very hard time understanding how people make the leap from "Mom told me not to jump on the bed" to "Mom won't love me unless I don't jump on the bed." At an emotional gut level, that feels like a total non-sequitur to me. To other people on this board, that connection is so self-evident that it needs no explaining.

Maybe I don't quite understand what you are saying here. The difference between a noncoercive household and a coercive one would be in how they handled the issue of jumping on the bed. I don't think anyone would say "mom told me not to jump on the bed" = "Mom won't love me unless I don't jump on the bed." A noncoercive parent would give the child the reasons they think it's not a good idea to jump on the bed, and then try to find a mutally agreeable solution, like finding something else that's fun to jump on. Or maybe they would re-think and decide jumping on the bed is not really a bad idea. A coercive parent might, for example, put their child in a time out for jumping on the bed. To my understanding, The non-coercive parent does not necessarily think that it is damaging to request something of your child. The damage comes from forcing the child to comply with your request.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

OP, I forgot to add that with dirty diapers, ds doesn't mind gettinng diapers taken OFF. He just sometimes prefers to not have pants put back ON. So, if he doesn't want pants put back on right then, he goes pants-less. I kinda think that making "taking pants off" separate from "putting pants on" helps. Sometimes if he's not wanting to get his diaper changed, I'll tell him that I want to take it off, but we don't have to put one back on, and he's more agreeable to that. Just another thought there.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommyMine*
My I ask...and forgive me if I sound dumb...but WHY?

Why raise a child with no coersion at all?

What is the message that you hope to impart? How do you expect this to create the adult you hope they will be? What is the goal?

I don't want to start the "do you have to" debate again but I do think that most of us feel that we are coerced in our jobs, in our lives, in our place in society...sure we make choices but we have negative consequenses (coersion) attacheched to those choices so I wonder...*what does raising children in a womb of noncoersion teach them about dealing with what life will bring?*

I mean this in all honesty. I don't get it.

I try not to impose my will on my kids "just because" and I too will usually let a dirty diaper lie rather than fight a toddler to change it...but I promis that when the poop starts creaping out I will coerce to get that dirty diaper off







I do however generally think that at every point the thing I need to do is decide if this is the fight I want to take on- is this really worth it? I think a lot of battles parents choose to pick are probobly not worth fighting.

I don't know if its ok for me to answer this, seeing as how I'm not non-coercive, BUT I'm not going to raise my child based on what's happening in the outside world. I don't think he needs to be coerced (or punished) to "get him ready" for what will (might?) happen outside of my home. Imo, he WILL be ready for that stuff BECAUSE I treated with unconditional love and respect for his wishes. (mind you, I'm not non-coercive, but the "real world" argument isn't one of the reasons why- though I'm heading towards non-coerciveness more and more). He'll be able to deal with the crap that society puts out, because of how he's being raised.
I kinda see the "real world" argument for coersion (or punishment or arbitrary limits, because I see those a lot too) to make as much sense as getting an animal specifically so it can die, so dc can be exposed to prepare him for when someone close him him dies. Or wanting him to be around cigarette smoke now, so he'll be prepared for situations when he'll be in cigarette smoke in the future.

I've also been thinking recently, that I HATE the term "pick your battles". (not in response to you- just in general) It just seems soooo adversarial. It seems to say that every time my dc and I disagree, I either have to choose to let him get his way, or for me to get my way (again, not saying you do think like that). It totally ignores the fact that there are a ton of solutions that can be acceptable to both of us. And more importantly (imo) it ignores the fact that kids are social creatures, and that, given a chance, much of the time, they would be quite happy to go along with a mutually agreeable idea, rather than have "their way". I even find that much of the time, ds will stop doing something he's doing, if I give him a reason that I don't want him to. Even if I don't necessarily redirect him to something more fun.


----------



## Wugmama (Feb 10, 2005)

I can't say I am non-coercive, but I think I am seldom coercive. I've made a lot of changes since reading some of the stuff on this board and reading the "How to talk..." book over the last several months. I think my relationship with my dd has never been better.

I have to say it was much easier than I thought to take some of what I've learned from Pat, CC and others, as well as the book, and incorporate it. It seems once a particular situation arises a couple of times and I am able to handle it in a non-coercive manner, it just starts to come naturally.

I'm definitely not all the way there, don't know if I will ever be, but I think my dd and I have a great relationship. She is almost 4 so can communicate better than some of the younger ones being discussed here. I have a new baby coming in January and really liked the exampes given about nc parenting with a baby.

I like to use the "Give information" tactic with my dd. For example, she likes to run, sometimes she will run while wearing dress shoes and I worry that she will fall. Instead of telling her she cannot run, I tell her, "You are wearing shoes that can be slippery. If you run, you may fall and hurt yourself". Sometimes she will walk. Sometimes she will run and not fall. Sometimes she will run and fall. If she runs and falls, I am genuinely sad for her if she did get hurt, and I comfort her and tell her I'm sorry she got hurt. I don't get mad. I recognize that for her, the sheer joy of running was worth the risk of falling and getting hurt - her choice. (Usually she wears tennis shoes anyways). Just one example, but again, I am amazed at how we keep finding more non-coercive ways of dealing with more and more everyday things, and it really is great.

Also, I, and now my husband too, are just floored by how often little ones can come up with a good solution that can work for everyone if you JUST ASK THEM WHAT THEY THINK! They deserve to give their input too, and often times it is actually good input!









~Tracy


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Tracy, I have missed hearing your voice and questions recently. I see that you are implementing with satisfaction. I am delighted. Your post has made my day.









Pat


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

well I thought I knew everything









j/k...I have learned so much from this thread and I am discovering that I really am striving for and want to be non-coercive but this thread is giving me some tools...words to use...keep it coming!








:


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

You know, the thing I have learned about non-coersive parenting after nearly 5 years (and 3 kids) on the job is that it is not my place as the "adult" to force my will on the child because I am bigger and older and know more, etc. What IS my job is to see the likely problems and work to solve them BEFORE they happen. I know my children will need certain things, and I know what they like and don't like and I know what will lead to conflict. As the older, more experienced partner in this relationship I can see the possible trouble spots just based on my past experience. That means it is my responsibility to work to avoid these things before they happen.

For example, I *know* my dd will need a diaper change. I *know* she often hates to lay down and have it done. But I also *know* that if I don't do it quickly she will end up with a horrible, painful diaper rash that will cause her much discomfort (she has sensitive skin). What can *I* do to make this work for both of us? What works for us is for me to be prepared so I can be quick about it (accessable clothes, all suppies ready), a good source of distraction (toys, cream tubes, other fun stuff) ready at a moments notice, and I good, humourous attitude. She is much more willing to lay down for a diaper change if I also make it a time for feet tickling, belly blowing, peek-a-boo, and silly faces. She is happy because we are having fun together (which I enjoy too). I am happy because I get to change the diaper quickly which saves her tender bottom from sore red rashes (which makes her happy too). We both enjoy these interactions even she hates diaper changes and I end up covered in poop









I have always approached challenges with all 3 of my kids this way. Make it a fun, positive experience for both (or all) of us and we all feel positive about our interactions. I don't always succeed. 3 kids 4 and under (one with special needs) make me less than successful some days. Thankfully they know I try my best so they cut me some slack


----------



## QDB (Aug 14, 2003)

Just wanted to pipe in and say thanks for this thread.

I have been in a slump with my ds lately and need some education in this area.

I think living close to my family now is somewhat of a bad influence too - very coercive and bribing etc

oy!

anyway - i have put several books on hold and will be reading this thread and forum with interest.
thanks!


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I happened upon this old post and thought I'd bump it.

Pat


----------



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

: I'm so glad you did, Pat!

I never saw this and there is so much wonderful info here! And Capt. Crunchy!!! Who I never "see" anymore.







:


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 







: I'm so glad you did, Pat!

I never saw this and there is so much wonderful info here! And Capt. Crunchy!!! Who I never "see" anymore.







:

Capt. Crunchy shares her wisdom at "Wise Ways of Women", prolifically.









Pat


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
The easiest first step, is to say 'Yes, let's figure that out' more, instead of "no". And 'What do you need? Here is what I need. How can we both get what we need?' as a process of seeking mutually agreeable solutions.

What great, simple advice. Thanks for the reminder!!


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Well I had a big ole long reply typed and the internet demons seem to have eaten it....

I just wanted to say:









Wow you women ROCK!

I am so not at this level yet but I think I am aspiring to be. I basically have had the attitude of being a benevolent dictator (yes I sympathisize with why you don't want to do X but you have to do it anyway LOL)

I guess my biggest questions are
1 - how do you do all of this and actually manage to get out the door in the morning with more than one kid? It just seems like negotiating between all the competing interests would take forever! For example, what if DS has refused to nap all morning but now it's time for DD's swim lesson but he's refusing to get in the car? If DS is 11 months old and nonverbal I can't have a conversation with him to explain how important it is to his sister to go to her lesson....how do you handle things like that?

2 - how does this work with a SN kid? My DD is behind in expressive/receptive speech and often can't follow the logic of any sort of explanation. In fact sometimes she gets wigged out when I'm actually doing what she requested - but I'm just not doing it in the order that she wants or some detail was left undone to her satisfaction or there is some detail I overlooked but she can't express what it is that is freaking her out...gaah!

I guess I just thought all this stuff worked well with verbal kids but not with infants - so you've totally opened my mind about this...I just need to learn more!

peace,
robyn


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hippymomma69* 
It just seems like negotiating between all the competing interests would take forever! For example, what if DS has refused to nap all morning but now it's time for DD's swim lesson but he's refusing to get in the car?

This is a great question. I think non-coersion is wonderful & I try to incorporate choice & peacefulness as much as possible into our lives, but there have been a few occasions when I have resorted to physically moving DD (gently, yet obviously using my strenth/size over hers), when after several opportunities to make a choice or come to a mutually agreeable solution, she still refuses to move...

For one example, we were exiting a restaurant. I had DS already in his carseat, leftovers & my purse in my other hand, and DD beside me. At the doorway, she decided to stop moving through. There was a man with a big box of food he had just picked up, with his son. They were waiting behind her to get out. I apprised her of the situation: people are trying to get through, and you're blocking the door. I gave her some options - do you want to hold my keys, maybe you can step to the side for a moment to let the folks through. Finally, I said "you have to step out of the doorway now to let people through - they are waiting & need to get to their car too". When she continued to stand still in the doorway (it had now been about 2 very long minutes), I told the gentleman to go ahead & walk by her, and I scooted her to the side (as I said, gently as I could with her being very resisitant, yet obviously using my bigger size). I told her before I moved her that I was going to move her, in a last hope that she'd make the choice on her own. I always do this before resorting to moving her (i.e. if she refuses for several minutes to get in/out of her carseat, and her baby brother is alredy in &/or screaming in his seat), so she KNOWS I will be physically moving her if she doesn't do so herself, but I don't LIKE phsyically moving her nor do I like giving the ultimatum, but certain situations develop where I don't know what else to do.

So, particularly when there are other people involved, or an element of danger or something else requiring a speedy conclusion, what suggestions can you give to resolve these situations with less coersion?

Thanks!


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ks Mama* 
T For one example, we were exiting a restaurant. I had DS already in his carseat, leftovers & my purse in my other hand, and DD beside me. At the doorway, she decided to stop moving through. There was a man with a big box of food he had just picked up, with his son. They were waiting behind her to get out. I apprised her of the situation: people are trying to get through, and you're blocking the door. I gave her some options - do you want to hold my keys, maybe you can step to the side for a moment to let the folks through. Finally, I said "you have to step out of the doorway now to let people through - they are waiting & need to get to their car too". When she continued to stand still in the doorway (it had now been about 2 very long minutes), I told the gentleman to go ahead & walk by her, and I scooted her to the side (as I said, gently as I could with her being very resisitant, yet obviously using my bigger size). I told her before I moved her that I was going to move her, in a last hope that she'd make the choice on her own. I always do this before resorting to moving her (i.e. if she refuses for several minutes to get in/out of her carseat, and her baby brother is alredy in &/or screaming in his seat), so she KNOWS I will be physically moving her if she doesn't do so herself, but I don't LIKE phsyically moving her nor do I like giving the ultimatum, but certain situations develop where I don't know what else to do.

Was waiting all that time in the doorway _mutually agreeable_ to the man holding the big box of food (and his son)?

I guess I don't understand this thread at ALL, because I don't see what would be the big deal in saying right from the get go "okay honey, let's scoot to the side so this man with the heavy box can get by" and if she doesn't respond, then gently scooting her over.

I would definitely ask her to move first, of course... but if she doesn't, then blocking people in a doorway for a long two minutes seems really inconsiderate. Where's the win here? Maybe you didn't coerce your CHILD, but you certainly forced the man and his son to do your bidding. Is it okay to never coerce at the price of everybody else in the world's time?

I don't see this as a positive message to pass along, that doing things your way trumps the needs of others.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

hippymomma69,

I can appreciate how it seems like this wouldn't work in a household full of kids with various needs, and it doesn't always work perfectly (nothing does when you are dealing with REAL people and REAL situations). But I have found in general when you put consensual living into practice-all the time, every day- it really just changes your interactions with your family. You respond to them differently and they respond to you differently.

For example, lets say my dh wants to watch a movie that I don't particularly enjoy, if he were to just say, "I want to watch this tonight, I have been looking forward to it and am very excited to see it. I plan to watch it with you". How do I react? Well, I might be annoyed that he just assumes I want to spend MY evening doing something he enjoys and I don't. I might feel like I should actually have a CHOICE in the matter. I might watch the movie with him, but I probably would feel a little resentful. His words and attitude make me feel like I don't really have a choice.

What if he were to say, "I want to watch this movie tonight, would you like to watch it with me?" I might say, "I don't really like that kind of movie, is there something else we could watch?". Maybe he would say, "Well, I have really been looking forward to THIS one...". I would see that it meant a lot to him and we would probably get snacks and it would be an enjoyable time.

Either way we would watch the movie. He would get what he wants. In one scenario I feel like I am COMPROMISING to make him happy, in the other I choose to watch it and enjoy the time with my partner regardless of the movie. Maybe not the clearest example, but the difference in the attitude he brings makes all the difference.

Can't work with kids? Why not? If you work as a partnership or a team you bring a different attitude to the situation. It makes you more willing (and creative) when finding solutions and it makes them more willing to work with you. It sets up a positive pattern instead of an expectation of power struggles. Often when I child feels coersed into something they will be more resistant to "bend" to another person's needs the next time. This sets up an expectation of power struggles.

And in case you think I am just a crazy idealist I will tell you, I have 3 kids age 6, 3, and 2 (with baby #4 about to appear). My eldest is ASD, my middle is a super high energy, can't sit still, bundle of energy, and my youngest has a severe communication delay. It doesn't always go smoothly (we are all human after all), but it does go well most of the time. They are willing to cooperate with me and I am willing to cooperate with them. Most of the time we are willing to work so that everyone's needs are known and everyone's needs get met.

The biggest misconception is that we spend all day negotiating things. That doesn't happen. Occasionally someone doesn't want to go somewhere (usually my oldest) that we need to go, but I may gently suggest he bring a book so that he isn't bored. If he feels his needs are getting met he will happily pick out a book (or other activity) and come along. The key is that it isn't a power struggle (we don't have many of those) so there is no 'I win you lose' mentality. Just a 'how can we all enjoy this' mindset.

Sorry for the novel


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

thanks for your response! I guess I still have a long way to go to get into the right mindset for this....I'll keep reading and rethinking what I'm doing to see if I can get closer to this way of being with the family....

it's good to hear that someone with multiple kids and kids with SN can do well with this approach!

peace,
robyn


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

I got to age 17 with my oldest before I imposed a 'punishment' . It had to do with the car, and the consequence was a whopper. He had to take the bus to school for 6 weeks. My 15 and 8 yr olds are a breeze and have never had 'consequences'. They are naturally easy-going as is their older brother. i do have a 13 yr old who is a greater challenge, and I once gave him a time out in his room when he was 7. He's lucky I didn't boot him out the door. He still rememberrs that.

I would call myself 'less coercive'.







I think it's easy to beleive that people who are CL or TCS always do the right thing, but it's impossible to not make a mistake here and there. Even if we don't discuss our mistakes in the thread, mistakes happen.

I don't call myself TCS or CL simply because I will not wait an hour until an 18 mos old is ready to get strapped in the carseat. I offer the lolli or the toy and make it as pleasant as possible for the child and then I'm done.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hippymomma69* 
I guess my biggest questions are
1 - how do you do all of this and actually manage to get out the door in the morning with more than one kid? It just seems like negotiating between all the competing interests would take forever! For example, what if DS has refused to nap all morning but now it's time for DD's swim lesson but he's refusing to get in the car? If DS is 11 months old and nonverbal I can't have a conversation with him to explain how important it is to his sister to go to her lesson....how do you handle things like that?

I do tend to have that conversation--even though it's pretty one-sided.







We just try to find a way that makes going to the swim lesson (or wherever) more enjoyable. Like bringing along a fun toy, picking the movie for the car ride, being able to play in the pool also, or some other thing that makes the outing agreeable.

And sometimes it is, "Hey, your brother went along yesterday with you to your thing, so let's give him the same curtesy today, huh?"

It's pretty rare that we run into some big conflicting needs "stand-off." Just b/c as they get older they start to understand that we are all on the same team and there is always give and take by everyone.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hippymomma69* 
2 - how does this work with a SN kid? My DD is behind in expressive/receptive speech and often can't follow the logic of any sort of explanation. In fact sometimes she gets wigged out when I'm actually doing what she requested - but I'm just not doing it in the order that she wants or some detail was left undone to her satisfaction or there is some detail I overlooked but she can't express what it is that is freaking her out...gaah!

With non-verbal kids I just tend to ask "yes" and "no" questions a lot. "Is this OK?" "Is this what you want?" "YOU want to do it?" "Can I help?" And move from there.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ks Mama* 
For one example, we were exiting a restaurant. I had DS already in his carseat, leftovers & my purse in my other hand, and DD beside me. At the doorway, she decided to stop moving through. There was a man with a big box of food he had just picked up, with his son. They were waiting behind her to get out. I apprised her of the situation: people are trying to get through, and you're blocking the door. I gave her some options - do you want to hold my keys, maybe you can step to the side for a moment to let the folks through. Finally, I said "you have to step out of the doorway now to let people through - they are waiting & need to get to their car too". When she continued to stand still in the doorway (it had now been about 2 very long minutes), I told the gentleman to go ahead & walk by her, and I scooted her to the side (as I said, gently as I could with her being very resisitant, yet obviously using my bigger size).

I would do what you did also, but I would not hold someone else up for 2 minutes. I would move the child, model excusing oneself to another person, and then explain about getting out of people's way and probably call up a situation where someone was blocking him at the playground or something and talk about how it made him feel and that that's how other people feel when we're blocking them--even if we don't MEAN to make them feel that way.

I pretty much assume that they don't want to do the impolite social thing and just treat it as such. Like, how I would, "Psst...that's the SALAD fork," to a friend or my husband in a formal dining situation where they grabbed the wrong one. It's all about helping them navigate a new situation or social mores that are new to them. And I think b/c the VAST majority of the time they are given autonomy and respect for their body and decisions--and they truly believe that we are committed to working as a team--the times where these situations arise are just a non-issue. They know that I'm looking out for their interests so that other people don't perceive them as rude or they're not doing something socially "wrong."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FreeRangeMama* 
The key is that it isn't a power struggle (we don't have many of those) so there is no 'I win you lose' mentality. Just a 'how can we all enjoy this' mindset.

Yes! This is key!


----------



## Mom2Joseph (May 31, 2006)

I was so on this path until my DD came along. DS has been violent with her and I have found no other option than to physically remove him because she has a right to not be violated every time he feels like it. How do you handle that? I really can see most other things being handled, giving choices, redirection, etc....but how do you handle violence?

I'm reading more to figure out how to do this with two kids because I can't quite seem to catch up.

Is The Continum Concept and UP the books to read for this type of parenting?


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Was waiting all that time in the doorway _mutually agreeable_ to the man holding the big box of food (and his son)?

I guess I don't understand this thread at ALL, because I don't see what would be the big deal in saying right from the get go "okay honey, let's scoot to the side so this man with the heavy box can get by" and if she doesn't respond, then gently scooting her over.

I would definitely ask her to move first, of course... but if she doesn't, then blocking people in a doorway for a long two minutes seems really inconsiderate. Where's the win here? Maybe you didn't coerce your CHILD, but you certainly forced the man and his son to do your bidding. Is it okay to never coerce at the price of everybody else in the world's time?

I don't see this as a positive message to pass along, that doing things your way trumps the needs of others.

I think maybe you didn't understand my post. What you describe is just what I DID. I asked her to move, described the situation, and when I realized that she wasn't going to move, I moved her. The man really wasn't irritated, yes obviously he would like to get by the 2 year old in the doorway at some point, but I do have an awareness of when something becomes socially awkward, and also an awareness of when my daughter is deciding not to do something, which would mean I would have to put my son & bags down, and physically move my daughter.

I was posting a question on how better to have handled the situation so that I wouldn't have HAD to move her. I was hoping that a mother who practiced non-coercive parenting could share how she would have dealt with the situation differently.

Edited to add: I guess the key sticking point here is the 2 minute wait. Perhaps I exaggerated the wait time as my son was fussing, I was anxious about him being in his carseat already, and didn't want to get into a power struggle with my daughter. It may have only been a minute. The point being that when I stepped in to move her, it had just gotten to the point of feeling awkward, yet the man was still smiling. And the thing is too, he could have stepped by her at any point in time - the doorway was wide enough - he likely just felt rude about having to walk by her, having a child himself, he obviously understood what was going on - I told him to go ahead around her. I just really didn't want to have to physically move her. I don't like doing it, and it never turns out well - because she's obviously required to acquiese to whatever it is I'm asking - whether it is the right thing or not - and it takes power away from her. I don't like power being taken from me, so I don't like doing it to her.

Just doing something because you CAN doesn't make it the right thing to do or the right way to do it.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ks Mama* 

I was posting a question on how better to have handled the situation so that I wouldn't have HAD to move her. I was hoping that a mother who practiced non-coercive parenting could share how she would have dealt with the situation differently.

I would move *TOWARD* something of mutual agreement: perhaps suggest singing a song while hopping toward the car, going home to see Daddy, moving toward a snack or lunch if hungry, suggest that she spin three times and then piggyback ride toward the car, etc.

Pat


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ks Mama* 
I think maybe you didn't understand my post. What you describe is just what I DID. I asked her to move, described the situation, and when I realized that she wasn't going to move, I moved her. The man really wasn't irritated, yes obviously he would like to get by the 2 year old in the doorway at some point, but I do have an awareness of when something becomes socially awkward, and also an awareness of when my daughter is deciding not to do something, which would mean I would have to put my son & bags down, and physically move my daughter.

I was posting a question on how better to have handled the situation so that I wouldn't have HAD to move her. I was hoping that a mother who practiced non-coercive parenting could share how she would have dealt with the situation differently.

What I understood from your post was that you were perfectly okay with letting other people wait a ridiculously long time to get through a doorway because you weren't comfortable getting your daughter out of their way in a timely manner.

You reinforced my impression by saying above that the man wasn't annoyed. How do you know that? He could merely have been being polite. People have places to go and things to do, and it's just not right to inconvenience them like that. Especially when they are carrying things and managing children of their own.

I'm sure that my post will garner plenty of responses indicating that the world needs to sit back and wonder at the whimsy of a child in a doorway, instead of hustling and bustling to and fro. But frankly, that's not on most folks' agenda, and it shouldn't have to be. Holding up for twenty seconds while a woman gives her daughter a chance to move on her own? Sure. But sitting there for "two long minutes" isn't reasonable.

I just don't see the value in so-called non-coercive parenting if it comes at the expense of everybody else's needs.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

I'm sure that my post will garner plenty of responses indicating that the world needs to sit back and wonder at the whimsy of a child in a doorway, instead of hustling and bustling to and fro. But frankly, that's not on most folks' agenda, and it shouldn't have to be. Holding up for twenty seconds while a woman gives her daughter a chance to move on her own? Sure. But sitting there for "two long minutes" isn't reasonable.

I just don't see the value in so-called non-coercive parenting if it comes at the expense of everybody else's needs.
I think you are reading a lot into her post that simply isn't there. I am pretty sure she didn't have a stopwatch to time exactly how long she was in the doorway, but dealing with a fussing baby in an awkward situation can feel like 2 long minutes even if it is only 20 seconds









And who is expecting the world to sit back and wonder at the whimsy of a child? Might be nice, but not very realistic.

If you don't see the value of it then why are you here? Just to criticize, or to ask honest questions? I can understand the latter, questioning things is great. Asking questions is a lot more helpful than just being critical


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ks Mama* 

Edited to add: I guess the key sticking point here is the 2 minute wait. Perhaps I exaggerated the wait time as my son was fussing, I was anxious about him being in his carseat already, and didn't want to get into a power struggle with my daughter. It may have only been a minute. The point being that when I stepped in to move her, it had just gotten to the point of feeling awkward, yet the man was still smiling. And the thing is too, he could have stepped by her at any point in time - the doorway was wide enough - he likely just felt rude about having to walk by her, having a child himself, he obviously understood what was going on - I told him to go ahead around her. I just really didn't want to have to physically move her. I don't like doing it, and it never turns out well - because she's obviously required to acquiese to whatever it is I'm asking - whether it is the right thing or not - and it takes power away from her. I don't like power being taken from me, so I don't like doing it to her.

Just doing something because you CAN doesn't make it the right thing to do or the right way to do it.

ok, fine, I understand your POV a little better now.

still, I don't see the big deal.

Just the other day, we were at a social event. DH was busy talking and didn't notice a server coming up behind him bearing a big tray. The server needed to get by, but DH was oblivious. I reached over and tugged on his arm, said "let her by, ok?", and gently pulled him out of the server's way.

No harm done. No big deal. Nobody was scarred for life.

I suppose I could have sat there and brainstormed other ways of getting him to move, but what would have been the point? It would have taken longer and surely would have frustrated at least one of the three people in the equation (me, DH, server).

Yeah, maybe I *coerced* him into moving. So what?

I would do the EXACT same thing with my two year old daughter, and I fail to see why it would be more appropriate to go through a series of negotiation or other verbal gymnastics to get her to move.

I understand the concept of not being coercive with children, but situations like this just feel like extreme over-thinking of one's parenting. Sometimes you just gotta get out of the way, you know?


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FreeRangeMama* 

If you don't see the value of it then why are you here? Just to criticize, or to ask honest questions? I can understand the latter, questioning things is great. Asking questions is a lot more helpful than just being critical









I actually do see the value of non-coercive parenting. It's a concept I learned from MDC, and I try to practice it as much as makes _logical sense_ to me. I like reading these threads and getting new ideas that I think will work for my family.

But I truly, honestly do not understand the lengths at which some parents will go to avoid ever having to flat out say "no, don't do that" to their children, even if it means their children are now inconveniencing others. I don't get THAT one bit, and I can't wrap my brain around it.


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

>>Just the other day, we were at a social event. DH was busy talking and didn't notice a server coming up behind him bearing a big tray. The server needed to get by, but DH was oblivious. I reached over and tugged on his arm, said "let her by, ok?", and gently pulled him out of the server's way.

No harm done. No big deal. Nobody was scarred for life. <<

Your husband understands what was going on from years of experience of people's reactions, social awareness, etc. A 2-year old doesn't know those things yet, heck, she has only been walking for a year & a half, and talking for a year (to put things in perspective), so just moving her without allowing her to understand the situation first & at least offer the choice to move first, before I just exert myself on her isn't giving her the opportunity to grow. Sure it won't scar her for life, but there's no reason NOT to give her the benefit of the doubt.

>>I suppose I could have sat there and brainstormed other ways of getting him to move, but what would have been the point? It would have taken longer and surely would have frustrated at least one of the three people in the equation (me, DH, server).

Yeah, maybe I *coerced* him into moving. So what?<<

But again, its your adult husband. He has the ability, without you explaining during or afterwards, to understand the situation.

>>I would do the EXACT same thing with my two year old daughter, and I fail to see why it would be more appropriate to go through a series of negotiation or other verbal gymnastics to get her to move.<<

Because its fair, and it teaches her that she has equal value to the people around her, and empowers her to be able to make the right choice.

And maybe you have a daughter who doesn't have a problem with being pushed out of the way. My daughter DOES have a problem with that - she would & does physically resist, and it wasn't something I could easily do with bags & another child, so I was trying to avoid that situation with giving my daughter the chance to move under her own power. Have I physically moved my 2 year old while holding my 2 month old & my bags while she strongly resists? Yes, I have, and its not a situation that I like to repeat if she can figure out a way to move on her own.

>>I understand the concept of not being coercive with children, but situations like this just feel like extreme over-thinking of one's parenting. Sometimes you just gotta get out of the way, you know?<<

Yeah, I do know. Because really, the reason I posted in the first place was because I realize & understand that sometimes there ARE times when you need to get moving, and there ARE other people involved, and you have to move. And in reading some of the other responses, perhaps I should have been more creative than "would you like to hold my keys" in making the moving out of the doorway (or out of wherever it is we have to move from) choice more interesting. So maybe I brought the power struggle on myself, and could have handled it better. I probably need to work on my creativity & interesting ways to get my toddler out of the way. But just moving her because I know she needs to move, without giving her the chance, isn't the way I operate.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
I actually do see the value of non-coercive parenting. It's a concept I learned from MDC, and I try to practice it as much as makes _logical sense_ to me. I like reading these threads and getting new ideas that I think will work for my family.

But I truly, honestly do not understand the lengths at which some parents will go to avoid ever having to flat out say "no, don't do that" to their children, even if it means their children are now inconveniencing others. I don't get THAT one bit, and I can't wrap my brain around it.

I have to agree with this. I so badly want my daughter to grow up knowing she has freedom of choice, and to know that she is in control of her life, but I question the lengths I have to go to send her that message. Letting poop leak out of her diaper because she doesn't _want_ to be changed? I'm not willing to go that far. It's a matter of hygiene in my opinion, and since a 16 month old is too young to make decisions for her own health and safety I have to do it for her, and that means changing a diaper when she doesn't _want_ to be changed. Do I make it fun an enjoyable by playing games and singing songs? Absolutely. Will I let a pee pee diaper wait longer because she's wiggly? Absolutely. I don't hog tie her to change table. But I just cannot understand for the life of me how allowing feces to leak all over one's house is going to instill freedom of choice in their child.







:

Do those who believe in non-coercion also believe that children are capable of reasoning in the same manner as adults? I don't know how else to think of it, but as much as I respect my child and try to accommodate her wants and needs as much as possible, there are just some things that she, as a 15 month old, is not capable of discerning as safe or appropriate, and by golly, if "coercion" is the word you wanna use, then I guess I'm a coercive parent.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

Do those who believe in non-coercion also believe that children are capable of reasoning in the same manner as adults?
Which adults? Bush? Hussein? Paris Hilton? Tom Cruise? Evil Knievel? The American Medical Association? The OBs? The CDC? The FDA? The Big Pharmaceutical companies? The Oil Companies?

My goal is creating *mutually agreeable solutions*, rather than non-coercion. The focus is on negotiation and consideration. That is what I DO want to model and practice.

Pat


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Which adults? Bush? Hussein? Paris Hilton? Tom Cruise? Evil Knievel? The American Medical Association? The OBs? The CDC? The FDA? The Big Pharmaceutical companies? The Oil Companies?

I'm assuming this is some sort of sarcasm, but I'm sorry, I don't understand it.







I was asking a genuine question and don't understand the snark. What does Bush and Saddam Hussein have to do with my question?









To make my question more understandable, as I obviously was not clear enough, let's go back to the 2 year old in the door way...

So, if your two year old is blocking the door way and holding people up because she doesn't understand it's socially unacceptable to be in people's way when there is only one exit, instead of just clearing the child from the door way to begin with, why would you go to great lengths in getting the child to move under her own power if you didn't think she was capable of reasoning like that of a person who is socially aware (aka, an adult)? At 2 years old she doesn't know that it's impolite to block the only exit while people stand there patiently holding their goods. What do you do? It would seem to me that by not intervening in an attempt to encourage the child to move on their own will is imposing adult reasoning and social awareness onto a child who is incapable of understanding that what they're doing is impolite and inconvenient to other people.

I just think that "mutually agreeable" has so many variations and interpretations that in my world it WOULD be mutually agreeable to scoop my child up while telling her that we need to keep the door ways clear.

What does a non-coercive parent do when their child is obstructing the general public? Or is about to engage in a dangerous activity? I find it hard to believe that life will _always_ be mutually agreeable with a child when they simply don't know right from wrong, safe from dangerous, socially acceptable from unacceptable, etc.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just don't get it.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ks mama*
Your husband understands what was going on from years of experience of people's reactions, social awareness, etc. A 2-year old doesn't know those things yet...


Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60*
Do those who believe in non-coercion also believe that children are capable of reasoning in the same manner as adults? I don't know how else to think of it, but as much as I respect my child and try to accommodate her wants and needs as much as possible, there are just some things that she, as a 15 month old, is not capable of discerning as safe or appropriate, and by golly, if "coercion" is the word you wanna use, then I guess I'm a coercive parent.









I can never reconcile those two things in my mind either, No60. On one hand, you have people saying that the kids don't have the experiences, cognitive ability, etc. of adults and therefore shouldn't be expected to react to situations the way an adult would, but on the other hand, it seems like the same people are saying that we should treat our kids exactly the way we'd treat another adult, by always respecting their desires as valid options in a given scenario. But ... if they shouldn't be expected to reason the way an adult does, then why should we interact with them as though they're fully on our level?

I dunno -- I accepted long ago that I'll never fully understand this concept, and decided that I'm comfortable and happy with my parenting style, which includes some level of coercion.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Which adults? Bush? Hussein? Paris Hilton? Tom Cruise? Evil Knievel? The American Medical Association? The OBs? The CDC? The FDA? The Big Pharmaceutical companies? The Oil Companies?

Pat you are so funny LOL

So here's a new question....what about when you have a very stubborn 3 yo who likes to control a few key people (oh, say.....mommy!)? How do you come to a solution that makes us both happy?

A specific example is, sometimes I like to sing to myself or to the baby and my DD can't STAND it if I'm not singing something "approved" by her. How do I teach her about where her desires end and mine begin? I mean I could just give in because it's less important to me to sing than her to scream. Or I can sing over her screaming....but a logical discussion is NOT helping my low verbal child understand that other people have a right to sing if they want to....she only seems to get that either she or I will "get our way" in this one....how do I power down the standoff?

Any suggestions?!

tia
peace,
robyn


----------



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

I think when people are throwing out phrases like, "scarred for life," or "will go to any lengths," there's kind of a misunderstanding.

I don't think most of us think that one episode of changing diaper against a child's will or moving them out of the way is going to do some serious long term damage. And I don't think any of us are standing there wringing our hands in distress at how to avoid that.

But there is an overall goal to approach things in a way so that those episodes (which most parents wouldn't even consider to be problematic) don't happen day in and day out over weeks, months, years.

But, sometimes there are stumpers, you know? And that's what I got from the mama with the kid in the doorway's post. Just, "Here's a situation that I didn't have a quick solution to and wondering if I missed something obvious."


----------



## verde (Feb 11, 2007)

I agree with you limabean and North of 60: I don't understand how one can necessarily "reason" with a toddler when the ability to reason comes from experience and toddlers simply don't have that experience. It's been my experience that toddlers often do things for no particular reason except to do it and that can include destructive things. Taking time for a "mutually agreeable solutions" can work in many and maybe even in most cases but not in all cases. If my DD wants to eat only candy for dinner and she insists on it and I don't want to give her candy, there is no mutually agreeable solution to that. And in the end she will not get candy. If that's coercion then I'm in the coercion club.
As I see it, one of the points of parenting (out of many) is to protect them from themselves. Sometimes children are incapable of reasoning and thus you have tantrums. How do stop a tantrum and try to find a "mutually agreeable solution" for that situation?

BTW, I also don't see the point of bringing up Saddam Hussein, the FDA, ect. That kind of response is not what I hope for on a forum in which adults talk and discuss with each other about something really important to them: their children.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
BTW, I also don't see the point of bringing up Saddam Hussein, the FDA, ect. That kind of response is not what I hope for on a forum in which adults talk and discuss with each other about something really important to them: their children.

Oh the irony... (being a GD forum and all







)


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 

What does a non-coercive parent do when their child is obstructing the general public? Or is about to engage in a dangerous activity? I find it hard to believe that life will _always_ be mutually agreeable with a child when they simply don't know right from wrong, safe from dangerous, socially acceptable from unacceptable, etc.



I think these are honest questions, and I wonder about this as well.

Also, what about situations regarding housework, cleaning, tidying-up...etc. I expect my dd (7) to respect her things (put her clothes, toys away...etc), and also, to respect the fact that Mama has *stuff* to do, of the domestic variety. Sometimes the things she wants to do will have to be put on hold because I have responsibilities, yk?

What's a mutually-agreeable solution to this?


----------



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

Quote:



Originally Posted by *North_Of_60*


I'm assuming this is some sort of sarcasm, but I'm sorry, I don't understand it.







I was asking a genuine question and don't understand the snark. What does Bush and Saddam Hussein have to do with my question?










I'm not sure exactly what Pat meant, but I took it as a "questioning" of the standard we hold up of "adults are capable of reason." Some adults don't seem all that capable, you know? Just a challenge of the conventional wisdom--and maybe a challenge of the conv. wisdom that kids aren't capable of reason, too. Pat's pretty "snark-free," as it were.









Quote:



Originally Posted by *North_Of_60*


So, if your two year old is blocking the door way and holding people up because she doesn't understand it's socially unacceptable to be in people's way when there is only one exit, instead of just clearing the child from the door way to begin with, why would you go to great lengths in getting the child to move under her own power if you didn't think she was capable of reasoning like that of a person who is socially aware (aka, an adult)? At 2 years old she doesn't know that it's impolite to block the only exit while people stand there patiently holding their goods. What do you do? It would seem to me that by not intervening in an attempt to encourage the child to move on their own will is imposing adult reasoning and social awareness onto a child who is incapable of understanding that what they're doing is impolite and inconvenient to other people.


I guess it's b/c that's how I want them to learn about reasoning and politeness. Just like I don't expect them to understand about the electric wall sockets, but that doesn't mean that I just smack their hands away every time they get close. I imagine other people think we, GDers, go to insane lengths when we talk about moving furniture to cover the outlets or distracting with a toy each time or saying, "Ouch, baby, that can hurt you!" or whatever it is we do.

Explaining to the child that they're in the way or being impolite or that the wall outlet can zap you might not get through to them if they're very young or they don't have the impulse control to stop themselves, but it lays a foundation of dialogue and giving explanations for our actions.

Eventually it starts to make sense to them and you can get more sophisticated from there. But if you aren't trying to reason with them or explain things to them at an early age, you might never know how early they can get it. Like being sure that your baby can't walk yet so you never put her down. I've been very humbled by what I thought my kids could "get" and how much they exceed those expectations.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *North_Of_60*


I just think that "mutually agreeable" has so many variations and interpretations that in my world it WOULD be mutually agreeable to scoop my child up while telling her that we need to keep the door ways clear.


And it might be. Your kid might have no problem with that. But some kids don't like to be touched. Or moved--like the above mama's kiddo. So what then? I saw a post in another forum about a kid who didn't like the sound of pages being turned! That family's life and solutions are probably going to look very different than mine! I don't think it hurts to do a little collective brainstorming for cooperative solutions to situations with kids like this. I don't think any of us are ever going to get it perfect every time, but it doesn't hurt to try to move closer to less adversarial encounters with our families.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *North_Of_60*


What does a non-coercive parent do when their child is obstructing the general public? Or is about to engage in a dangerous activity?


If my child is obstructing I just point out what's happening, "Ooops, Buddy, watch out behind you there," or ask him to move over or something. If something were going on with him where he literally would not move, *depending on the situation* I would probably crouch down next to him and put my hand on him and say, "Hey. What's going on? This person is trying to get by. Let's move over here." and I would try to connect with the person we were blocking with a, "I'm sorry. Would you please excuse us?" If my kid still wasn't moving (which is just pure conjecture on my part, b/c I really can't think of a situation where that's happened), I would physically move him while telling him, "Listen. We gotta move over. Look. That person needs to get by." and I would excuse us to the other person again and apologize. And probably ask, "Woah. What's up with that?" or bring it up later and see what was going on. But, that conversation would include the information that it was NOT cool and that that person was inconvenienced by us, and I'd try to call up a time where he had been blocked by someone and didn't like it.

If he were about to engage in some dangerous activity like stepping in front of a car or grabbing a knife I would do whatever I had to do to pull him back or keep him safe. And then I would say, "Oh my god!! Are you OK? You almost just got REALLY hurt! You can't just walk into the street/grab a knife/jump off the roof/etc. like that! Oh my goodness! Are you OK? Did I scare you? I'm sorry I had to grab you like that, but that was REALLY scary for me! You OK? OK. Whew...let's just take a minute to catch our breaths. Wow. Sorry about that, huh?" I've said some variation of that a few times! I just really try convey that it's all about looking out for each other and then quickly talking about what to do next time. Even if he thought I'd over-reacted he's always gotten that I was scared and acting with his best interest in mind.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *hippymomma69*


A specific example is, sometimes I like to sing to myself or to the baby and my DD can't STAND it if I'm not singing something "approved" by her. How do I teach her about where her desires end and mine begin? I mean I could just give in because it's less important to me to sing than her to scream. Or I can sing over her screaming....but a logical discussion is NOT helping my low verbal child understand that other people have a right to sing if they want to....she only seems to get that either she or I will "get our way" in this one....how do I power down the standoff?


I recall this phase. I don't know...if you were working in an office in a cubicle would it be OK with you to sing despite the person next to you objecting? Maybe you could ask her what songs she wouldn't mind hearing and go from there? Or just say, "Hmmm....I notice that you don't like it when I sing sometimes. What can we do, b/c I *really* like to sing?" See what she says.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lolalola*


Also, what about situations regarding housework, cleaning, tidying-up...etc. I expect my dd (7) to respect her things (put her clothes, toys away...etc), and also, to respect the fact that Mama has *stuff* to do, of the domestic variety. Sometimes the things she wants to do will have to be put on hold because I have responsibilities, yk?

What's a mutually-agreeable solution to this?


Something that you and she agree upon.
















Seriously, though....who knows? What might be OK for someone might not work for another. What might be agreeable to my kid might not be to your kid. I can suggest a bunch of stuff you *could* try, but generally those come back down the road as, "Yeah, those crazy people told me I should just forget about getting anything done and let the roaches take over," so I dunno....









You could try reading here: http://sandradodd.com/chores. It helped me a lot w/ regards to housework stuff.

Maybe start a thread on it? Or what does your daughter say? She's old enough to have some cool ideas, I bet.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

My point is that "reasonable" is a subjective judgment, imo. According to each individual's priorities, values, interests, focus, desires, needs, etc., both adult's and children's awareness of another's needs may be limited or imposing without awareness or intention. I consider each person's own values for himself equally valid, irrelevant of age. I can voice my needs as _requests_, but I desire not to impose my needs on others without their agreement. I fully understand that others, including most parents (and children) do not share this same value or practice. Neither do many "reasonable" public members of society. Therefore, I don't expect either the man waiting, nor the child obstructing the doorway to share the same definition of "reasonable". I can help each become aware of the other's perspective (or mine when I am impacted); but I don't feel comfortable imposing my own view upon either.

Discussions regarding CL-specific issues are requested to be addressed within the Tribe Forum or CL yahoogroup.

Pat


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I'm not sure exactly what Pat meant, but I took it as a "questioning" of the standard we hold up of "adults are capable of reason." Some adults don't seem all that capable, you know? Just a challenge of the conventional wisdom--and maybe a challenge of the conv. wisdom that kids aren't capable of reason, too. Pat's pretty "snark-free," as it were.









And in the context of our children, by adult I mean us, the parents, not some random adult who may or may not know how to reason.







:

Quote:

Explaining to the child that they're in the way or being impolite or that the wall outlet can zap you might not get through to them if they're very young or they don't have the impulse control to stop themselves, but it lays a foundation of dialog and giving explanations for our actions.
Exactly. But, why can't you do that _while_ taking your child's hand and gently guiding them to side and out of people's way, or away from the wall socket and toward something more appropriate to play with?

Quote:

If my child is obstructing I just point out what's happening, "Ooops, Buddy, watch out behind you there," or ask him to move over or something. If something were going on with him where he literally would not move, *depending on the situation* I would probably crouch down next to him and put my hand on him and say, "Hey. What's going on? This person is trying to get by. Let's move over here." and I would try to connect with the person we were blocking with a, "I'm sorry. Would you please excuse us?" If my kid still wasn't moving (which is just pure conjecture on my part, b/c I really can't think of a situation where that's happened), I would physically move him while telling him, "Listen. We gotta move over. Look. That person needs to get by." and I would excuse us to the other person again and apologize.
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the effort to communicate and get children interested in making good choices for themselves, but I still don't get this... aside from those children who don't like to be touched (be it autism, sensory issues, or what have you), why is it inappropriate to have that conversation _while_ gently moving your child out the way - either by the hand, picking them up, a hand on their back, etc?

I do this kind of thing every single day in my own home... while sweeping up as she plays in the dust pile, her climbing into the fridge every time I open it, running a few laps of tag around the car before we get buckled in, etc. But, in public, I get uncomfortable at the thought of holding people up because my toddler doesn't want to stay by my side, or wants to pull things off the shelf and roll soup cans into an old woman's foot (and she has done that.. lol), or what ever. And I fully admit that my naiveté may be due to DD's age, I don't know.

Quote:

And probably ask, "Woah. What's up with that?" or bring it up later and see what was going on.
What do you do with preverbal children who aren't capable of going back to that, like with my almost 16 month old?


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
If my child is obstructing I just point out what's happening, "Ooops, Buddy, watch out behind you there," or ask him to move over or something. If something were going on with him where he literally would not move, *depending on the situation* I would probably crouch down next to him and put my hand on him and say, "Hey. What's going on? This person is trying to get by. Let's move over here." and I would try to connect with the person we were blocking with a, "I'm sorry. Would you please excuse us?" If my kid still wasn't moving (which is just pure conjecture on my part, b/c I really can't think of a situation where that's happened), I would physically move him while telling him, "Listen. We gotta move over. Look. That person needs to get by." ...

...

If he were about to engage in some dangerous activity like stepping in front of a car or grabbing a knife I would do whatever I had to do to pull him back or keep him safe. And then I would say, "Oh my god!! Are you OK? You almost just got REALLY hurt! You can't just walk into the street/grab a knife/jump off the roof/etc. like that! Oh my goodness! Are you OK? Did I scare you? I'm sorry I had to grab you like that, but that was REALLY scary for me!...

Thanks for your thoughtful response, but the two examples above jumped out at me as having physical coercion as an end solution if your child does not find your earlier suggestions mutually agreeable. I think your dialogue in the how-to-get-a-kid-to-move example above is pretty much what any of us GD moms would do -- I'm pretty sure that none of us would just wordlessly shove our kid out of the way without offering them some kind of chance to do it themselves first. I think people's confusion comes about when confronted with people who claim to *never* use physical coercion no matter what the situation (possibly barring dangerous situations like those in your 2nd paragraph above).


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I can voice my needs as _requests_, but I desire not to impose my needs on others without their agreement. I fully understand that others, including most parents (and children) do not share this same value or practice. Neither do many "reasonable" public members of society. Therefore, I don't expect either the man waiting, nor the child obstructing the doorway to share the same definition of "reasonable". I can help each become aware of the other's perspective (or mine when I am impacted); but I don't feel comfortable imposing my own view upon either.

And making people wait is not an imposition?







: I guess I too am reconciling that this will never be my style of parenting, as I think it is a huge imposition of your beliefs on those around you to allow your child to obstruct the way because helping them move is coercive.

Thanx for the information. I got a couple of links and some key words to google, so I'll read up on it more, but I don't imagine my input is of any interest to those dedicated to this way of life.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
My point is that "reasonable" is a subjective judgment, imo. According to each individual's priorities, values, interests, focus, desires, needs, etc., both adult's and children's awareness of another's needs may be limited or imposing without awareness or intention. I consider each person's own values for himself equally valid, irrelevant of age.
Pat

So Saddam, Bush, the parent of the child, the child themselves... all equally valid?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Discussions regarding CL-specific issues are requested to be addressed within the Tribe Forum or CL yahoogroup.Pat

I find this confusing given this thread resurfaced when YOU bumped it and restarted the conversation. Perhaps someone could clarify. I'm fine with keeping the CL discussion to the tribe forum or yahoogroup, but I've noticed a trend that this ONLY happens after people start asking specific questions or pointing out potential inconsistencies in the philosophy.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

Discussions regarding CL-specific issues are requested to be addressed within the Tribe Forum or CL yahoogroup.
My understanding is this is "for organizational purposes".

Pat


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 

I recall this phase. I don't know...if you were working in an office in a cubicle would it be OK with you to sing despite the person next to you objecting? Maybe you could ask her what songs she wouldn't mind hearing and go from there? Or just say, "Hmmm....I notice that you don't like it when I sing sometimes. What can we do, b/c I *really* like to sing?" See what she says.


Right so the first time or 50 I just gave in and didn't sing or only sang the "approved" songs. But I'm seriously NOT getting my needs met to sing! My DD will NEVER allow it if she's in the room and she hasn't picked the song out. I'm beginning to feel really resentful of the situation. It is not mutually agreeable.

And for a low/non-verbal child the whole "what can we do?" approach will NOT work. She can't understand the question, nor can I go into any sort of explanation of how to take turns or of what my needs are....i have to show by doing - which is forcing her to give me a turn!

Maybe the approach just won't work with a SN kid. Maybe I will be "forced" (ha, ha) to use a low coersion approach until she is more verbal....sigh.

Anyway, I'll keep trying.....
peace,
robyn


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Exactly. But, why can't you do that _while_ taking your child's hand and gently guiding them to side and out of people's way, or away from the wall socket and toward something more appropriate to play with?

You or I *might* do just that b/c it seems for our kids touch isn't much of an issue. My child pretty much appreciates it when I move him out of the way of stuff. But like someone else has said, her kid doesn't like that and she's just wondering if there's something else she can do.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
What do you do with preverbal children who aren't capable of going back to that, like with my almost 16 month old?

I would just say something very briefly at the moment.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
Thanks for your thoughtful response, but the two examples above jumped out at me as having physical coercion as an end solution if your child does not find your earlier suggestions mutually agreeable. I think your dialogue in the how-to-get-a-kid-to-move example above is pretty much what any of us GD moms would do -- I'm pretty sure that none of us would just wordlessly shove our kid out of the way without offering them some kind of chance to do it themselves first. I think people's confusion comes about when confronted with people who claim to *never* use physical coercion no matter what the situation (possibly barring dangerous situations like those in your 2nd paragraph above).

Yes, physical coercion might be my last ditch effort in cases of imposing on other people or safety. I've been reading on lists and websites about this kind of parenting for several years now and I have yet to see anyone say, "In that situation you definitely should have inconvenienced those around you or let your kid get hurt." (I've seen a few hypothetical situations brought up here where folks said what they might have done, but I'm not sure I give that the same weight....I dunno....).

Maybe they "never use physical coercion" b/c they don't run into these situations where it's resort to physically moving the kid against his/her will vs. inconvenience others/kid gets hurt. ?? Who knows? I seriously haven't heard people recalling events where they've done some really inconsiderate or dangerous thing while they tried to find a solution for their kid.

We have one situation that has come up a couple of times where I've had to put my little guy in the carseat while he freaks out b/c I can't figure out another way to make it work w/out compromising others or my desire to have him buckled safely. We take a car ferrry a couple times a week (to the grocery store, park, etc.) and sometimes after playing around in the car or getting out and feeding the gulls, he does NOT want to get back in his carseat. And I've tried lots of different tactics (letting him buckle himself, having a toy, putting on a movie, pointing out that we're getting close to the dock, etc.), but when push comes to shove and they're starting to unload the boat I've had to push him in his seat b/c I'm not willing to sit on the boat holding everyone up or leave him unbuckled. And after it happened once or twice I started trying some different things (giving him more warning and time to get in, not unbuckling him to begin with unless he specifically asked [and giving him things to eat or occupy him for the 15 minute ride], not taking the ferry as much, etc.).

But I can't fathom that anyone on any of my lists would suggest, "Well, just make the other cars wait until he's ready." I could see the suggestion to drive off with him unbuckled, *if* I felt comfortable with that....or maybe just getting off and pulling over to a safe place that wouldn't be in anyone's way. But, just sitting on the ferry holding up traffic? No way.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hippymomma69* 
Right so the first time or 50 I just gave in and didn't sing or only sang the "approved" songs. But I'm seriously NOT getting my needs met to sing! My DD will NEVER allow it if she's in the room and she hasn't picked the song out. I'm beginning to feel really resentful of the situation. It is not mutually agreeable.

And for a low/non-verbal child the whole "what can we do?" approach will NOT work. She can't understand the question, nor can I go into any sort of explanation of how to take turns or of what my needs are....i have to show by doing - which is forcing her to give me a turn!

Maybe the approach just won't work with a SN kid. Maybe I will be "forced" (ha, ha) to use a low coersion approach until she is more verbal....sigh.

Anyway, I'll keep trying.....
peace,
robyn

Could you meet your need to sing in another way? Like join a choir or singing group? Take a bit of time when she's sleeping or if you have a partner or another person to take over for a bit and you could sing in the shower or go for a drive or walk and sing? Can you tell her your going to sing and she can leave the room if she likes? Or that you're going to leave the room?

Esp. if she's got some sensory issues, it might be really hard for her to have that going on. ??

I've definitely found that respecting those kind of "weird kid" issues has made them pass fairly quickly. Though your's might not if she's real sensitive to stuff like that.

For me, it would help to think of my time with her as akin to my time at another job where my need to sing probably wouldn't be honored anyway. That might help me feel less resentful toward her. I don't know if that helps you any, though.


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
It would seem to me that by not intervening in an attempt to encourage the child to move on their own will is imposing adult reasoning and social awareness onto a child who is incapable of understanding that what they're doing is impolite and inconvenient to other people.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just don't get it.









Since everyone continues to use, and misunderstand my post, I'll clarify AGAIN. I DID intervene. I DID encourage my child to move on her own. I DID make it clear to her (and to the gentleman waiting) that by standing in the doorway, she was stopping people from coming through. I WAS indicating not only was it inconvenient, but inpolite, and in addition, would be difficult for Mommy to help you move because I had baby brother & bags in tow, so would you please step away from the doorway? I did ALL OF THESE THINGS before phsyically moving her.

I wish I did NOT have to move her, that she would have moved on her own. But I would not change the situation simply to have made it go faster - if it meant that I didn't give her the chance to understand why her behavior wasn't the most desirable & gave her the chance to change it ON HER OWN.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Exactly. But, why can't you do that _while_ taking your child's hand and gently guiding them to side and out of people's way, or away from the wall socket and toward something more appropriate to play with?

You could! I can't even think of time when that wouldn't be totally fine with any of my kids. I just don't see why, on that rare occasion that a child might need _a minute or two_ of our patience, that wouldn't be ok (as long as it's not unsafe)? We ask our children to be patient with us, so--if it is upsetting to them, and they need a moment--why not give them a little understanding and patience?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
And making people wait is not an imposition?







: I guess I too am reconciling that this will never be my style of parenting, as I think it is a huge imposition of your beliefs on those around you to allow your child to obstruct the way because helping them move is coercive.

Well, there are times that people block a doorway because their dog won't move, they've dropped a package, or whatever... I think people often have a need to be patient with others for a minute or two, and I don't see it as a huge imposition. It's a good skill to learn.


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
But, sometimes there are stumpers, you know? And that's what I got from the mama with the kid in the doorway's post. Just, "Here's a situation that I didn't have a quick solution to and wondering if I missed something obvious."

Exactly, thank you.


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
If my DD wants to eat only candy for dinner and she insists on it and I don't want to give her candy, there is no mutually agreeable solution to that. And in the end she will not get candy. If that's coercion then I'm in the coercion club.
As I see it, one of the points of parenting (out of many) is to protect them from themselves. .

Indeed. And the simple solution to this is to not keep candy in your home, so having it for dinner isn't an option.


----------



## elizawill (Feb 11, 2007)

:


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
It's been my experience that toddlers often do things for no particular reason except to do it and that can include destructive things.

I think that assuming you child has reasons for his/her behavior is a big part of Gentle Discipline in general (see forum guidelines), and not exclusive to non-coercive parenting. Looking at the reasons for the behavior are an essential part of problem solving.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
If my DD wants to eat only candy for dinner and she insists on it and I don't want to give her candy, there is no mutually agreeable solution to that. And in the end she will not get candy.

As Ks Mama says, if there is food you don't think should be eaten, why keep it in the house?

FWIW, my kids have always had control over what they eat and they all crave a well-rounded, healthy diet. This jibes with research that says that kids that have control over what they eat will choose to eat a healthy diet.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
As I see it, one of the points of parenting (out of many) is to protect them from themselves.

I don't feel I am protecting my children from themselves. I trust that they want to do the right thing, they just don't always have all the information, experience, resources... that I have. That's why I am here to guide them and help them.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ks Mama* 
Since everyone continues to use, and misunderstand my post, I'll clarify AGAIN.

I wasn't using *you* as an example, just the situation (2 year old in a door way, blocking people while they wait, etc). I'm sorry if it sounded like I was going back to your post, but I just stole the scenario.







:


----------



## verde (Feb 11, 2007)

Quote:

I think that assuming you child has reasons for his/her behavior is a big part of Gentle Discipline in general (see forum guidelines), and not exclusive to non-coercive parenting. Looking at the reasons for the behavior are an essential part of problem solving.
Sunnysideup: doing something for no particular reason except to do it IS a reason. Toddlers don't always do things for deep, psychological reasons. They may pull the petals off of your neighbors flowers just because they want to and think it's fun. In a perfect world you could have a lovely discussion and they would understand that your neighbor would not appreciate that and they would stop OR you would have prevented your toddler from getting into your neighbors garden in the first place. However, in the real world, sometimes toddlers get into things despite all your best efforts and refuse to stop pulling all the petals off of the flowers and you must remove the toddler despite her protests.

Re: candy for dinner -- for the record I have NEVER had candy in the household. She has never had a piece of candy. I had a suspicion that if I used that example, everyone would immediately say "well don't have candy." I agree. So I'll change the example. If my child ONLY wanted to eat corn-on-the-cob (her current obsession) for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and I wanted her to have variety for a healthier diet, then I would impose my will on her and give her some corn and other things as well. Why: Because she does not understand about nutritional needs, she only understand her desires. I don't understand how one can always expect to have the ability to find a mutually agreeable solution with someone who is so young and has limited experience. It doesn't make sense in the real world to me.

As an addendum: my DD has a wonderful and varied diet by her own preference most of the time. Last week, however, she had some really wonderful corn-on-the-cob and now she can't get enough of it. Sometimes toddlers go through food obsessions. Check out the toddler thread and you'll see lots of mama's who've written about their toddlers who go through particular food phases.

Quote:

I don't feel I am protecting my children from themselves. I trust that they want to do the right thing, they just don't always have all the information, experience, resources... that I have. That's why I am here to guide them and help them.
OK I see this as a genuine case of you-say-tomatoes-I-say-tomahtoes. "Guiding them and helping them" IS protecting them if it's necessary. If your child is running out into the street because it's fun and you stop her from getting smooshed by a truck then you HAVE protected her from herself.

For myself, I LIKE the idea of non-coersive parenting and spend a lot of time trying to practice it. I consider myself a practitioner of GD which is why I read this forum. But I also think that there are times when a parent has to take matters into her/his hand and do what's gotta be done. As I've said before, IMO the two most important features of parenting are a sense of humor (vital) and flexibility. At least for me, no one, single approach works. Parenting, like life, is situational. The situation defines the need and the approach.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
They may pull the petals off of your neighbors flowers just because they want to and think it's fun. In a perfect world you could have a lovely discussion and they would understand that your neighbor would not appreciate that and they would stop OR you would have prevented your toddler from getting into your neighbors garden in the first place. However, in the real world, sometimes toddlers get into things despite all your best efforts and refuse to stop pulling all the petals off of the flowers and you must remove the toddler despite her protests.

But there are other solutions there, too. Maybe the neighbor is fine with pulling the petals off the flowers. Lots of times I've seen people trying to give kids the green light for something and the parent will still insist that it's not OK and the child MUST be stopped. Maybe the kid can pull petals off in my garden. Maybe we can agree to buy a bunch of flowers at the farmer's market and pull the our heart's content. There are always so many solutions! 95% of this philosophy (to me, anyway) is just being open to the fact that there are so many different solutions--we may just not have thought of them yet. But, yes, in the end IF my child was destroying someone's property and not stopping on their own I would physically stop them from that destruction. And after the fact, I would work on finding another agreeable solution for them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
Last week, however, she had some really wonderful corn-on-the-cob and now she can't get enough of it. Sometimes toddlers go through food obsessions. Check out the toddler thread and you'll see lots of mama's who've written about their toddlers who go through particular food phases.

Again, there are lots of different options betw. eating corn all day everyday and not. And maybe there's a way to have those two be agreeable, too. If you could get to place where you were comfortable trying a no-corn-limit "test" for a few days or so after hearing lots of people say that their kids did something similar and it was fine, or hearing a nutritionist say that over the course of one week that eating corn like that wouldn't be harmful at all--maybe that would be an agreeable choice for you. Maybe offering corn at two meals a day would be OK for both of you. Maybe having a half and ear at each meal would be OK. Lots of options!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
For myself, I LIKE the idea of non-coersive parenting and spend a lot of time trying to practice it. I consider myself a practitioner of GD which is why I read this forum. But I also think that there are times when a parent has to take matters into her/his hand and do what's gotta be done.

I think that 99% of the world thinks that parents need to take things into their own hands and "do what's gotta be done." And I'm pretty sure that everyone here HAS done just that. But it might not be a very helpful or unique response when someone is here looking for a cooperative solution to a problem they're having, so please don't get offended if someone suggests working around that sort of advice, you know?


----------



## elizawill (Feb 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
Re: candy for dinner -- for the record I have NEVER had candy in the household. She has never had a piece of candy. I had a suspicion that if I used that example, everyone would immediately say "well don't have candy." I agree.

i'm really just lurking on this one because i'm definitely a coercive parent compared to most here...

but i honestly can't even wrap my brain around the idea that i am somehow being a mean mama if i keep something in the house as a snack or a treat that isn't up for grabs anytime. is it really so incredibly awful to not let your kiddos eat ice cream as a meal even if <gasp> ....it's in the house & they want to!!

....so i just shouldn't buy it ever to keep my child from getting upset???

alrighty...back to lurking







:


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elizawill* 
i'm really just lurking on this one because i'm definitely a coercive parent compared to most here...

but i honestly can't even wrap my brain around the idea that i am somehow being a mean mama if i keep something in the house as a snack or a treat that isn't up for grabs anytime. is it really so incredibly awful to not let your kiddos eat ice cream as a meal even if <gasp> ....it's in the house & they want to!!

....so i just shouldn't buy it ever to keep my child from getting upset???

alrighty...back to lurking







:

Who said anything about "mean?" Or "incredibly awful?"

But IF you are interested in living in a way where solutions are agreed upon and one person's will is not automatically trumping another's then not having candy in the house MIGHT be ONE solution to that situation.

Does that make sense?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
Toddlers don't always do things for deep, psychological reasons.

Their reasons might not be deep, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
They may pull the petals off of your neighbors flowers just because they want to and think it's fun. In a perfect world you could have a lovely discussion and they would understand that your neighbor would not appreciate that and they would stop OR you would have prevented your toddler from getting into your neighbors garden in the first place. However, in the real world, sometimes toddlers get into things despite all your best efforts and refuse to stop pulling all the petals off of the flowers and you must remove the toddler despite her protests.

And stopping the toddler from destroying the flowers might be easier/more respectful/less painful if you take the child's reasons for doing it into account. You could offer an alternative that honors the impulse--maybe the child would like to help you pull weeds in the garden, or maybe there are some flowers in your yard they could pick, maybe she'd be happy to have mom show her how to handle the flowers gently...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
If my child ONLY wanted to eat corn-on-the-cob (her current obsession) for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and I wanted her to have variety for a healthier diet, then I would impose my will on her and give her some corn and other things as well.

I don't think that offering her other things in addition to the corn she wants, is "imposing your will on her." That would only be the case if you were making her eat the other food. I think it's a parent's job to offer a well-rounded diet.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
As an addendum: my DD has a wonderful and varied diet by her own preference most of the time. Last week, however, she had some really wonderful corn-on-the-cob and now she can't get enough of it. Sometimes toddlers go through food obsessions. Check out the toddler thread and you'll see lots of mama's who've written about their toddlers who go through particular food phases.

Yep, it's a totally normal, harmless toddler thing. There's no reason to sweat it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
If your child is running out into the street because it's fun and you stop her from getting smooshed by a truck then you HAVE protected her from herself.

Nope. I've protected her from the truck, which I am sure she had no desire to get hit by.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I think when people are throwing out phrases like, "scarred for life," or "will go to any lengths," there's kind of a misunderstanding.

I don't think most of us think that one episode of changing diaper against a child's will or moving them out of the way is going to do some serious long term damage. And I don't think any of us are standing there wringing our hands in distress at how to avoid that.

*But there is an overall goal to approach things in a way so that those episodes (which most parents wouldn't even consider to be problematic) don't happen day in and day out over weeks, months, years.*

(bolding mine)

OK, I mean this in a totally honest and non-snarky way...

Why?

What is the point in approaching such minor issues in such a complex way? What is the end goal that you think you will achieve by jumping through hoops and going through negotiations with your child instead of simply saying to her "Please move over, that man needs to get by." (or whatever the issue of the moment is, I'm not trying to harp on the PP)?

This seems like an incredibly energy-consuming way to parent, micro-examining every single conversational exchange in an attempt to weed out all forms of coercion. As I said before, I believe in not being particularly coercive myself, but taking things to this level feels like over-thinking things to me. If it works for you, that's certainly your perogative... but I just fail to see how simple, respectful requests can have any negative long-term effects on a child.

So, what is it? Do you believe that saying "Please move over, that man needs to get by" IS damaging to a child? If so, why and how? and if not... why do you feel the need to go to such great lengths to avoid saying it?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
So, what is it? Do you believe that saying "Please move over, that man needs to get by" IS damaging to a child? If so, why and how? and if not... why do you feel the need to go to such great lengths to avoid saying it?

I don't think anyone is saying it is damaging, or that they would avoid saying it. No one is arguing against making requests of your child.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
So, what is it? Do you believe that saying "Please move over, that man needs to get by" IS damaging to a child? If so, why and how? and if not... why do you feel the need to go to such great lengths to avoid saying it?

Huh??

No one is avoiding saying that. Pretty much everyone has said that that's exactly what they would say.

The difference is that if the child were NOT moving we wouldn't just default to pulling her out of the way.

But, yeah, I do think that prolonged periods of coercing people to do things against their will damages the relationship betw. those people. And if it can be avoided, I'm going to try to avoid it.


----------



## boigrrrlwonder (Jan 18, 2007)

Hello. I just saw this post, and I struggle with being a non-coercive parent, but I really want to be one. My question is about a five month old who hates her carseat. I live in the suburbs. Sometimes, I just *really* need to get somewhere and have to drive. There is no real public transportation. DC hates the carseat. Any advice?


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Well, okay, maybe I'm missing the boat here. The original post described completely non-coercive parenting as:

Quote:

not trying to direct, change, shape, coax, reward or punish, force, or otherwise make their child be any particular way
which I assumed includes directing a child to move or otherwise tell him what to do. The gist I got from the discussion was that a completely non-coercive lifestyle means that a child's decisions are all voluntary.

So, is telling a kid that seems perfectly happy where he is to move it coercive or not? If left to his own devices, the kid wouldn't be going anywhere, right? The parent is directing... coaxing... perhaps even rewarding him with whatever she says to get him to move, no?

I'm lost.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
So, is telling a kid that seems perfectly happy where he is to move it coercive or not?

Non-coercive parents do offer information to their children. A parent would assume that child would want to know they were blocking the doorway.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
If left to his own devices, the kid wouldn't be going anywhere, right? The parent is directing... coaxing... perhaps even rewarding him with whatever she says to get him to move, no?

Non-coercive parenting does not mean a child is left to his/her own devices with no guidance or information.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

This whole "move your child, ask your child to move" thing, reminds me of an incident we had a year or so ago.

We went to a tree-lighting ceremony at Christmas time last year, and when it was over, everyone began making their way back to their cars. So, it was quite busy on the street. Anyway, DD (then, 6) was walking beside me, and the woman behind DD was obviously in a hurry, because I could hear her sighing...and saw her trying to get around my daughter.

I didn't say anything to DD, but turned to the woman and said, "Ya know, she is a person...she may be small, but I'm sure if you say 'excuse me, may I get by you', she would gladly oblige".







:

Of course, she just stared at me with that dead-fish-eyed expression. But really, it's not rocket-science...just manners.


----------



## verde (Feb 11, 2007)

Quote:

What is the point in approaching such minor issues in such a complex way? What is the end goal that you think you will achieve by jumping through hoops and going through negotiations with your child instead of simply saying to her "Please move over, that man needs to get by." (or whatever the issue of the moment is, I'm not trying to harp on the PP)?

This seems like an incredibly energy-consuming way to parent, micro-examining every single conversational exchange in an attempt to weed out all forms of coercion. As I said before, I believe in not being particularly coercive myself, but taking things to this level feels like over-thinking things to me. If it works for you, that's certainly your perogative... but I just fail to see how simple, respectful requests can have any negative long-term effects on a child.

So, what is it? Do you believe that saying "Please move over, that man needs to get by" IS damaging to a child? If so, why and how? and if not... why do you feel the need to go to such great lengths to avoid saying it?

ChinaKat ITA. In the example I used of picking the petals off the neighbors flowers, which they did NOT like, yes I could get her another bunch of flowers to pick off, I could do all kinds of things, but really I think that's completely unnecessary. Why? Because toddlers have a 10 second attention span. I took her away from the flowers and we went off and did other fun things. Yes Sunnysideup, her feelings may be valid, but that doesn't mean I wasn't able to get her mind off of the flower petals onto something else without causing any deep psychological damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by verde View Post
If your child is running out into the street because it's fun and you stop her from getting smooshed by a truck then you HAVE protected her from herself.

Nope. I've protected her from the truck, which I am sure she had no desire to get hit by.
I say this totally respectfully: I don't see a single difference between protecting her from herself and protecting her from the truck. Again tomatoes/tomahtoes. If she's going to be hit by a truck and you pull her out of the street, you have done a wonderful thing. As I read your response, you seem to be trying to find some way to state that pulling her out of the street was not coercive. My response is "who cares?" You saved her life! Why worry if you HAD to use a bit of coercion to do it? This is the kind of thinking that I find completely befuddling. I don't understand why, in a case of life and death, you appear to need to find a way to make your action fit into a philosophy. As I stated in my earlier post, the situation defined the need.

I also think that somehow there's a feeling that "coercion" is an all or nothing concept. And that all coercion is wrong. Period. Again, back to my flexibility philosophy, I think there is a sort of bell-curve of coercion and that in real life the occasional use under certain circumstances can be necessary -- such as a toddler running into the street. I have no problems with that and I have no doubt that my DD will survive with her psychology and self-esteem totally intact.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
Non-coercive parents do offer information to their children. A parent would assume that child would want to know they were blocking the doorway. Non-coercive parenting does not mean a child is left to his/her own devices with no guidance or information.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I asked.

So, as long as you explain it, it's not coercive to tell your kid to do something?

That doesn't jive with a lot of the discussions I've seen here. Like the car seat -- I can talk to my two year old until I'm blue in the face about how it's not safe for her to ride in the car without one, but that's not necessarily going to make her change her tune and voluntarily hop in and buckle up. She's a bright kid, but not having experienced a car crash, she's simply not capable of understanding the repercussions of one. So in that case, there's just no difference between saying "get in the car seat" and "get in the car seat so you'll be safe".

Similarly, I don't see how telling her to move _because it's bothering the other man_ makes any difference. Two year olds don't even have a solid theory of mind yet -- they simply can't reliably empathize with what it feels like to be in somebody else's shoes. Developmentally, they are completely ego-centric.

Now, that doesn't stop me from explaining things to my DD. I figure it's a good habit to be in and she'll absorb what she can.

However, I'm still lost on what the explanation has to do with coercion. IMO, either telling a kid to move IS coercive or it ISN'T. No matter how prettily you explain your reasons for it.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

_So, as long as you explain it, it's not coercive to tell your kid to do something?_
*
FORMULATING A REQUEST per NVC:*

Quote:

The final step is to formulate a request based on oneís observations, feelings and needs. A parent might make this request: "I am feeling frustrated because I have a need to protect you from illness caused by germs. Would you be willing to clean up your room?" It is best to phrase requests positively. "Would you be willing to clean up your room?" is better than "Would you be willing to stop making a mess?". Also, make the request as specific as possible, as in "Would you be willing to hang your clothes in the closet and take your pillow off the floor?"

*Requests are not the same as demands.* Demands force the other person to submit or rebel, which stops communication. A request is really a demand if the person blames, judges, or lays a guilt trip if the request is not complied with. It is a request if the one asking can accept either a yes or no answer. If, when asked to clean up, the child says "no" and the parent says "You never do what I tell you!", then it was a demand. It was a request if the parent can answer, "I see that you prefer to play rather than clean up right now. I am disappointed because I was hoping you would want to cooperate. Would you be willing to do it after you play?". The goal is an honest, empathy-based relationship, not just compliance!

The words _should, ought, must, or have to_ are often demands. A parent asked to observe a messy room might say, "The room should be cleaned up". This is a demand, rather than a request. One request is to ask for reflection. This is especially helpful if one is not sure one was heard and understood. For example, one could say "Would you tell me what you heard me say?". This is a request for empathy and for clarification only. It is not to be confused with sarcasm, as in screaming at the other "Did you hear me?"
http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/no...munication.htm

*"Hearing the 'yes' in 'no'", by Inbal Kashtan: http://www.cnvc.org/hearyes.htm*

Pat


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
IMO, either telling a kid to move IS coercive or it ISN'T. No matter how prettily you explain your reasons for it.

ITA. This all seems like a huge semantics game to me. The examples in this thread of interactions between noncoercive parents and their kids sound exactly like the interactions that I (a coercive parent) have with my kids, yet I consider myself to be using coersion in those situations and the noncoercive parents don't. And I'm pretty sure that the kids perceive it exactly the same way whether I'm saying it (and defining it as coersion) or someone else is saying it (and defining it as CL).

Quote:

A parent might make this request: "I am feeling frustrated because I have a need to protect you from illness caused by germs. Would you be willing to clean up your room?" ... It was a request if the parent can answer, "I see that you prefer to play rather than clean up right now. I am disappointed because I was hoping you would want to cooperate. Would you be willing to do it after you play?".
Those examples in the "making a request" exerpt make the parent sound simpering and whiny. Why not just keep things light and lowkey and say something like, "Whoa, kiddo, look at all this stuff! Let's get started cleaning it up" and get on with it? If I were a kid, I'd much prefer that over my parent lecturing me about every little thing and then telling me they were "disappointed" when I didn't want to do what they requested.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
ChinaKat ITA. In the example I used of picking the petals off the neighbors flowers, which they did NOT like, yes I could get her another bunch of flowers to pick off, I could do all kinds of things, but really I think that's completely unnecessary. Why? Because toddlers have a 10 second attention span. I took her away from the flowers and we went off and did other fun things. Yes Sunnysideup, her feelings may be valid, but that doesn't mean I wasn't able to get her mind off of the flower petals onto something else without causing any deep psychological damage.

Respectfully, can I please ask that the references to causing "deep psychological damage" and such be avoided? No one is saying that. It feels really belittling.

I think the vast majority of parents would find ANY kind of GD approach to that flower pulling scenario pretty unnecessary. Especially if the child didn't indicate any displeasure at being taken away from that exploration/play. But for some of us it is still important/worthy to try to seek out ways that those sorts of scenarios are dealt with in a non-coercive way.

Believe me, I totally and completely get that it is not important, worthy, or even considered beneficial for the VAST majority out there.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
I say this totally respectfully: I don't see a single difference between protecting her from herself and protecting her from the truck.

I think it's just sort of an underlying assumption that most people wouldn't want to put themselves in harm's way, but they just might not have all the information to avoid doing that. You're not really protecting them from "their lack of information," as you are protecting them from the *consequences* of their lack of information. Does that make sense?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
I also think that somehow there's a feeling that "coercion" is an all or nothing concept. And that all coercion is wrong. Period. Again, back to my flexibility philosophy, I think there is a sort of bell-curve of coercion and that in real life the occasional use under certain circumstances can be necessary -- such as a toddler running into the street. I have no problems with that and I have no doubt that my DD will survive with her psychology and self-esteem totally intact.

Maybe more that at times it *might* be necessary, but it's not the ideal. ??

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
So, as long as you explain it, it's not coercive to tell your kid to do something?

A big part is the difference betw. the kid being able to say no or not. Or making it a request rather than an order.

And in some of the examples where I posted that I have resorted to coercion and explain why, I don't think that makes it any less coercive, I'm just trying to convey the "why" of it all.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
That doesn't jive with a lot of the discussions I've seen here. Like the car seat -- I can talk to my two year old until I'm blue in the face about how it's not safe for her to ride in the car without one, but that's not necessarily going to make her change her tune and voluntarily hop in and buckle up. She's a bright kid, but not having experienced a car crash, she's simply not capable of understanding the repercussions of one. So in that case, there's just no difference between saying "get in the car seat" and "get in the car seat so you'll be safe".

Maybe not at that instant--if she doesn't understand "safe." But for me, it lays the groundwork that I'm not just doing this stuff to them "BECAUSE." Rather, that there is a reason behind it. And I want to convey emapthy in that moment.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Similarly, I don't see how telling her to move _because it's bothering the other man_ makes any difference. Two year olds don't even have a solid theory of mind yet -- they simply can't reliably empathize with what it feels like to be in somebody else's shoes. Developmentally, they are completely ego-centric.

Now for my 2 yr old that would make a difference. Not necessarily b/c he would be empathetic to waiting, but b/c he has a need for personal space. But, again it's more about setting a stage of providing information and being there to help them navigate those situations.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
Now, that doesn't stop me from explaining things to my DD. I figure it's a good habit to be in and she'll absorb what she can.

Yes! With my first it felt awkward b/c it wasn't habit. Now it's just second nature.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
ITA. This all seems like a huge semantics game to me. The examples in this thread of interactions between noncoercive parents and their kids sound exactly like the interactions that I (a coercive parent) have with my kids, yet I consider myself to be using coersion in those situations and the noncoercive parents don't. And I'm pretty sure that the kids perceive it exactly the same way whether I'm saying it (and defining it as coersion) or someone else is saying it (and defining it as CL).

I'm not sure which interactions you mean, specifically, but I think most of us agree that the moving the child out of the door and buckling the kid in against his will and pulling the kid out of the way of an oncoming truck scenarios ARE coercive. They're not ideal and I'm sure that the kid feels coerced, but that doesn't mean that we're not trying to do it differently next time or "mitigate" the coercion of that instant.

I mean, there are spanking parents who might not spank in a given situation, but that doesn't make them GD, you know? They might not be trying to move toward a more gentle approach, nor do they care to.

Likewise, many of us GD parents lose it and hit. That doesn't mean we're "spankers" per se. We're committed to GD and want to practice that in our families.

And I'm pretty sure the kids who are routinely spanked don't feel the same as the kids whose parent's lost it--especially when the parent apologizes afterwards, you know?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
I don't see a single difference between protecting her from herself and protecting her from the truck.

I think an important part of Gentle Discipline is assuming your child wants to make the right choices, and therefore doesn't need protection from themselves, just good information and guidance. When you assume your child needs protection from herself, it sets up more of an adversarial relationship--your goals are not on the same page.

Quote:

As I read your response, you seem to be trying to find some way to state that pulling her out of the street was not coercive.
Nope. I _know_ it's not coercive.

Quote:

Why worry if you HAD to use a bit of coercion to do it? This is the kind of thinking that I find completely befuddling. I don't understand why, in a case of life and death, you appear to need to find a way to make your action fit into a philosophy.








: I don't get how anyone could think their child would want to be hit by a truck. Or are we talking about a genuinely suicidal toddler?


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Why did this thread get bumped? I thought MDC wasn't hosting this debate anymore?


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I'm not sure which interactions you mean, specifically, but I think most of us agree that the moving the child out of the door and buckling the kid in against his will and pulling the kid out of the way of an oncoming truck scenarios ARE coercive. They're not ideal and I'm sure that the kid feels coerced, but that doesn't mean that we're not trying to do it differently next time or "mitigate" the coercion of that instant.

I mean, there are spanking parents who might not spank in a given situation, but that doesn't make them GD, you know? They might not be trying to move toward a more gentle approach, nor do they care to.

Likewise, many of us GD parents lose it and hit. That doesn't mean we're "spankers" per se. We're committed to GD and want to practice that in our families.

And I'm pretty sure the kids who are routinely spanked don't feel the same as the kids whose parent's lost it--especially when the parent apologizes afterwards, you know?

Thanks for your patient explanations!







(At first the spanking thing didn't sit well with me, but I realize you're just using it as an example and not comparing spankers to non-CL folks.)

Let's see if I'm making progress in my understanding here:

So, I'm comfortable identifying as occasionally coercive, although I still strive to offer my DS options and try to respect his desires whenever possible before imposing my will on him in situations in which it's unavoidable.

And you're comfortable identifying as noncoercive because, although you do have to occasionally impose your will on your DC in situations in which its unavoidable, you're trying to learn how to reevaluate your ideas about what is "unavoidable" so that your will is imposed less and less often.

Is that sort of right?


----------



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

Limabean, yes! I think that's just what I mean.









And DEFINITELY NOT comparing spankers to folks who use coercion! Just using it as an analogy of sorts.

But now I'm intrigued by sunnysideup's view of coercion/not w/ regards to pulling the kid out of the street!







:


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Limabean, yes! I think that's just what I mean.









Hallelujah!







I almost didn't open this thread when I saw it get bumped -- now I'm glad I did!


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I didn't say anything to DD, but turned to the woman and said, "Ya know, she is a person...she may be small, but I'm sure if you say 'excuse me, may I get by you', she would gladly oblige".







:

Good for you.









That happens so frequently and is one of my major pet peeves. Just say "excuse me," already. He knows what it means!


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
(bolding mine)
What is the point in approaching such minor issues in such a complex way? What is the end goal that you think you will achieve by jumping through hoops and going through negotiations with your child instead of simply saying to her "Please move over, that man needs to get by." (or whatever the issue of the moment is, I'm not trying to harp on the PP)?

"That man needs you to move so he can get by, ds" is pretty much exactly what I'd say. I don't see that as coercive at all. It's information-sharing.

As for the why: Because what seems minor to us may be a very big deal to a child due to his/her limited life experience. Creating the relationship through addressing the small things respectfully prepares everyone for dealing with (and sometimes heading off) the bigger issues that are going to come up.

Does this mean I think that if you're not practicing CL you're not being respectful? Not necessarily. But I think it's a lot easier to be disrespectful if you're not at least being mindful about the level of coercion you're practicing. I know that's the case in my own parenting.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

I also feel the need to say that tone and body language are a huge part of NVC and non-coercion. That's something that gets lost in these discussions.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

What's hard is that you're going against societal rules. I've been in this situation where someone needed to get by my daughter. I said, "Sweetie, would you please move so this man can get by?" My daughter looked up, and moved, and even said, "Excuse me". But the man scowled. If I'd said the same thing to my husband (Sweetie, would you please move so this man can get by?) he probably wouldn't have minded waiting the few seconds it took, but our society doesn't give children that respect. We're expected to move children immediately because the norm is that adults shouldn't have to wait a nanosecond for a child to move, but it's reasonable for an adult to wait a few seconds for another adult to move.

This is a sore spot for me.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:

"I see that you prefer to play rather than clean up right now. I am disappointed because I was hoping you would want to cooperate. Would you be willing to do it after you play?".
Okay, this finally hits on something about the consensual living methods that I've been trying to put my finger on.

"I'm disappointed...."

It's labelling the parent's feelings, true. But I had a grandmother who never lifted a finger or raised her voice. Instead, she expressed "disappointment" when you didn't do what she asked.

And she was the *most* coercive of all my grandparents. "Guiltmongering" is the phrase we use when we remember it.

WHy is expressing "Disappointment" in your child's choices noncoercive? Your object is still to tell them why what they're doing is not what you want them do to, and you're doing it by making them feel bad for having made you feel bad, yes?

I have one child who responds very strongly to this sort of thing. Any hint that she caused physical or emotional pain, and she's in tears herself. My other child, though, does not respond well at all to any kind of "you made me feel..." statement, though he does feel bad when he clearly has hurt someone, so he is not empathy-free. But I see that each of them would respond different to this particular CL method -- and I'm not sure what I think about whether those responses would be entirely healthy?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
It's labelling the parent's feelings, true. But I had a grandmother who never lifted a finger or raised her voice. Instead, she expressed "disappointment" when you didn't do what she asked.

And she was the most coercive of all my grandparents. "Guiltmongering" is the phrase we use when we remember it.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with sharing your feelings with your child. Some people do it in a manipulative way--and that's not good. I think it's importnat to watch your motivations.


----------



## verde (Feb 11, 2007)

Quote:

I don't get how anyone could think their child would want to be hit by a truck. Or are we talking about a genuinely suicidal toddler?
I don't understand how this reply addresses the issue at all. Suicidal toddler? That's as relevant as bringing in a comparison to Saddam Hussein.

No, I do not think your toddler is suicidal. I think your toddler may run into the street in front of a truck because she doesn't have the experience and the knowledge to know how dangerous it is to run in front of a truck. I am certain that in the face of an ongoing truck you would, indeed, grab her out of the way whether she agreed or not with your choice. Why? Because you know that a truck can kill her and she may not. That is a part of parenting. This is protecting her from her own actions. If you really, truly believe that you are not protecting her from herself in this situation then I can't help but conclude that you are playing with semantics and that ideology is more important than reality.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
WHy is expressing "Disappointment" in your child's choices noncoercive?

I don't think it is at all. And I'm really surprised that anyone would call it that. It sounds very manipulative to me and, yes, guilt-mongering.

With cleaning up, I'd either take a playful parenting approach or I'd say something like, "I could really use your help cleaning these things up so they don't get stepped up/the house looks neater/etc." We also would have had ten million conversations by then about operating as a family, helping each other out, how nice it feels to have a tidy space, etc. If he refused to help, I might address it at a later time, letting him know that I don't like spending a lot of time picking up other people's messes but also don't like when our tiny place is excessively cluttered, and asking him for ideas on what we could do to fix that. That's with an older child. With a younger child, I'd just make helping the expectation. I'd go about cleaning up, making it fun and light-hearted and make suggestions on how s/he could help. I also wouldn't expect much.

I really believe that non-coercive parenting is most successful when you have a running dialogue going on with your child from the start, even when you think they can't understand what you're saying. They get tone. They perceive intent. It helps lay the foundation for the later dynamic.

That's not to say that it's perfect or will serve every situation well, of course. Nothing is and nothing does. I've just found it to make for a very rich, much more peaceful existence.


----------



## josephine_e (May 27, 2006)

phew! it's taken me all day (in between walks, peek-a-boo, and food flinging







) but i've finally read this entire thread.

i've always leaned, naturally, toward non-violence and non-coercion. that is, i'm of the "treat others how you'd like to be treated" mindset. of course, just like i can't, and probably never will be able to live up to this standard in any other part of my life, i'm not able to live up to it in my parenting (not 100%, that is).

and i don't think anybody is. or anybody (on this thread, at least) has tried to say that they do. from what it sounds like to me, non-coercion (and, indeed, gd in general) isn't about being perfect, it's about an intention, and striving to find new ways of letting your actions come from our intention.

like non-violence, non-coercion can be very complicated. there are a million what-ifs and i don't think anyone can answer them. all we can do is practice practice practice and learn from the world around us.

like i said, i lean towards non-coercion naturally, but have never thought of it -- or haven't been able to implement it, at least -- with my infants. when dd became a toddler, i let her chose when i changed her diaper -- but as an infant, for some reason (programming?) i just went with "what needed to be done". i've done this with ds so far, too, and we're finally starting to hit the power-struggles (he's almost a year). well, after reading (especially the first part of) this thread, it kind of hit me like -- wow, that doesn't really NEED to be done. lately, the big thing for ds has been diaper changing. he hates it. he cries. i get frustrated. so today, when he protested my suggestion to get the poop off his butt, i said "okay. we don't have to do that right now." i came in the other room, got lunch ready, then went back to the living room and said, "you want to get the poop off your butt now?" while picking him up and laying him down for a change. there was no protest and the whole thing went smoothly!

anyway, i just wanna thank the mamas on here for helping me expand my mind a little bit. it's not that i now thing "i will never use coercion again!" in the same way that i can't say "i will never yell or act inappropriately" -- but taking certain things out of my tool box has really helped me to feel less stressed and relate to the kiddos better.

on a side note, i really don't see how the "debate" on this subject is helping anyone. it seems that it has gotten a bit heated, even slightly (passive?) aggressive. i don't think anyone wants to threaten anyone else or their parenting styles and i would love to see some NVC practiced here!


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
Okay, this finally hits on something about the consensual living methods that I've been trying to put my finger on.

"I'm disappointed...."

It's labelling the parent's feelings, true. But I had a grandmother who never lifted a finger or raised her voice. Instead, she expressed "disappointment" when you didn't do what she asked.

And she was the *most* coercive of all my grandparents. "Guiltmongering" is the phrase we use when we remember it.

WHy is expressing "Disappointment" in your child's choices noncoercive? Your object is still to tell them why what they're doing is not what you want them do to, and you're doing it by making them feel bad for having made you feel bad, yes?

Yeah, that part still sticks in my craw, too. It sounds very manipulative, almost shaming. But more than that, it just doesn't really make sense. The child's motivation for cleaning his room shouldn't be to avoid disappointing mama, right?

Isn't that the focus of avoiding over-praising -- trying not to link, in our kids' minds, their efforts with our reaction? Why isn't it okay to label our positive emotions when our kids do something well but it's okay to label our negative emotions when our kids don't do what we want?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
No, I do not think your toddler is suicidal. I think your toddler may run into the street in front of a truck because she doesn't have the experience and the knowledge to know how dangerous it is to run in front of a truck. I am certain that in the face of an ongoing truck you would, indeed, grab her out of the way whether she agreed or not with your choice. Why? Because you know that a truck can kill her and she may not. That is a part of parenting. This is protecting her from her own actions. If you really, truly believe that you are not protecting her from herself in this situation then I can't help but conclude that you are playing with semantics and that ideology is more important than reality.

I am having a hard time understanding why you are getting so personal here.

No, I am not playing with semantics. No *sigh* Ideology is not more important than reality (see how that sounds like a low blow?). I do "really, truly believe that I am not protecting her from herself" in this situation, because _I know she doesn't want to get hit by the truck_. Gosh, that seems so logical to me. I really do feel that I would just be hauling my daughter out of the road to protect her from _the truck_.









But, it doesn't bother me one bit if you want to protect your daughter from herself. It's ok if we have different ways of doing things.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
Yeah, that part still sticks in my craw, too. It sounds very manipulative, almost shaming. But more than that, it just doesn't really make sense. The child's motivation for cleaning his room shouldn't be to avoid disappointing mama, right?

I agree, that part doesn't sound quite "right" to me, either.

I'd rather hear, "Listen, I am ASKING you to help, but if you say, 'no,' I'm probably going to be pissed." At least it's honest!


----------



## kkeris (Oct 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly* 
Good for you.









That happens so frequently and is one of my major pet peeves. Just say "excuse me," already. He knows what it means!

I hear you! I cant count the number of times when my DD innocently took an object from a counter/cashier to look at and when the lady wants it back, she would go 'er.....er...er...' and look at ME. I mean, huh?? Why not just ask for it back the way you would with an adult? My Dd is nearly 3, doesnt she looks like she understands basic english??







:


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly* 
But I think it's a lot easier to be disrespectful if you're not at least being mindful about the level of coercion you're practicing. I know that's the case in my own parenting.

I loved your entire post, Dragonfly, but this part really resonated with me when I read it. I've been really working on using less coercion but have also struggled with when and why I might find it appropriate. I also do it a whole lot more than I'd like. But I love what you've said about simply being mindful about the level of coercion one is practicing. I feel like in that regard, I'm doing so much better...I'm finding myself really paying more attention to my interactions with my ds. I'm reflecting much more and approaching issues that arise more slowly and with more thought.

I know that when my oldest was a toddler, I found it pretty easy to problem-solve with him...he was very verbal and it just came naturally. But now I struggle much more with the sassy stuff and rudeness...those are big triggers for me. So the depth of my learning and the work of it all has become more challenging...it's all good, no matter how tough at times.

I hope MDC doesn't shut down these discussions...for me, there is so much richness in it all. It would be great if the defensives didn't run so high, but that is simply human. There's so much to learn in the muck.


----------



## verde (Feb 11, 2007)

Quote:

I am having a hard time understanding why you are getting so personal here.

No, I am not playing with semantics. No *sigh* Ideology is not more important than reality (see how that sounds like a low blow?).
Well no, I think the low blow came with the image of a suicidal toddler.

No this is not personal. This is an energetic discussion. Personally I enjoy them and find them extremely interesting and stimulating. Perhaps my style is to forceful for you and some others. I was on the debate team in high school and I enjoyed debates and discussion all through college and grad school. To me the most fascinating were the ones about differing philosophical beliefs be they social or political or religious or whatever. That is what we've had on this thread -- a vigorous discussion.

I also see nothing passive-aggressive -- it's all been quite straightforward. Certain people have expressed the belief that a philosophy they believe in, non-coercive parenting, is the approach they believe works best for them and ultimately for society. Others have questioned some aspects of this belief. And the discussion took off. I see no muck. I see lots of thoughtful comments and people trying to understand each other. May it continue.

With that in mind I'd like to continue with my questions. My perspective comes from having a toddler. I spend a lot of time on the toddler forum. Many of the threads about toddlers is from mamas asking advice about behavioral issues: toddlers hit each other, they grab binky's from each others mouths, they don't want to share, they don't always like their new siblings and can be downright violent with them. Most of the responses can be summarized as: it's their developmental age. They are acting like typical toddlers. I remember one mama saying something like "3 year olds can be pretty selfish." Again, this doesn't mean they are bad or evil, it means they are learning and developing.

So how does one reconcile that reality with the philosophy that one assumes that toddlers want to do right? I simply don't see that. I think toddlers can be parented in such a way that they will grow up into children who want to do right, but they are not born that way. They have to learn to be that way. And, hopefully, many or maybe most, do actually want to do right from their soul. But not right away. They have to go through the development and ARRIVE at that point, they don't begin at that point.

That's why I don't see the purpose of analyzing every bit of behavior that emerges from a toddler. It may be valid but not always deeply meaningful. As Sigmund Freud said, "sometimes a dream is just a dream." Sometimes a toddler will do something, and they do it, and that's that. Then they go on to something else.

I think that looking at every possible nuance in behavior can often mean missing the forest for the trees. IMO, what's more important is the bigger picture. Is the home a loving home? Is there joy and laughter in the home? My DH and I believe in the importance of music and art and we share that with our DD. Does the child feel safe and secure? Is the home non-violent? Does the child feel that she can come to mommy and daddy when she is scared or worried or happy or wants a hug? If you have created an excellent environment, then I think a child will survive a small amount of coercion when the parent deems it necessary -- which is (hopefully) only on rare occasions.

Peace to all.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
_I know she doesn't want to get hit by the truck_. Gosh, that seems so logical to me. I really do feel that I would just be hauling my daughter out of the road to protect her from _the truck_.









And in the context of this scenario, why are you pulling her away from the truck in the first place? Because _she_, through _her_ actions, _wanted_ to get into that situation. Why? Because at this age (my daughter is 16 months) they don't have the cognitive knowledge and foresight to *KNOW* that trucks and roads and traffic are dangerous. It was her curiosity that led her to being in a dangerous situation. Of course we protect our children from themselves. Unless, of course, the truck has run up the side walk and into your front yard... _then_ we can protect them from a truck. THAT seems logical to me.







:

My daughter has just discovered the joy of electrical outlets. She tries to take the covers off so she can put pointy objects in them. This is through HER own doing. SHE wants to do it. HER actions could cause her to get electrocuted. No, I don't want her to be electrocuted, that's just a small part of the problem at this age, because right now I AM protecting her from herself. If it's not electricity, it's traffic, and if it's not traffic, it's climbing. It's par for the course at this age. She doesn't know that a truck running her over can hurt her, not enough to know that she doesn't _want_ to run into the road. She just thinks it's fun to jump off the curb!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
Isn't that the focus of avoiding over-praising -- trying not to link, in our kids' minds, their efforts with our reaction? Why isn't it okay to label our positive emotions when our kids do something well but it's okay to label our negative emotions when our kids don't do what we want?

Ding, ding, ding!! That is hitting the nail on the head for me. I couldn't think of why this didn't feel right to me, and now I know why - verbal coercion. My dad does it ALL the time, in just that way. He expresses his "feelings" when all it is is disappointment in what I've failed to do. Rarely does he tell me how proud he is, or that he really respects me for certain decisions I've made in my life, buy by gosh, if I've disappointed him he's the first one to express his "feelings".


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

verde, I loved this last post of yours. And I agree entirely. I only used the word "muck" because I think that's sometimes how people feel when their defenses start to crop up. We all want what is best for our children and I think when what we're doing comes into question, it is natural to get defensive.

I, also, learn a tremendous amount from these kinds of debates and it really opens up my mind (when I let it!) to what I'm doing and if a change is in order.

I realize that sometimes I use coercion because it's easiest and I want to believe that it's ok. So all these discussions have really helped me to see that there are often much more respectful ways to work with my ds during times when we don't see eye to eye.

For example, last night my dh and I were exhausted. The baby is sick and everyone was up late and we just wanted 5 minutes of quiet before going to bed ourselves. My 4 1/2yo ds wanted another song and dh lost it. He was spent and couldn't do anymore...so he said "get into bed!" and basically put up a road block. Understandably, ds was very upset and fortunately I was calm enough to talk it out a bit with him. But I realize that many times at night, I'm the one who puts up the road block because I just want him to go to bed. But if I take a little extra time to talk it out and problem-solve a bit, everyone ends the night more peacefully...doesn't mean ds is going to get another song or story, but at least he feels heard and understood.

I hope these discussions can continue...they are ever so helpful to some of us.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Because _she_, through _her_ actions, _wanted_ to get into that situation.

I don't agree. She doesn't want to be in the situation. She wants to move in a certain direction. If we're going to say that children don't have foresight, then we need to be consistent. She doesn't have the foresight to know that roads are dangerous, she also doesn't have the foresight to want to be in a dangerous sitaution.

I think we protect small children from the world, not from themselves. They don't actively seek to harm themselves. They actively seek to explore a world that can be dangerous to them.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
verde, I loved this last post of yours. And I agree entirely. I only used the word "muck" because I think that's sometimes how people feel when their defenses start to crop up. We all want what is best for our children and I think when what we're doing comes into question, it is natural to get defensive.

I, also, learn a tremendous amount from these kinds of debates and it really opens up my mind (when I let it!) to what I'm doing and if a change is in order.

I realize that sometimes I use coercion because it's easiest and I want to believe that it's ok. So all these discussions have really helped me to see that there are often much more respectful ways to work with my ds during times when we don't see eye to eye.

For example, last night my dh and I were exhausted. The baby is sick and everyone was up late and we just wanted 5 minutes of quiet before going to bed ourselves. My 4 1/2yo ds wanted another song and dh lost it. He was spent and couldn't do anymore...so he said "get into bed!" and basically put up a road block. Understandably, ds was very upset and fortunately I was calm enough to talk it out a bit with him. But I realize that many times at night, I'm the one who puts up the road block because I just want him to go to bed. But if I take a little extra time to talk it out and problem-solve a bit, everyone ends the night more peacefully...doesn't mean ds is going to get another song or story, but at least he feels heard and understood.

I hope these discussions can continue...they are ever so helpful to some of us.









:


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
I hope these discussions can continue...they are ever so helpful to some of us.









: I always gain a lot from the discussions ono the GD board, even if it's ideals that I don't completely agree with.

While I strive to be *low* coersion, *no* coersion seems to be an unattainable goal in my family, whether because of the stage my children are in (being unwilling or unable to discuss or accept alternative solutions to their original idea), or due to my own lack of creativity or emotional resouces. I am not worried about my low coersion parenting ruining our relationship or making my children feel unvalued, or making them unable to think for themselves or stand up for themselves or find happiness or feel like their opinions matter. The practicality of our lives dictates for us that when I offer several alternatives to my son, he will not agree to any of them, yet is unable or unwilling to offer his own ideas, well, we're at an impasse and since I am at the end responsible for his being on this earth and thriving, I will make a decision, take the path of least resistance, and just forge ahead. And he's a pretty great guy, if I do say so myself, so I must be doing something right.

I always enjoy the discussions about consensual living, if not to just give me some ideas how to be more creative in the future. I don't even think I'll be completely consensual, and that's OK with me, it's not really a goal of mine. I grew up in a low coersion household, and I have nothing but warm memories of my very gentle, if not occasionally 'bossy' parents. I know they valued me and my ideas, even if they didn't always use them when I offered.







.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
With that in mind I'd like to continue with my questions. My perspective comes from having a toddler. I spend a lot of time on the toddler forum. Many of the threads about toddlers is from mamas asking advice about behavioral issues: toddlers hit each other, they grab binky's from each others mouths, they don't want to share, they don't always like their new siblings and can be downright violent with them. Most of the responses can be summarized as: it's their developmental age. They are acting like typical toddlers. I remember one mama saying something like "3 year olds can be pretty selfish." Again, this doesn't mean they are bad or evil, it means they are learning and developing.

So how does one reconcile that reality with the philosophy that one assumes that toddlers want to do right? I simply don't see that.

But selfish doesn't necessarily equal wanting to do "wrong." A toddler hits b/c he doesn't know how to express complex emotions--like anger or a need for personal space or how to initiate play, etc. They grab binkies b/c they want the binky--and there's a tunnel vision going on. Nothing wrong with wanting a binky and trying to satisfy that urge. Most of the time they're just not even considering that they took if FROM someone....just that they took it. All that stuff really doesn't have the bad intent that we adults often ascribe it. It's good intentions lacking finesse, if you will.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
I think toddlers can be parented in such a way that they will grow up into children who want to do right, but they are not born that way. They have to learn to be that way. And, hopefully, many or maybe most, do actually want to do right from their soul. But not right away. They have to go through the development and ARRIVE at that point, they don't begin at that point.

I think maybe you're conflating "doing RIGHT" and "doing POLITE." Does that make sense?

People with Aspergers aren't trying to do "wrong" when they don't kind of "get" or consider people around them. They just don't get the personal interactions that most folks consider polite.

I think toddlers are the same--just impolite.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
That's why I don't see the purpose of analyzing every bit of behavior that emerges from a toddler.

I don't see anyone recommending that. I'm too busy analyzing MY behavior 99% of the time. That's my advice to people--start with what you can control! Toddlers ain't one of them!









Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
If you have created an excellent environment, then I think a child will survive a small amount of coercion when the parent deems it necessary -- which is (hopefully) only on rare occasions.

I agree. But, really, I also think they will survive the times I've lost my $hi* and hit them. But I don't think it's ideal. And I don't think I would give people advice like, "If you've created a loving home I don't think you should worry about having to hit them every so often." But, lots and lots of people WILL give that advice. If people are striving to be non-coercive, telling them that there are times when coercion is OK and go right ahead--probably isn't going to help them get closer to their goal. Helping them brainstorm different ways to be non-coercive is probably more helpful.

It's really not that we're all standing around wringing our hands, scrutinizing our children's every move, tippy-toeing around trying to find some way to keep our kids perfectly happy in every moment. Really!







Just trying to see what else is available to keep expanding our reality of "negotiable" and "agreeable," I guess.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
And in the context of this scenario, why are you pulling her away from the truck in the first place? Because _she_, through _her_ actions, _wanted_ to get into that situation.

But "that situation" that she wants to be in isn't likely to be in the headlights of the oncoming truck. More likely it's to be closer to that pretty butterfly. Or to get to that fun slide FAST. The fact that the truck is there isn't even on her radar.

If it were something that she knowingly put herself into, then you would be saving her from herself.

But she doesn't know about the truck. And she doesn't want to get hit by the truck.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
My daughter has just discovered the joy of electrical outlets. She tries to take the covers off so she can put pointy objects in them. This is through HER own doing. SHE wants to do it. HER actions could cause her to get electrocuted. No, I don't want her to be electrocuted, that's just a small part of the problem at this age, because right now I AM protecting her from herself.

But she's not deliberately trying to hurt herself. What part of herself are you saving her from if she doesn't want to get hurt? She doesn't know from elecrocuted--she just wants to explore and stick fun stuff into other fun stuff.







If she has no idea that her explorations are going to bring her harm then how can you be saving her from something she doesn't want or know exists? Your saving her from the collateral damage that her explorations might bring.

It's subtle, I know. And I'm not sure I'm doing a good job of teasing out the difference.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
But I realize that many times at night, I'm the one who puts up the road block because I just want him to go to bed. But if I take a little extra time to talk it out and problem-solve a bit, everyone ends the night more peacefully...doesn't mean ds is going to get another song or story, but at least he feels heard and understood.

Me, too! When my well is low it's so hard to help those around me. It's been REALLY cool to watch my 5 yr. old start to recognize this and volunteer to do little things to make my life easier when I get like this. That's when I'm like







: to people who say I'm teaching him he's the center of the universe and won't consider others.









gotta run....hope yhat was clear


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Cool old thread, with new life. Took a minute to get through it... wow! Just a couple things that stuck out, and some things I'd like to add that I didn't see in here:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
<snip>

I didn't say anything to DD, but turned to the woman and said, "Ya know, she is a person...she may be small, but I'm sure if you say 'excuse me, may I get by you', she would gladly oblige".







:

Of course, she just stared at me with that dead-fish-eyed expression. But really, it's not rocket-science...just manners.










Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
What's hard is that you're going against societal rules. I've been in this situation where someone needed to get by my daughter. I said, "Sweetie, would you please move so this man can get by?" My daughter looked up, and moved, and even said, "Excuse me". But the man scowled. If I'd said the same thing to my husband (Sweetie, would you please move so this man can get by?) he probably wouldn't have minded waiting the few seconds it took, but our society doesn't give children that respect. We're expected to move children immediately because the norm is that adults shouldn't have to wait a nanosecond for a child to move, but it's reasonable for an adult to wait a few seconds for another adult to move.

This is a sore spot for me.

It is for me too. I treat dd in many ways, just like I treat any other denizen of this world: with (hopefully mutual) respect, courtesy, and an openness to preferences. But part of treating her that way is about modelling that behavior _for_ her. It's not enough, for me, to _inform_ her that the man has to get through so please move... Knowing that dd is not always ready to just up and move for another's convenience, I offer her choices I can live with, and let her pick what she can live with; example: "Dd, that man has to get through the door. Will you please excuse yourself?" If dd were to be reluctant, or unresponsive, I'd offer her a choice (aware, at this point, that the man might be getting impatient, but taking full advantage of a teachable moment) like, "Dd, you may chose to move your body so he can get through, or mama can help you move. What's your choice?" She invariably will chose to do it herself, cementing her feelings of independance and capability.

When we teach our dc's to use manners, we're teaching them how to engage with the other people they will encounter in a way that is more likely to be successful and/or positive. I think respecting people is important, really important... children treating adults with respect is important, and something we teach in our family... But likewise, I will try to encourage others to treat my child with that respect, and teach her that she deserves that respect... by respecting her preferences myself.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with sharing your feelings with your child. Some people do it in a manipulative way--and that's not good. I think it's importnat to watch your motivations.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I agree, that part doesn't sound quite "right" to me, either.

I'd rather hear, "Listen, I am ASKING you to help, but if you say, 'no,' I'm probably going to be pissed." At least it's honest!

I'll be honest, the disappointment piece didn't sit well with me either... _BUT_ I recognize that it's due to my experience with the word in the context it was used in my upbringing. And MANY of us have that paradigm. The _truth_ is, in its pure form, it's just a word to describe: _noun
1. a feeling of dissatisfaction that results when your expectations are not realized.
_

I think without all the baggage we assign it, disappointment isn't a bad word... But I think things like "I'm probably going to be pissed" are covertly (said with enough heat, _overtly_) hostile, and that _is_ damaging to a child. Expectations aren't great, they create room for disappointment. I'd rather avoid feeling disappointed with dd by not having expectations. I'd rather just model that when we're done playing, it makes things a bit easier to just put our stuff away, so there isn't an even bigger mess later. And if it's an inconvenience for _me_, then I need to re-evaluate, because parenting a small child isn't really about convenience is it.

To help clear up some of the semantics here, I got this:
_Coercion:
noun
1. the act of compelling by force of authority
2. using force to cause something to occur
_

There were a slew of synonomous definintions, most of which implied intimidation, threatening, and force. Grabbing a child out of harm's way is not coercive, because it does not intimidate, manipulate, or threaten that child. And, when accompnaied by an apology and explanation like, "Dd, Mama's sorry that startled you. The road is not safe. It _scares_ Mama when you go into the road because you could be hurt very badly. Will you stay close to Mama, or can I hold your hand?"... then it's even another teachable moment, where I can offer options.

Isn't the bottom line here, that we (ideally) are teaching our children the tools they will need to function socially? We're teaching them about the virtues of respect, tolerance, patience, etc. And we're teaching them (for better or worse) how to communicate. So, is it coercive parenting to offer choices we can _mutually_ live with? No, I don't think so. Does it strengthen a child's sense of himself to usurp his decision making power and bodily redirect him because it's _inconvenient_ to me to wait for him to come to it in his own fashion? No, I don't think it does. But, if we're seeking balance in this, then the _other_ person's preferences need to be respected too... the guy needs to get thru and making _him_ wait isn't respectful; so dc gets a lesson in respect as well as his own choice in how to exercise his ability to move and his capacity to respect.

It's all about context, intention. If you're going into these interactions with your dc intending to just get through it, with no intentions, or with overt or covert hositility, then just about any track you take may be considered coercive, or invasive. But if you're looking for these teachable moments, and striving to make these interactions impactful in a positive and affirming way, even if you fall short in the moment, or have a bad day, you're on the right path... no one could fault you if you're treating your child with respect and dignity. We all have bad days, it's what you do _in the moment and after the fact_ that defines your child's experience of your parenting...


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly* 
She doesn't have the foresight to know that roads are dangerous, she also doesn't have the foresight to want to be in a dangerous sitaution.

Exactly. She doesn't *know*. She just knows it's fun to jump off curbs. She doesn't not want to be in that situation anymore then she does want to be in that situation, because BEING in that situation has absolutely no bearing on the fact that she loves to jump off curbs. She just loves to jump off curbs!

Quote:

I think we protect small children from the world, not from themselves.
Well, the "world" is not out to get our children. Unless a truck is trying to run her down, or by some strange phenomenon electricity is shooting out of the sockets right for her, or the poisonous plants on our walk come to life like the little shop of horrors, then I am most definitely protecting _her_ from getting in a trucks way, and protecting _her_ from putting something into the electrical outlet, and protecting _her_ from eating poisonous plants.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
The fact that the truck is there isn't even on her radar.

Yes, exactly! She has absolutely no clue that a truck can hurt her, therefore, how can SHE not _"want"_ to be in that situation?

Quote:

What part of herself are you saving her from if she doesn't want to get hurt?
The part where she is incapable of making decisions that garner her safety and health. If she doesn't know that getting hit by a truck can hurt her, how can she know that she doesn't want to get hit by it? I can't imagine at 16 months that, that is even a thought process she is capable of having.

Meh, semantics. I don't care one way or another that we're basically saying the same damn thing but wording it differently. What ev..


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

I've been thinking about this entire discussion with my 4 1/2 yo in mind. When I think about my 14month old it doesn't translate as easily for me.

Honestly, I don't think I'd give nearly as much thought to coercion stuff with a baby/toddler as I do with an older child who is developing a sense of his identity and ability to make choices for himself in the world. Of course, I'm not going to just willy nilly coerce my toddler into things, but I'm also not going to overthink how to keep him safe (outlet and truck examples above).

Also, babies and toddlers are a lot of physical work. As children get older, it becomes much more mentally and emotionally involved and I think that's where thinking through these interactions is particularly important.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
It's all about context, intention. If you're going into these interactions with your dc intending to just get through it, with no intentions, or with overt or covert hositility, then just about any track you take may be considered coercive, or invasive. But if you're looking for these teachable moments, and striving to make these interactions impactful in a positive and affirming way, even if you fall short in the moment, or have a bad day, you're on the right path... no one could fault you if you're treating your child with respect and dignity. We all have bad days, it's what you do _in the moment and after the fact_ that defines your child's experience of your parenting...

I totally agree. And I think it's entirely possible to mindfully, respectfully parent whether one chooses to use coercion or not.

About the whole "disappointment" thing, I'm relieved to see that it's not sitting well with people who practice CL either. I can't really imagine a GD parent saying that to their kid (unless it was one of those unthinking, bad-day moments).


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Exactly. She doesn't *know*. She just knows it's fun to jump off curbs. She doesn't not want to be in that situation anymore then she does want to be in that situation, because BEING in that situation has absolutely no bearing on the fact that she loves to jump off curbs. She just loves to jump off curbs!

Yes. I think we're saying the same thing here.

Quote:

Well, the "world" is not out to get our children. Unless a truck is trying to run her down, or by some strange phenomenon electricity is shooting out of the sockets right for her, or the poisonous plants on our walk come to life like the little shop of horrors, then I am most definitely protecting _her_ from getting in a trucks way, and protecting _her_ from putting something into the electrical outlet, and protecting _her_ from eating poisonous plants.
The world isn't out to get our children but it *is* set up in a way that's frequently harmful to them. So, yes, as parents we spend a great deal of time protecting our children from the world.

Quote:

Yes, exactly! She has absolutely no clue that a truck can hurt her, therefore, how can SHE not _"want"_ to be in that situation?
"DD, if you run in the road, you will get hurt very badly. Maybe so badly that mama can't fix it." (Or, with a younger child, "Ouch! That's a big ouch!" <insert extremely pained look on the face with much flailing of arms and scary, sad tone>







)

I think that's enough to tell a child she doesn't want to be in that situation.

Quote:

The part where she is incapable of making decisions that garner her safety and health. If she doesn't know that getting hit by a truck can hurt her, how can she know that she doesn't want to get hit by it? I can't imagine at 16 months that, that is even a thought process she is capable of having.
I can. Children are, IME, able to understand a lot more of what we say than we give them credit for. That's sort of an aside, thought. The real issue it that I think you might be commingling two different ideas into one here. Knowing what she does not want is not the same as being capable of making the decision that keeps that from happening to her. The latter takes foresight and much more experience than most young children have. It requires being in a development stage where you look beyond the immediate. The former does not. It only takes that instinct to survive that we all have for us to know that we don't want to experience the big ouch.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
<snip>

Also, babies and toddlers are a lot of physical work. As children get older, it becomes much more mentally and emotionally involved and I think that's where thinking through these interactions is particularly important.

I agree, and I think we get acclimated to the process and make it more 2nd nature by practicing it on the little ones. With dd, when she was just starting to really branch out (at 9 mo she was _running_) I practiced by admonishing her gently "Whoops! No hands. Not safe... here ya go!" in a sing-song voice, and offering safe alternatives immediately.

By 15 mo, I had my first couple of scares with light sockets and the road... and it was a test of my ability to maintain composure to be sure... but after the initial reaction, one can always go back and insulate one's reactions with awareness, empathy and communication. Yeah, I grabbed dd and swung her up and out of the road, and then after I set her down on the sidewalk in front of me and got down on one knee, I pointed to the road and said, "Not safe." Not safe=non-negotiable. Now that she's a little bit older (almost 3) she knows that phrase and that it's serious.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
Honestly, I don't think I'd give nearly as much thought to coercion stuff with a baby/toddler as I do with an older child who is developing a sense of his identity and ability to make choices for himself in the world. Of course, I'm not going to just willy nilly coerce my toddler into things, but I'm also not going to overthink how to keep him safe (outlet and truck examples above).

I agree. I did find that I had to be careful of not treating my baby as merely an extension of myself, especially when he got to that point (pretty early on) of having strong preferences. It was just so easy to pick him up and move him around that I had to be mindful I wasn't unnecessarily overriding him at every turn.

But once he got past that easily portable phase and into the "I AM HUMAN HEAR ME ROAR" phase, it did become much more difficult. His needs and wants have become more complex and his displeasure at being micro-managed and overpowered is, let's just say, a *lot* more apparent.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Meh, semantics. I don't care one way or another that we're basically saying the same damn thing but wording it differently. What ev..









Yeah, mostly.









But I think the real cincher is if you're viewing the kid as needing saving from herself, then it makes sense to exert the saving over HER.

If you're view the kid as needing saving from "the world," then you might be more focused on exerting control over "the world"/NOT her.

Like if I had superhuman strength in the truck scenario, I'd rather block the truck than have to shove someone out of the way. But, I can't so I gotta move the body.

But, it just gets me out of that "it's for your own good" kind of mentality that can get kind of muddy and more coercive.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
I totally agree. And I think it's entirely possible to mindfully, respectfully parent whether one chooses to use coercion or not.

About the whole "disappointment" thing, I'm relieved to see that it's not sitting well with people who practice CL either. I can't really imagine a GD parent saying that to their kid (unless it was one of those unthinking, bad-day moments).

See, the "disappointment" thing is not the first example I've seen of things that set off my Guiltmonger Radar. I've seen a *lot* of examples of CL ways of responding to things that make me cringe because I can hear my grandmother using those *same* words... I know the delivery is key, but...

The thing is, I think that a parent can have the best intention in the world of just stating their feelings without shaming - but a child who is sensitive to that will respond to it as shaming. I can already hear the counterargument: "A child who hasn't been shamed won't experience it as that..." but I can tell you that my DD from very early on responded to *any* cue that she'd hurt someone with tears of her own and was clearly *very* upset -- when she bit me while nursing and I yelped in pain (not dramatized pain, honest OUCH), she'd look up and me and just start to sob. If I say "I'm tired and I don't want to pick up all the blocks alone," she comes running and clearly feels *bad* that I feel bad. It has been such a strikign response that I've backed off from even saying that kind of thing conversationally in front of her.

Her brother, on the other hand, if I tried any of the "If you don't clean it up, then I will have to, and that will make me tired." would shrug and say "Okay." His need to not be put out by doing something unpleasant is not outweighed by my having to do something unpleasant instead. Which I think is not unusual in kids - even those who "are born good and want to please." Wanting to please only goes so far


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
See, the "disappointment" thing is not the first example I've seen of things that set off my Guiltmonger Radar. I've seen a *lot* of examples of CL ways of responding to things that make me cringe because I can hear my grandmother using those *same* words... I know the delivery is key, but...

The thing is, I think that a parent can have the best intention in the world of just stating their feelings without shaming - but a child who is sensitive to that will respond to it as shaming. I can already hear the counterargument: "A child who hasn't been shamed won't experience it as that..." but I can tell you that my DD from very early on responded to *any* cue that she'd hurt someone with tears of her own and was clearly *very* upset -- when she bit me while nursing and I yelped in pain (not dramatized pain, honest OUCH), she'd look up and me and just start to sob. If I say "I'm tired and I don't want to pick up all the blocks alone," she comes running and clearly feels *bad* that I feel bad. It has been such a strikign response that I've backed off from even saying that kind of thing conversationally in front of her.

Her brother, on the other hand, if I tried any of the "If you don't clean it up, then I will have to, and that will make me tired." would shrug and say "Okay." His need to not be put out by doing something unpleasant is not outweighed by my having to do something unpleasant instead. Which I think is not unusual in kids - even those who "are born good and want to please." Wanting to please only goes so far









There's a different counter-point, here... Your daughter is clearly an empathetic person. She doesn't intend to hurt you, and feels bad when she does. That's beautiful. If she feels bad that you feel bad then you've gotten a gift in that she's already done half the work in learning about compassion and justice, because it's in her nature. Backing off from being yourself and having your own feelngs won't cultivate that empathy. What would happen if you thanked her for being so kind? Can you nurture that without it feeling manipulative to you?

I think there's a line between educating and manipulating. Young kids (esp 2-7) don't have the experience, the points of reference and the wisdom to discern between emotions and label what they are, much less to have consistent control over their own. Labelling your _own_ emotions, in addition to what you observe in them, helps them to understand the responses, desirable or not, that their behaviors will invite. I don't advocate for the emotional blackmail that goes on in dysfunctional situations... Telling a child that your happiness or approval is _contingent_ upon their actions is just sick, and I suspect that you witnessed some of this, *savithny*.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
I agree, and I think we get acclimated to the process and make it more 2nd nature by practicing it on the little ones. With dd, when she was just starting to really branch out (at 9 mo she was _running_) I practiced by adminishing her gently "Whoops! No hands. Not safe... here ya go!" in a sing-song voice, and offering safe alternatives immediately.

I agree. I think my focus is a bit different now with two kiddos. I'm really noticing my need to learn and adjust with my older child...poor guy, he's kind of my training ground, I guess.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Esp. if she's got some sensory issues, it might be really hard for her to have that going on. ??

I've definitely found that respecting those kind of "weird kid" issues has made them pass fairly quickly. Though your's might not if she's real sensitive to stuff like that.


Sigh. It always seems to come back to that. But you're right, I'm the adult, I'm sure I can figure out a way to get my own needs met....









Re: the disappointment example everyone is talking about....I'm just starting the NVC book but I think that it is exactly the kind of example that is shown an example of "violent" communication.

I think if you accept that no one else can make us feel anything, it is incorrect to say or imply that "because you did/didn't do X mommy is disappointed." It would be more accurate to instead say something like "when you don't help me, I feel disappointed because I was hoping to finish quickly so I could start dinner (or because I was looking forward to helping you organize your room or whatever the reason you had that expectation)" Then you could add "because I didn't have help I need some help from you to chop the onions if I'm going to get dinner on time" - or whatever. THat way you take responsibility for your own feelings/expectations and instead let the child in on your thought/feeling process. But it's important to draw a clear line between why you feel this way and their actions.

I'm not sure if this makes any sense as I'm just starting with this stuff....but it just seems like this is exactly the sort of communication that the book is talking about....and it's SO helpful to people like me that grew up with a passive agressive parent! LOL

Maybe one of you who know more about NVC can explain it better?
peace,
robyn


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

I often wonder about the irritation in my voice. It's real and it's how I truly feel sometimes...irritating beyond belief. But it comes out a little barky and I don't want him to feel like he is 'irritating'. I often just say that I'm tired and cranky and I'm sorry that I've been short or whatever.

I think letting kids on how they are impacting our feelings is good but also tricky at times. It's very hard to rise above it all and clearly say "I'm beginning to feel irritated. I need a break." I'm usually pretty pissed by the time I need to say this.

This thread is getting my mind reeling...it's good, though!


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hippymomma69* 
Sigh. It always seems to come back to that. But you're right, I'm the adult, I'm sure I can figure out a way to get my own needs met....









Just to offer a slightly different vantage point: In our house, I'm the one with the sensory issues. Ds, on the other hand, is a major noise-maker. He's the Rhythm King and loves to have as many different sounds and beats going at one time as he possibly can. I get over-stimulated very easily, especially when I'm stressed (which is a lot) and I often can't take more than one noisy thing going on at a time. So, if the TV on and he starts drumming, I have to ask him to choose. If we're listening to music and he has friends over and they start getting very rowdy, I have to either turn the music off (which is no fun for him because they're often doing something with the music) or ask him to go be rowdy in his room or outside.

I know it's frustrating for him and I try to accommodate as much as I can. But my sensory issues will only let me go so far.

I don't know if this is what your daughter might be feeling, too. If it is, though, then it isn't really a matter of having her preferences trump your needs. I'm sure it's still frustrating, though.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

swampangel - It's definitely tricky, isn't it? It takes a lot of self-awareness to recognize irritation before it manifests itself outwardly. That's something I could definitely stand to get better at. The barky voice comes out *way* too often.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Dragonfly, I'm glad to know I'm not alone on that one! I think just remember that it is something to work on is better than not acknowledging it as a problem. Sometimes I let myself off the hook too easily - I'm exhausted, this is a tough job, I have little support during the day, etc. But none of that is ds's problem. I have to remember to continue to better myself and my responses....sometimes I wish I could just go unconscious about it all for a little while!!


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly* 
"DD, if you run in the road, you will get hurt very badly. Maybe so badly that mama can't fix it." (Or, with a younger child, "Ouch! That's a big ouch!" <insert extremely pained look on the face with much flailing of arms and scary, sad tone>







)

I think that's enough to tell a child she doesn't want to be in that situation.

If that were the case, then every child on the planet would only run near the road *once*, because clearly their parent's reaction would "be enough to tell a child she doesn't want to be in that situation". But the crux of the issue is that their getting into that situation isn't based on wanting/not wanting to be hit by a truck.. it's what LED them to that (following a ball, chasing a butterfly, jumping off the curb).

Please explain how a 16 month is able to conclude that playing with a ball near a road is dangerous, and that if they don't *want* to be hit by a car, that they should move away from the road. Because everything I've read has indicated that at 16 months they are not developmentally "there" yet.







:


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hippymomma69* 
I think if you accept that no one else can make us feel anything, it is incorrect to say or imply that "because you did/didn't do X mommy is disappointed." It would be more accurate to instead say something like "when you don't help me, I feel disappointed because I was hoping to finish quickly so I could start dinner (or because I was looking forward to helping you organize your room or whatever the reason you had that expectation)" Then you could add "because I didn't have help I need some help from you to chop the onions if I'm going to get dinner on time" - or whatever. THat way you take responsibility for your own feelings/expectations and instead let the child in on your thought/feeling process. But it's important to draw a clear line between why you feel this way and their actions.

This makes much more sense to me, and doesn't sound as nearly verbally coercive as what my dad does with us.







:

What is the name of the book (and author)? I'm going to check it out, it sounds interesting.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
If you're view the kid as needing saving from "the world," then you might be more focused on exerting control over "the world"/NOT her.

Like if I had superhuman strength in the truck scenario, I'd rather block the truck than have to shove someone out of the way. But, I can't so I gotta move the body.

And here's the thing. I don't have control over the world, and I likely never will (though I do have twisted fantasies of it every now and then







). How I would love for my daughter to remain unscathed while I take care of all the "big ouches" with the twitch of my nose, but that will never happen. All I can do is protect her until she of an age and ability to look out for herself, all while I communicate and model safety and good health.









Quote:

But, it just gets me out of that "it's for your own good" kind of mentality that can get kind of muddy and more coercive.
I've never liked this train of thought. It seems controlling, and is a manipulative way for parents to absolve themselves from any responsibility in how they raise and shape their kids. When your child comes to you in 20 years with social issues and reflects upon how they were treated as a child, the "it was for your own good" is an under handed way of saying "I did it for you, so are you going to blame *me* for how you turned out"? I am dealing with this very thing in my adult life, and it's what motivates me to be as fair, objective, neutral, and non-coercive as possible. But I think protecting children from themselves, and being manipulative and controlling in the name of "doing it for their own good" are completely different. At least based on my life experiences. Keeping my daughter away from the road IS for her own good. Forcing her to eat iron-rich nutritious spinach at dinner even though she's in tears is NOT for her own good. One is protection, the other is just controlling.

But I do strive for harmony in my house, and that happens when everyone is happy, when everyone has their needs met, and when everyone feels equally acknowledged (me, hubby, and baby... and three dogs and a cat







: ).

However, I still don't identify with consensual living because in our house, at some point or another someone has to make a compromise and humbly live with it.

I don't know, maybe I'm missing the bigger picture. I'm going to check out that book and I'll get back to you.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Please explain how a 16 month is able to conclude that playing with a ball near a road is dangerous, and that if they don't *want* to be hit by a car, that they should move away from the road. Because everything I've read has indicated that at 16 months they are not developmentally "there" yet.







:

Actually, I'm pretty sure I just said they're not. We're clearly having some sort of miscommunication here.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
And here's the thing. I don't have control over the world, and I likely never will (though I do have twisted fantasies of it every now and then







). How I would love for my daughter to remain unscathed while I take care of all the "big ouches" with the twitch of my nose, but that will never happen. All I can do is protect her until she of an age and ability to look out for herself, all while I communicate and model safety and good health.









I think most of what we discuss in this forum is how to change "the world" and not the kid. Except we call it our "environment."









Most mainstream discipline does focus more on the kid. Advising things like saying, "NO!" loudly as they go for the outlet, swatting their hands away, putting them in a time out, etc.

We seem to focus more on moving the furniture to make it safer, "honoring the impulse" in another safe way, distracting with something more inviting, etc.

So I think that most of us are already kind of in that mindset.

Finding agreeable solutions seems to work better by taking the focus off of seeking to change/control the person and focusing on the situation or our expectations/responses.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Keeping my daughter away from the road IS for her own good. Forcing her to eat iron-rich nutritious spinach at dinner even though she's in tears is NOT for her own good. One is protection, the other is just controlling.

I'm not sure everyone with agree with you about the spinach (I do, obviously). But, I think lots of (most?) parents would equate those two examples. And that the means would justify the ends.

And not that they would take any pleasure from forcing the kid to eat the spinach while crying, but that it would be something they HAVE to do b/c its necessary for the child's well-being. I bet you could post that scenario on any one of a hundred parenting boards and get near unanimous support for "doing what you had to do," and kudos for "being a good and responsible parent who has their child's best interest at heart."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
I don't know, maybe I'm missing the bigger picture. I'm going to check out that book and I'll get back to you.









Maybe it just doesn't jive with your philosophies. Or maybe it just takes a huge shift in perception and you're still absorbing it. I'll tell you, it's not easy for those of us who do want to do it all the time to make that shift--esp. early on. Anyway, I'm appreciating the discussing so thanks!


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
I often wonder about the irritation in my voice. It's real and it's how I truly feel sometimes...irritating beyond belief. But it comes out a little barky and I don't want him to feel like he is 'irritating'. I often just say that I'm tired and cranky and I'm sorry that I've been short or whatever.

I think letting kids on how they are impacting our feelings is good but also tricky at times. It's very hard to rise above it all and clearly say "I'm beginning to feel irritated. I need a break." I'm usually pretty pissed by the time I need to say this.

This thread is getting my mind reeling...it's good, though!

I find this is getting a lot easier as my kid gets older and we continue to have these "problem-solving" dialogues. Many times it's MY behavior we're revisiting in a calm moment. And trying to discuss it in the same way we'd talk about what was happening in the kid door blocking scenario or some such. It helps me a lot.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I think most of what we discuss in this forum is how to change "the world" and not the kid. Except we call it our "environment."









Who said anything about "changing" the kid?









Quote:

We seem to focus more on moving the furniture to make it safer, "honoring the impulse" in another safe way, distracting with something more inviting, etc.

So I think that most of us are already kind of in that mindset.

Finding agreeable solutions seems to work better by taking the focus off of seeking to change/control the person and focusing on the situation or our expectations/responses.
All this is just common sense to me...









Quote:

I bet you could post that scenario on any one of a hundred parenting boards and get near unanimous support for "doing what you had to do," and kudos for "being a good and responsible parent who has their child's best interest at heart."
And that's why I'm at MDC.


----------



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

No, I know....I'm just trying to flush out how a "saving the kid from the truck" vs. "saving the kid from herself" mindest might play out or impact our process...


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 

What is the name of the book (and author)? I'm going to check it out, it sounds interesting.

The book is Non-Violent Communication by Marsall Rosenberg. It's not a parenting book, per se, but is about all our communication with others. Someone here on the forum suggested it and it's very interesting!
peace,
robyn


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hippymomma69* 
The book is Non-Violent Communication by Marsall Rosenberg. It's not a parenting book, per se, but is about all our communication with others. Someone here on the forum suggested it and it's very interesting!
peace,
robyn

Thanx, I'm going to check it out!


----------



## verde (Feb 11, 2007)

I'm so glad to see this thread has continued.









Quote:

I think toddlers can be parented in such a way that they will grow up into children who want to do right, but they are not born that way. They have to learn to be that way. And, hopefully, many or maybe most, do actually want to do right from their soul. But not right away. They have to go through the development and ARRIVE at that point, they don't begin at that point.

Quote:

I think maybe you're conflating "doing RIGHT" and "doing POLITE." Does that make sense?

People with Aspergers aren't trying to do "wrong" when they don't kind of "get" or consider people around them. They just don't get the personal interactions that most folks consider polite.

I think toddlers are the same--just impolite.
Actually no, I'm talking about the idea that a child wants to do the right thing from the get-go.

Quote:

I think an important part of Gentle Discipline is assuming your child wants to make the right choices, and therefore doesn't need protection from themselves, just good information and guidance.
This is the part that I don't understand. I don't think a toddler can make "right choices" because they have not developed to the point of knowing what a right choice actually is. They are still actively exploring their world and learning how it works. This assumption makes much more sense (to me) after they're older and have some life's experience and also have developed a more full conscience. Toddlers just aren't there yet.

So how does GD and non-coercion (both of which I admire and aspire to practice) reconcile with child development?


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
So how does GD and non-coercion (both of which I admire and aspire to practice) reconcile with child development?

Good question! And I'm guessing that depending on where you are in the spectrum of GD, the answer varies.

Today, my 14 month old wanted to be out of the Ergo but we were ready to head home. I actually thought about it in the moment because I was coercing him to be in the Ergo. I was exhausted and needed to get home and my older son was already off on his bike. It was time to go...I couldn't reason it out with the babe, we just had to get going. I could have held him in my arms and carried the Ergo, but it was too far to do that the whole way. In this case, it didn't feel great because he wasn't ready but I felt there weren't other options that I was ok with. Anyway, he was fine a couple of seconds later and that's why I think I feel a little differently about all of this with the younger ones.

Now, last night my older son (4 1/2) and I walked to pick up take-out. He wanted a drink from the store across the street and I just wanted to get home. But it wasn't an unreasonable request and I often have a craving for something in particular and I just get it. He has to ask me first, so it didn't seem right to say no. So off we went to the other store and it very much felt like the right decision even though I would have much preferred to just go home.

I dunno...I think child development does play a big role in all of this. But I think you can be gentle with a baby without it looking the way it does with older children. Does that make any sense??


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
I dunno...I think child development does play a big role in all of this. But I think you can be gentle with a baby without it looking the way it does with older children. Does that make any sense??

Yep, totally.









I had a similar situation today with the ergo, only it was raining and she didn't want to ride on the front (too hot, too tight, etc). If I flipped her onto my back she would have gotten soaked and I was worried about poking her in the eye with the umbrella. So, she road in the front, but not long after we started walking home she was fine, despite being "coerced" into it.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
This is the part that I don't understand. I don't think a toddler can make "right choices" because they have not developed to the point of knowing what a right choice actually is. They are still actively exploring their world and learning how it works. This assumption makes much more sense (to me) after they're older and have some life's experience and also have developed a more full conscience. Toddlers just aren't there yet.

I see what you're saying. Maybe instead of "right choices" it would be more useful to think of "benign intent." ??

If they had all the information, do you think they would make "right choices" (choices that were in line with social/cultural mores, were generally compassionate, were not intended to deliberately hurt others)?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
So how does GD and non-coercion (both of which I admire and aspire to practice) reconcile with child development?

Child development according to whom?









I mean that article someone posted a bit ago about how 6 month olds lie and manipulate? That could be categorized as "child development." But who is to say what one person sees as manipulating another won't see as getting needs met? Which version is right? And really, will we EVER know for sure what's going on behind the motives of a 6 mo. old or a toddler? I dunno...hard to imagine.

Besides the fact, child development specialists and doctors have thought some pretty wacky stuff over the years. Like how babies in the 40s shouldn't be touched and needed o.j. at 2 weeks and a nice summer tan.







: And more recently: Crying strengthens their lungs, extended nursing is tantamount to molestation, and the whole kit-and-kaboodle of behaviorism as law.

There are many conflicting opinions out there about who kids are and what they need. Personally, I'm going with what helps me see and treat my kids in the best possible way. Believing that my 6 mo. is jerking me around for kicks or that my toddler truly wants to do the malevelant thing is not getting me closer to trusting them, building a harmonious relationship with them, or having peaceful interactions during our days. It just casts a dark cloud of suspicion over our relationships, which isn't what I want.


----------



## junomama (Oct 28, 2006)

I've just found this board and just finished reading this very enlightening thread, and a couple of questions have been swirling around:

First, how do you teach your child to deal with things they will encounter in the larger world that *are* coercive by nature ("the act of compelling by force of authority") - such as laws, taxes, school rules, etc.?

Second, what have been your best ideas for teaching your child manners and the basic ideas of etiquette and proper behavior when in public or a guest in other homes? We have a nephew who is 4, and he is very disruptive in family gatherings. Others in the family feel it's because his parents don't tell him "no" when it needs to be said. My husband swears that we will have a better-behaved child than that. I am guessing that "well-behaved" is an expression that conjures up images of coercive discipline - but I confess, I don't want my son (who is still an infant) to be that child, the one who is constantly tearing through a guest's house, throwing himself against shelves that contain valuable antiques, pulling lamp cords on and off and on and off with no signs of stopping, banging a loud toy against the church pew while a wedding is in progress, etc.

I'd love to hear how you approach the concept of behavior in public, or if "well-behaved" is even a goal of non-coercive parenting. I think, after reading this thread, that I fall more on the non-coercive end of the spectrum, so this question is one I've been struggling with anyway. This question seems so neanderthal compared to the enlightened approaches I've been reading here; perhaps I should spend more time on this board to get more ideas. But if you have any, I'd appreciate them!


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *junomama* 
First, how do you teach your child to deal with things they will encounter in the larger world that *are* coercive by nature ("the act of compelling by force of authority") - such as laws, taxes, school rules, etc.?

Dialogue. Plus, some of this children absorb just from being in their environment. It's the parent's job to help them process what they've absorbed.

Quote:

Second, what have been your best ideas for teaching your child manners and the basic ideas of etiquette and proper behavior when in public or a guest in other homes?
Modeling and dialogue. Even before you think they can understand. Also, with the little ones especially, hands-on (gentle) intervention when necessary with accompanying dialogue. Being a parent is a very hands-on task.

Well-behaved isn't necessarily a goal because well-behaved usually means silent and still. My goal is for my child to learn how to be a functional member of society, to be able to read a situation and understand what he needs to do to be a healthy part of it. My goal is also for him to know how to advocate for himself and to understand his own mind.


----------



## LionTigerBear (Jan 13, 2006)

I am trying to raise my children this way, but I feel like I am failing at my goal. I know I am a good parent and that I am doing a good job, but I am not at the place that some of you are. Anyway, here is a question: my son needs ot be on a special diet, but he often asks for foods that he is not supposed to have. He is almost three. I don't know a non-coercive way to deal with this. I try to give him as many food options as I can. It's difficult, because we recently found out that he has serious negative reactions to some of his favorite foods, and he is a picky eater anyway.

My other challenge is that I get irritates when my almost-3yo treats his 8mo brother roughly, and then I tend to tell him what he can and can't do.

I sometimes feel like I need a noncoercive mentor to help guide me on a daily basis! Lol.


----------



## hippymomma69 (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *junomama* 
Second, what have been your best ideas for teaching your child manners and the basic ideas of etiquette and proper behavior when in public or a guest in other homes? We have a nephew who is 4, and he is very disruptive in family gatherings. Others in the family feel it's because his parents don't tell him "no" when it needs to be said. My husband swears that we will have a better-behaved child than that. I am guessing that "well-behaved" is an expression that conjures up images of coercive discipline - but I confess, I don't want my son (who is still an infant) to be that child, the one who is constantly tearing through a guest's house, throwing himself against shelves that contain valuable antiques, pulling lamp cords on and off and on and off with no signs of stopping, banging a loud toy against the church pew while a wedding is in progress, etc.


Well I'm not really an official non-coercive parent (though I aspire to be!) I think that this is a common misunderstanding of how to handle situations like this. I think that if you really are in tune with your child you will be able to predict how he might handle situations like these....if he has a history of getting "stimulated" by crowd, if he has trouble sitting still and at attention, etc. Really, the key is prevention if possible and removal from the situation if not.

My DD has a sensory integration disorder and I just know that certain things will set her "off" and she will appear to everyone as "that child" LOL SO I do what I can to head her off (bring a toy/book, come late/leave early, take her outside often for breaks, making sure she has gotten her "ya-yas" out, etc) - and if I can't then we leave the situation. Occassionally I make mistakes in knowing what will set her off and I can't leave a situation easily. So she is the disruptive one. Other times she surprises the heck out of me with what she can tolerate...

It sounds like these parents simply aren't in tune with their son OR they simply don't care to intervene (leave, distract, whatever) when his behavior affects others. I don't think it has anything to do with punishing.

And I think that almost everyone has probably had a time or two where their child qualifies as "that child" LOL It's all in your perception. If you've only seen this little boy in loud, crowded or stimulating environments, you may be judging him to harshly....

anyway, that's jmo

hth
peace,
robyn


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *junomama* 
First, how do you teach your child to deal with things they will encounter in the larger world that *are* coercive by nature ("the act of compelling by force of authority") - such as laws, taxes, school rules, etc.?

This is where I'd like furhter ellucidation, too. True coercion is forceful, authoritarian. I have seen reference here to parenting practices that are not forceful, not authoritarian... as coercive, so I sense there's a generalization happening with that word, somewhat. Just as in the phrase Attachment Parenting; there are folks that like to sling that phrase around, and assume because they're practicing things like baby-wearing and cloth-diapering and nursing exclusively that they are APing like the champs, with little regard to the _quality_ of that attachment, or security of the bond.

So for the hard and fast *Non-Coercive* parents, how do you define coercion? I remember our counselor describing coercion to us when referring to covert hostility and abusive behavior. A partner barring the way when the other partner wants to leave during a conflict is considered coercion. When my child desires something that isn't hers, or wants me to stop what I may be doing so that I can get something for her, and _I_ don't want to stop what I'm doing or go get the something, is she then coercing _me_ if she pitches a fit? I'm pretty into mutual agreeability and consensual living, so far, so I try to exemplify that... kwim?

Just curious as to how some of you who are vigilant in being non-coercive will respond.

Quote:

Second, what have been your best ideas for teaching your child manners and the basic ideas of etiquette and proper behavior when in public or a guest in other homes?
<snip>
I'd love to hear how you approach the concept of behavior in public, or if "well-behaved" is even a goal of non-coercive parenting.
Personally, in our family, in our community, 'well-behaved' is a standard that is aspired to by everyone, not just children. And we approach this by teaching a universal value system... virtues such as patience, respect, tolerance, generosity, understanding, steadfastness, etc, are taught early on, and openly. I don't shy away from those words with Prenna, in fact, I use them and model regularly so that she can be familiar with the verbage and therefore begin to understand the concepts. Our community hosts Virtues Classes for children of all faiths, denominations, ideaologies and walks of life. We try to teach that in order to progress to a peaceful and unified society, it's incumbant upon all in that society to learn to live in an honorable, respectful, compassionate manner. What does that look like IRL? Example: In a restaurant, if dd is being disruptive by yelling and jumping up and down in the booth, I might lean over, put my arm around her and ask if I can talk to her for a moment. Then when she stops and looks at me and is ready to hear me, I might quietly say something like, "Is jumping up and down and yelling a way to respect other pople eating? Would you please use restaurant manners, here? Maybe after we're done, we'll go find a good place for jumping and yelling. What do you think?"

She'll be 3 in Nov. and she seems to respond really well to this approach...

When there are instances where dd is being "that kid" I feel strongly that this happens when she has lost control of herself due to any number of a wide range of stimulii... over-tired, over-stimulated (luckily she's not too sensitive), hungry, embarassed, whatev. And that means I'm not or I wasn't tuned into her enough to read her cues before her behavior became an issue, it means I am not or was not doing my job to be there for her, to help her process, or whatever. So I step up my availability, my awareness.

I will 1st see if there is a way to adjust things; take her for a walk outside away from the people, feed her, offer her a beverage, etc. Then if those options don't pan out, I will offer additionaly options, and possibly step in gently if need be. I openly refer to manners and respect, in private and in public. If dd is being "rude" to another person, kid or adult, I will admonish her gently with something like, "Prenna, those words hurt. Will you please use nice words?" If the behavior continues, I may step up a notch and say something like, "Prenna. I hear you/see you being rude to ____. That is not respectful, and ____ doesn't like it. I hope you will respect ____. Your choice now is to walk away and have a break, or find a way to be respectful, so that you may continue playing here. What would you like to do?"

I try to offer her oppotunities to reason out the consequences of her actions by availing her to as much input as possible.

Make sense?

Am I coercive? Dunno...


----------



## junomama (Oct 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Our community hosts Virtues Classes for children of all faiths, denominations, ideaologies and walks of life. We try to teach that in order to progress to a peaceful and unified society, it's incumbant upon all in that society to learn to live in an honorable, respectful, compassionate manner.

That's really cool!

Quote:

Example: In a restaurant, if dd is being disruptive by yelling and jumping up and down in the booth, I might lean over, put my arm around her and ask if I can talk to her for a moment. Then when she stops and looks at me and is ready to hear me, I might quietly say something like, "Is jumping up and down and yelling a way to respect other pople eating? Would you please use restaurant manners, here? Maybe after we're done, we'll go find a good place for jumping and yelling. What do you think?"

She'll be 3 in Nov. and she seems to respond really well to this approach...
This makes sense to me. I was wondering if removing a child from a situation in which he/she is being disruptive is considered coercive ... I imagine it probably depends on the manner in which it's done.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
Child development according to whom?









I mean that article someone posted a bit ago about how 6 month olds lie and manipulate? That could be categorized as "child development." But who is to say what one person sees as manipulating another won't see as getting needs met? Which version is right? And really, will we EVER know for sure what's going on behind the motives of a 6 mo. old or a toddler? I dunno...hard to imagine.

Besides the fact, child development specialists and doctors have thought some pretty wacky stuff over the years. Like how babies in the 40s shouldn't be touched and needed o.j. at 2 weeks and a nice summer tan.







: And more recently: Crying strengthens their lungs, extended nursing is tantamount to molestation, and the whole kit-and-kaboodle of behaviorism as law.

I've seen, as an example of hard core consensual parenting, the example of "if your child was going to jump off the garage..." and at least one response (might have been quoted from another site?) was "I would explain to him the consequences of jumping, that he might be badly injured, etc, but then if he still wanted to jump, that would be his decision..."

The thing about some of the "if you explain it to them you can come to an answer agreeable to everyone." is that -- small children do not always percieve the world the same way adults do. Repeated studies have affirmed what I have seen in my personal experience -- children have a lot of magical thinking until well into elementary school. That child in the above example might listen to his father explain that if he jumps from the garage, gravity will kick in and he will likely break both his legs. But he's probably also thinking, "Well, Dad knows about gravity, but I am wearing my Magic Flying Cape today, so I don't need to worry."

My kid thought Thomas the Tank Engine was *real* until last year. He still may, from the way he hedges his bets when he talks about things. *Real*. The same kid, earlier this month, after visiting a gorgeous spot with a sign someone had put up reading "Piglets Corner," compared the spot with the map in the frontispiece of Winnie the Pooh and told me, in all seriousness, that he knew Pooh's house must be "right over there." There's only so far rationalizing and explaining your grownup perceptions will go, sometimes.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
I've seen, as an example of hard core consensual parenting, the example of "if your child was going to jump off the garage..." and at least one response (might have been quoted from another site?) was "I would explain to him the consequences of jumping, that he might be badly injured, etc, but then if he still wanted to jump, that would be his decision..."

The thing about some of the "if you explain it to them you can come to an answer agreeable to everyone." is that -- small children do not always percieve the world the same way adults do. Repeated studies have affirmed what I have seen in my personal experience -- children have a lot of magical thinking until well into elementary school. That child in the above example might listen to his father explain that if he jumps from the garage, gravity will kick in and he will likely break both his legs. But he's probably also thinking, "Well, Dad knows about gravity, but I am wearing my Magic Flying Cape today, so I don't need to worry."

I think most of us, despite our beliefs about development would NOT let the child jump off the roof.

I would try to find something which might be more agreeable--can't even think how I would deal with that one right now, but if it came up I would come up with something I guess.

I certainly wouldn't expect a small child to understand gravity and broken legs and just move from there.

Really, if after explaining all that and the child still wanted to jump I'd be pretty sure that he did NOT understand.


----------



## chinaKat (Aug 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 

Child development according to whom?









I mean that article someone posted a bit ago about how 6 month olds lie and manipulate? That could be categorized as "child development." But who is to say what one person sees as manipulating another won't see as getting needs met? Which version is right? And really, will we EVER know for sure what's going on behind the motives of a 6 mo. old or a toddler? I dunno...hard to imagine.

Besides the fact, child development specialists and doctors have thought some pretty wacky stuff over the years. Like how babies in the 40s shouldn't be touched and needed o.j. at 2 weeks and a nice summer tan.







: And more recently: Crying strengthens their lungs, extended nursing is tantamount to molestation, and the whole kit-and-kaboodle of behaviorism as law.



I'm just gonna throw this out there -- "attachment" parenting and attachment theory come directly from child development specialists and doctors, too.


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chinaKat* 
I'm just gonna throw this out there -- "attachment" parenting and attachment theory come directly from child development specialists and doctors, too.

Yes, that's why I said this:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
There are many conflicting opinions out there about who kids are and what they need. Personally, I'm going with what helps me see and treat my kids in the best possible way.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

I'm not even sure what the OP posed as the original question and I'm too lazy to go back and look







....

But I've noticed that when I engage in problem-solving, the whole situation becomes much easier. My tendency often is to engage in the power struggle but when I don't and I just ask questions or brainstorm with my ds, the whole issue deflates and becomes less stressful. Often we never come up with a solution, but the process of thinking about how we can solve whatever it might be seems to illustrate quite clearly to my ds in a way that he can digest that there may not be a way for him to get what he wants.

I thought to share this because I've always been under the impression that non-coercive approach is more labor intensive...but in my recent experience it has proven to be quite the opposite.


----------

