# "Time INs" *shudder*



## Viriditas (Aug 30, 2004)

I was just going through papers and found a really terrible article that the teacher of our infant sign language class gave us a few months back. The title is "The Newest Way To Get Kids To Behave," from Parents magazine Oct. 2005. Already I'm









Here are some choice passages:

Quote:

If giving a time-out to a child who misbehaves isn't working for you, you're not alone.[...] Instead of getting stricter, try a time-in: Reward and praise your child when he's being good, so he'll be inspired to keep it up.
[under the heading, "Be Affectionate"]

Quote:

Your child may act out because he wants attention, so look for opportunities to give it to him (unsolicited) when he's behaving well. Kiss your child's forehead when he's drawing quietly, or hug him when he shares nicely or helps out a sibling. Your child will be less inclined to misbehave if he knows he'll get more cuddles from Mom and Dad when he's good.

Quote:

It may take several weeks before your child starts modifying her behavior.

Quote:

...And when you do need to punish him, he'll be less likely to put up a fuss. Above all, he'll realize what he's missing when he gets a time-out: valuable time with you.
Although this woman was really nice and a great teacher, she had a tendancy to spout parenting advice as if she was an authority. And it wasn't always the most sound advice, imo. But I just had to share this article with someone who would groan along with me.


----------



## Cherie2 (Sep 27, 2006)

Sorry, I am not sure what we are groaning about. Is this not exactly what gentle discipline is about. Reinforcing the positive. That seems to be what I am reading in these article excerpts. Maybe I am missing something?


----------



## hipcoolmama (Oct 2, 2006)

Other than the rewards for good behavior, I do these things. Some of these things are advocated in AP and Gentle Discipline books. I don't know...what do you think is wrong with them?

I'm open to rethinking this...but some of it seems like a good idea instead of the harsher discipline techniques.


----------



## hipcoolmama (Oct 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viriditas* 
Your child may act out because he wants attention, so look for opportunities to give it to him (unsolicited) when he's behaving well. Kiss your child's forehead when he's drawing quietly, or hug him when he shares nicely or helps out a sibling. Your child will be less inclined to misbehave if he knows he'll get more cuddles from Mom and Dad when he's good.

This sounds AP to me. I'd be curious what you and others think? AP? Not AP?


----------



## kamilla626 (Mar 18, 2004)

Some of the wording bugs me a little; "_get_ kids to behave"... "_when_ he's good"... etc.

But as a concept it seems pretty gentle and AP.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I can see where her comment "and when you do need to punish him, he'll be less likely to put up a fuss" is outside the reality of GD. I don't think GD reinforces good behavior so that children "tolerate" punishment better. But, I don't think that was her point. It seemed like she was trying to say that having lots of positive interactions, while minimizing the negative, will help a child learn to distinguish positive from negative experiences. Which in turn helps them see that
positive experiences are rewarding, and to feel motivated by positive interactions. I think all of that is within the concept of GD.


----------



## PaxMamma (Jul 22, 2005)

this makes me shudder as well:

Quote:
If giving a time-out to a child who misbehaves isn't working for you, you're not alone.[...] Instead of getting stricter, try a time-in: Reward and praise your child when he's being good, so he'll be inspired to keep it up.

this is nothing more than manipulation and along the "Catch'em being good" theory. i don't like the "being good" wording either, as though children aren't generally "good".

Quote:
Your child may act out because he wants attention, so look for opportunities to give it to him (unsolicited) when he's behaving well. Kiss your child's forehead when he's drawing quietly, or hug him when he shares nicely or helps out a sibling. Your child will be less inclined to misbehave if he knows he'll get more cuddles from Mom and Dad when he's good.

this is directly linking affection and love to desired behaviors. children should not be privvy to our love only when they do what pleases us. they should be valued no matter their deeds.

Quote:
...And when you do need to punish him, he'll be less likely to put up a fuss. Above all, he'll realize what he's missing when he gets a time-out: valuable time with you.

ahhh, the classic time-out "love-withdrawal" style.

now, i've heard of "Time-ins" in a more gd style. if your child is going nuts, swoop him up, give him affection, sit together on a couch, read a book, or just snuggle.


----------



## PMolly (Dec 16, 2005)

It's the concept of "Unconditional Parenting" vs. "Conditional Parenting", right? the article seems to promote the use of conditional parenting techniques (which then leads to the assumption of conditional love).

I like the idea of giving affection, but dislike the emphasis on showering affection when the child is behaving and withdrawing it when the child is misbehaving (love withdrawal). The idea that your child will be more likely to behave if he knows he will get more love and cuddles seems like the very definition of conditional parenting. Isn't the motivation to teach the child that with good behavior comes love/cuddles which then turns into good behavior = loved child, bad behavior = unloved child?

I thought perhaps from the thread title, that the article was refering to the "time ins" reccomended by Dr. Sears. That is, when a child is having problems, or acting out, he reccomends a "time in" the sling (or wrap, or other babywearing device) to help settle down and recenter.


----------



## Viriditas (Aug 30, 2004)

Well, I didn't think it was gentle at all. Maybe gently manipulative and cold. I thought that behaviorism and conditional affection were generally looked down upon here. I just can't see giving my child the message, "Mommy loves you when you're quiet and unobtrusive, but if you're loud/hyper/upset/mad/act-in-any-way-I-don't-like, well, then, no kisses or hugs for you!"

Dedra and Molly- yes, you seem to get why I hated the article so much.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

It's the concept of "Unconditional Parenting" vs. "Conditional Parenting", right?
Well put. I think so too. Although "Unconditional Parenting" and "Gentle Discipline" are not identical concepts.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

I found the article to be gagaliscious. uke

Thank-you for sharing it.

I wonder if there aren't hordes of mainstream parents out there who feel in their guts that punishing their children is wrong, but feel that it's necessary under certain circumstances. Wanting to avoid those circumstances, they heap on the rewards and praise in hopes of avoiding the need to "get tough". Yah. Or something like that. It certainly seems that this gag-me article is feeding off of those fears and the discomfort with which the readers of that magazine are apt to feel when they resort to punishments.

Also... why the heck is that being presented as a new method of manipulation, er parenting? Did they run out of formula ads or something?


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Of course it's a GD "issue!" What's gentle about manipulation and conditional attention? Yep, gagging on this end as well.


----------



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

I feel you, OP.

Treating kids like rats/pigeons/dogs and dangling the carrot in front of them just doesn't jive with what I'm trying to do.

And the whole: let them get a taste of the good stuff, so they'll miss it more when you take it away....just makes me so sad.


----------



## hipcoolmama (Oct 2, 2006)

I looked at it as kind of an introduction to the idea of gentle parenting in a mainstream parenting magazine.

The language isn't exactly GD or UP or AP.

But it you look beyond the terminology in a general sense, the techniques are about gently giving positive attention to your child when discipline issues arise.

I like the idea of a time-in instead of a time-out and addressing a child acting out as a call for more one on one attention between parent and child.

I don't like terms like "punishment" and "reward" either but when I read it I thought maybe they were trying to reach a mainstream audience familiar with those techniques of discipline while advocating for a slightly more gentle approach.


----------



## hipcoolmama (Oct 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkey's mom* 
I feel you, OP.

Treating kids like rats/pigeons/dogs and dangling the carrot in front of them just doesn't jive with what I'm trying to do.

And the whole: let them get a taste of the good stuff, so they'll miss it more when you take it away....just makes me so sad.

Well, that is a good point. Yes, it is sad.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

It may not be up to our standards, but on a whole - it's waaay better than the majority of the predominant parenting methods out there in society. I'd rather see parents pile on the affection at neutral times and decrease their use of punishment. I do think it's a step in the right direction, just not all the way there.


----------



## kamilla626 (Mar 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama* 
It may not be up to our standards, but on a whole - it's waaay better than the majority of the predominant parenting methods out there in society. I'd rather see parents pile on the affection at neutral times and decrease their use of punishment. I do think it's a step in the right direction, just not all the way there.


That's how I saw it. Not quite MDC's brand of GD, but if an inexperienced parent decided to employ those "methods" precisely, it would probably bring about a much better result than the use of frequent time-outs, "naughty chairs", yelling, blaming, shaming, etc.


----------



## myrmom (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama* 
It may not be up to our standards, but on a whole - it's waaay better than the majority of the predominant parenting methods out there in society. I'd rather see parents pile on the affection at neutral times and decrease their use of punishment. I do think it's a step in the right direction, just not all the way there.

i couldn't agree more


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

You have to _tell_ parents to kiss their kid on the forehead? You have to tell them to be affectionate? What planet am I on? Don't people just do that anyway because they are moved to by love and pride? Aren't they just sincerely excited when their kid does something neat?

This is making me cry.


----------



## becoming (Apr 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hipcoolmama* 
I don't like terms like "punishment" and "reward" either but when I read it I thought maybe they were trying to reach a mainstream audience familiar with those techniques of discipline while advocating for a slightly more gentle approach.









:

When I see articles like this, my hope is that a mainstream parent who is familiar with the phrasing/language has been reached and that hopefully one child will live in a more peaceful, gentle environment because of it.


----------



## hipcoolmama (Oct 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
You have to _tell_ parents to kiss their kid on the forehead? You have to tell them to be affectionate? What planet am I on? Don't people just do that anyway because they are moved to by love and pride? Aren't they just sincerely excited when their kid does something neat?

This is making me cry.

Yeah, I know what you mean. It is sad. But, I think some parents, more than we probably want to think about, might not do the things you mentioned on their own.

I mean, my parents didn't. My grandparents didn't.

And, it never hurts to reinforce the idea of gentle discipline and loving discipline to stressed out parents who are at wits end with a toddler who is "misbehaving" or acting out because some of his/her needs are not being met.

I think many times discipline happens when parents are stressed, distracted by another child's needs, or when they are juggling other issues in their lives. So, the discipline isn't well thought out or gentle.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
You have to _tell_ parents to kiss their kid on the forehead? You have to tell them to be affectionate? What planet am I on? Don't people just do that anyway because they are moved to by love and pride? Aren't they just sincerely excited when their kid does something neat?

This is making me cry.









:
No-freaking-kidding!


----------



## granolamom (Sep 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rmzbm* 
Of course it's a GD "issue!" What's gentle about manipulation and conditional attention? Yep, gagging on this end as well.


Yes!!!!


----------



## lalaland42 (Mar 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
You have to _tell_ parents to kiss their kid on the forehead? You have to tell them to be affectionate? What planet am I on? Don't people just do that anyway because they are moved to by love and pride? Aren't they just sincerely excited when their kid does something neat?

This is making me cry.

I completely agree but I see people all the time who don't seem to interact with their child and their child does not seem to expect them to.

When I read the article quotes, I thought, "that doesn't apply to me because I give positive attention to DD all the time but gosh, I wish more people here would give attention to their children." It's sad.


----------



## Viriditas (Aug 30, 2004)

Well, I suppose fake, manipulative affection is better than none at all. But saying that this method is a step toward gd seems to me like saying that my sil is practicing a "mellower" form of gd because she only "swats" her children on the butt and only when they do something really bad. I mean she isn't beating them with plastic tubing, right?

eta: Okay, I read through some of the posts again, and while I would in no way call this gd, I can see how it would be better for a mainstream parent to read and use this than to keep on yelling/spanking/isolating their child all the time. But it still makes me gag!


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viriditas* 
Well, I didn't think it was gentle at all. Maybe gently manipulative and cold. I thought that behaviorism and conditional affection were generally looked down upon here. I just can't see giving my child the message, "Mommy loves you when you're quiet and unobtrusive, but if you're loud/hyper/upset/mad/act-in-any-way-I-don't-like, well, then, no kisses or hugs for you!"

I agree with you. At first I thought "oh, its not that bad" but then my thought was "ooh, ick!"


----------



## claras_mom (Apr 25, 2006)

FWIW, there's another "form" of a "time-in"--it has to do with making a commitment to your child to spend x amount of completely uninterrupted time with him. You know--not answering the phone, making sure the younger (or older) sibling is otherwise occupied or cared for: total attention. My understanding is that with toddlers, it can help a lot with sibling rivalries, tantrums, etc.


----------



## CaraboosMama (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PMolly* 
I thought perhaps from the thread title, that the article was refering to the "time ins" reccomended by Dr. Sears. That is, when a child is having problems, or acting out, he reccomends a "time in" the sling (or wrap, or other babywearing device) to help settle down and recenter.

That's what I though too. Not saying the author's idea is bad, I just know that when Dd is acting up is when she need "time in" the most.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

From my perspective, the excerpts posted in the OP are really manipulative. However, there's a woman I know, and when I picture her kids, and think about what it would be like if she switched to this approach...wow! I'd SO like to see her start doing this. She's already manipulative, but at least this way the kids would be getting some positive attention.

The thing is, though - you can read it different ways. Is the author saying "kiss them on the forehead, even if you don't feel like it", or is the author saying, "when you feel that surge of love, show them"? I really can't tell. I know a lot of people actually resist the urge to hug/kiss/cuddle their kids. My mom once told me that she quit hugging us when we hit our teens, and she's really grateful to a friend of mine...my friend hugged everybody, and I picked up the habit and brought it home, so mom started hugging us again. I can't fathom someone as loving as my mom not hugging us just because we were teens, but that's what happened...


----------



## honeybee (Mar 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *claras_mom* 
FWIW, there's another "form" of a "time-in"--it has to do with making a commitment to your child to spend x amount of completely uninterrupted time with him. You know--not answering the phone, making sure the younger (or older) sibling is otherwise occupied or cared for: total attention. My understanding is that with toddlers, it can help a lot with sibling rivalries, tantrums, etc.

I think I really need to do this with ds1. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## warriorprincess (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dkeoshian* 

this is nothing more than manipulation and along the "Catch'em being good" theory. i don't like the "being good" wording either, as though children aren't generally "good".

.

I also believe children are always and inherently good, but I have one of thos elives that are so busy, that on a regular basis I do need my kids to do what I need them to do, without arguing or dawdling. Some of us really, truly need mothods to get our kids to, dare I say, comply. If I want to take all my kids out of actvities, quit my part time job, and fail to take my kids to church, sure, I'd never need to positivley reinforce getting out the door on time, but those are all unlikely to happen.


----------



## PaxMamma (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *warriorprincess* 
I also believe children are always and inherently good, but I have one of thos elives that are so busy, that on a regular basis I do need my kids to do what I need them to do, without arguing or dawdling. Some of us really, truly need mothods to get our kids to, dare I say, comply. If I want to take all my kids out of actvities, quit my part time job, and fail to take my kids to church, sure, I'd never need to positivley reinforce getting out the door on time, but those are all unlikely to happen.

we UP and ds almost always complies. he knows his needs are being met many times over and is generally quite cooperative. if not, then i know something is usually wrong and i need to address it, and that takes precedence over my other agenda.


----------



## Plummeting (Dec 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viriditas* 
Well, I suppose fake, manipulative affection is better than none at all. But saying that this method is a step toward gd seems to me like saying that my sil is practicing a "mellower" form of gd because she only "swats" her children on the butt and only when they do something really bad. I mean she isn't beating them with plastic tubing, right?

eta: Okay, I read through some of the posts again, and while I would in no way call this gd, I can see how it would be better for a mainstream parent to read and use this than to keep on yelling/spanking/isolating their child all the time. But it still makes me gag!

I agree. The fact that it's better than spanking doesn't mean it's a good method. I don't judge the way I treat my child by comparing it to something that's worse, then saying, "Well at least I'm not doing X, so this must be great." Baked potato chips are better than chips fried in soybean oil, but baked chips still aren't a health food. Unfortunately.


----------



## sweetpea333 (Jul 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hipcoolmama* 
I looked at it as kind of an introduction to the idea of gentle parenting in a mainstream parenting magazine.

The language isn't exactly GD or UP or AP.

But it you look beyond the terminology in a general sense, the techniques are about gently giving positive attention to your child when discipline issues arise.

I like the idea of a time-in instead of a time-out and addressing a child acting out as a call for more one on one attention between parent and child.

I don't like terms like "punishment" and "reward" either but when I read it I thought maybe they were trying to reach a mainstream audience familiar with those techniques of discipline while advocating for a slightly more gentle approach.


i was trying to find the words to say this, you said it great!


----------



## momileigh (Oct 29, 2002)

Hey, OP:

GGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

totally with you.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
You have to _tell_ parents to kiss their kid on the forehead? You have to tell them to be affectionate? What planet am I on? Don't people just do that anyway because they are moved to by love and pride? Aren't they just sincerely excited when their kid does something neat?

This is making me cry.

Well, apparently other people on this board have had different experiences, but I only know mainstream mothers, and they all are regularly affectionate to their children. Even the ones who also regularly spank.

I don't agree, I don't think that you really need to tell parents to kiss their kids, or to be affectionate to them. Just like you don't need a two page list of baby necessities, "Ten Toys to Enhance Your Baby's Language Skills", at least two playdates a week, or any of the other crap those magazines try to make you think you need. Even mainstream parents love theirs kids.


----------



## AnneCordelia (Nov 29, 2004)

I didn't find the article to be wholly appalling.

I mean, it's a step in the right direction with a good meaning at heart...it's just lost under a sea of mainstream terms to provide familiarity for these parents. Show your children affection, spend time with them, ect., and they will have their needs better met, thus act out less.

I try to remember that these parents don't mean to be manipulative or fake...this is how they've been raised and they don't know any other way. Perhaps this article will have them googling different parenting techniques and lead them here.

Emily


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 
You have to _tell_ parents to kiss their kid on the forehead? You have to tell them to be affectionate? What planet am I on? Don't people just do that anyway because they are moved to by love and pride? Aren't they just sincerely excited when their kid does something neat?

This is making me cry.

I was talking to my mom about this thread yesterday. She was raised by a woman who believed (we assume) that holding kids and kissing them would "spoil" them somehow. She was probably cuddled as a very small baby, but she doesn't ever _remember_ being kissed, hugged or cuddled by her mother - not ever. Grandma never "kissed it better" or anything like that. Now, my grandmother was mentally ill, anyway - but this approach was not uncommon in my mom's generation.

Fast forward 19 years to when my mom became a parent. She held us, kissed us, sang us to sleep, cuddled us, etc...but she stopped doing a lot of those things in late childhood (I thought it was my teens, but she says it was earlier). She started feeling really awkward about it. She wanted to, but it was outside of her experience to do those things.

So...my friend Christine came along when I was 13, and my sister was 11. She was a hugger. Largely because of her influence, our crowd always met up with lots of hugs, and we'd support each other with hugs. Then, a few years later, I met my ex-husband. His circle of friends was "led" by a man who was always, always, always hugging and showing affection. Through all of this, I picked up the habit of being physically affectionate again. I passed that back to my mom...and I've passed it on to my children. But, I really have to wonder if I hadn't met Christine (and later Mike) if I'd have been physically distant from my kids when they got older. Hugging and kissing and cuddling might have been outside my comfort zone. Maybe an article like this would have been good for me - just to show me that hugging and kissing my kids was good for them...


----------



## warriorprincess (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dkeoshian* 
we UP and ds almost always complies. he knows his needs are being met many times over and is generally quite cooperative. if not, then i know something is usually wrong and i need to address it, and that takes precedence over my other agenda.


Looking at your sig I see you have one child, a preschooler. I have three- all of whom are in at least one activity that matters very much to them. Very different dynamic. If, for example one of the boys decides to not get ready when it's time to drop DD off at her dance class ( which is very much career training in her eyes, I cannot really put aside HER aganda to figure out WHY said boy does not want to get ready. He just.has.to.do.it. My husband is at work, there is no one nearby to either leave the recalcitrant boy with, or to take her to class.
Likewise my job, which I take the mkids to most of the time and which allows me to facilitate them following their dreams (not to mention buy the gas to get there). Sure, I'd absolutely love it if I had the luxury to put aside _getting to work on time so I can get paid and not lose my job_ but I simply don't.
Thjis is why I have always felt that unless you just wind up with a naturally easy going kid NCP is really something of a luxury.


----------

